Parliamentary Procedure

Russian meetings and conventions are organized after the Continental model rather than our own. The first action is usually the election of officers and the presidium.

The presidium is a presiding committee, composed of representatives of the groups and political factions represented in the assembly, in proportion to their numbers. The presidium arranges the Order of Business, and its members can be called upon by the president to take the chair pro tem.

Each question (vopros) is stated in a general way and then debated, and at the close of the debate resolutions are submitted by the different factions, and each one voted on separately. The Order of Business can be, and usually is, smashed to pieces in the first half hour. On the plea of 'emergency', which the crowd almost always grants, anybody from the floor can get up and say anything on any subject. The crowd controls the meeting, practically the only functions of the Speaker being to keep order by ringing a little bell, and to recognize speakers. Almost all the real work of the session is done in caucuses of the different groups and political factions, which almost always cast their votes in a body and are represented by floor-leaders. The result is, however, that at every important new point, or vote, the session takes a recess to enable the different groups and political factions to hold a caucus.

The crowd is extremely noisy, cheering or heckling speakers, overriding the plans of the presidium. Among the customary cries are: 'Prosim! Please! Go on!' 'Pravilno!' or 'Eto vierno! That's true! Right!' 'Do volno! Enough!' 'Doloi! Down with him!' 'Posor! Shame!' and 'Teeshe! Silence! Not so noisy!'

-- Reed, J., Ten Days that Shook the World, Notes and Explanations, p. 23, Penguin Modern Classics, Reprinted 1970

Conversations (read bottom-up)

(4) Me:

Never made it to MIT or Harvard ( ;) ), but here's my two cents:

I am complicit in the "war on terror" inasmuch as I didn't work hard enough to start a genuine anti-war movement, neither in 2001 nor in 2003. I believed in 2001 that the "sab say pehlay Pakistan" slogan was sheer bollocks, but I didn't have the balls to act according to my beliefs.

I have never paid any taxes to the US, but I suppose every time a US-based multinational whose products I buy repatriates its profits, I end up contributing to the US economy and hence to the US-led wars. This realisation - which hit me soon after Fallujah - was one of the strongest reasons that I tried to pull out of the whole capitalist system in 2004-5, but alas, again, I was not strong enough, not ready both materially and spiritually.

But even so, I would never in a million years fight anyone else's war - and by anyone else, I mean pretty much anyone outside my family or very close circle of friends. Even there, I'd much rather be a paramedic or in civil defence. This is mainly because of my pacifist beliefs, but in the case of the war on terror, it comes from a clear conviction that these wars are as immoral as they come, the result of the worst kind of bullying and greed, a blatant grab for the world's resources - both mineral and human.

This paragraph, though, was quite the little nugget:

"I also took offense to Rakshi's statement that people only join the Army for socio-economic reasons - ABSURD!!! For many, joining or serving the armed forces is a matter of pride and honor, and for some a call of duty. In case you were unaware, for many generations the people who joined the military in Pakistan and India were from the landed gentry and deemed a noble and honorable career (you had to have a certain socio-economic status to qualify for the military). Being an officer or soldier in the armed forces is something to be proud of, and even though one may have ideological differences with those who serve in the US Armed forces, be they of American or Pakistani-American heritage, one cannot and should not rejoice or belittle their service to their country and nation. They served their nation and people proudly and should be honored and remembered for that."

It may be a matter of pride and honour for Ashfaq Kiyani or Tauqir Zia or Talat Masood - or Aziz Bhatti even - to have served in the Army. Good for them. I don't see why I should be asked to respect that when my belief system tends towards demanding an end to a world system predicated on/resulting in permanent standing armies. As for the landed gentry... I mean, really... am I now also supposed to respect someone just because he was born into a "noble" household? I do not deny the tremendous bravery required to fly a long-range bombing mission, or in being an infantry scout, or simply in being a regular soldier in a war zone. What I cannot deny, also, however, is that ever since the time of the French Revolution, war has become increasingly totalitarian, a total effort involving the civilian and military population that has led to civilians being considered fair game under the doctrine of "total warfare" - never mind all the Geneva Conventions out there. And with increased mechanisation - and computerisation of the weapons of war - we're in the process of witnessing the field-testing and perfection of the first robot warriors: the UAV's so familiar to our Pashtoon and Afghan neighbours. So now, war escapes the basic, the fundamental limit against which it used to run up in the 19th and 20th centuries: the limit to which the tolerance and gullibility of the civilian population (those contributing the foot soldiers to the war machine) could be stretched by intense state-sponsored propaganda. Now, NATO is increasingly liberated from worrying about body bags. And some research into recruitment trends since the mid-90's will easily show which social strata the US Army and Marine Corps go to for their cannon fodder: Hispanics (notably Puerto Ricans), Blacks & so-called "white trash". While you're at it, you might want to check out DARPA's huge, incredibly ambitious project to develop robotic foot soldiers, a programme which has been an area of intense research and development at the USC's (Southern Calif.) computer science (mainly AI and real-time systems) faculty.

I am deeply ashamed to belong to as jingoistic, as martial a nation as Pakistan, just as I am deeply ashamed of the terrorism carried out by both the government and the LTTE in my father's country. I am deeply ashamed of what the "Pak" Army did in East Pakistan in 1968-71 and what a detachment of the same mercenary military machine (led by the future dictator Zia-ul-Haq) did to the Palestinians in Jordan in September 1970 (the massacres they still remember as Black September). I would like dearly to send your friend a copy of the relevant chapters where Peter Ward Fay discusses of the truly mercenary nature of the armies that India and Pakistan inherited from imperial Britain. Maybe you can pass on the Google Books link: http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Un-vVfF3f1MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=pater+ward+fay+the+forgotten+army&sig=ACfU3U0_aRgcGhySl7eA3qol6fDyNrM14w

And then there's The Garrison State. Do try to get a copy. Your library probably has it.

Of course, if one has been around military men just a little bit and has grown out of one's adolescent fetish for weapons and other manifestations of naked power, one doesn't really need books to draw the same inferences.

Nevertheless, I'm honoured that you chose to share this thread with me - and I apologise if I flew off the handle a little bit.

Aman

(3) Out of sheer courtesy, Samad forwarded me some responses he got from various friends discussing the matter. While my view was already represented among his friends, one of them went ahead and said something so outrageous, I felt I needed to respond. [scroll up]

(2) Me:

I feel sorry for his family. I feel sad that another human being has died.

But it does not go much deeper than that when I see that he consciously enrolled to serve in an imperialist army. The sadness I feel for a soldier is usually tempered by the thought that those who choose to live by the sword consciously accept that one day they may die by it - in fact, they are often rather proud of the distinction that they think their supposed bravery confers upon them.

Maybe he only enrolled so that he could get a college education - it's often the case with poor Americans. Who knows. It just goes to show that the masters of war have tagged us, that they know how best to use us. And our complicity cannot be ignored nor forgiven.

(1) Fwd from Samad and Abeer:

PAKISTANI AMERICAN SOLDIER DIES IN THE LINE OF DUTY

Second Lt. Mohsin Naqvi

The Pakistani American community all across the United States joins their fellow Americans to mourn the death in Afghanistan of a Pakistani American Muslim US soldier, Second Lt. Mohsin Naqvi.

Lt. Naqvi, was 26 year old and was in a group of five soldiers killed while on patrol Wednesday the 17th in Afghanistan. He had just been married about 4 months ago. Lt. Naqvi enrolled in the Army Reserve a few days after the 9/11 attacks and later served in Iraq. When he returned from Iraq in 2003, he re-enlisted for active duty after earning bachelor's and master's degrees.

Lt Naqvi while he lived in Newburgh, NY, would be frequent visitor to the neighboring Connecticut. He had worked in CT in the past as well. The Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee (PAKPAC) joins with the larger community to show their respect to him and prays that the family can sustain this huge loss. Burial is being planned at the Albany Cemetery in New York.

boogie shoes

trying to explain or just plain communicate the urge to boogie (abhi! yahaan!), I sent a friend this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq1MTRfiXMU

she cranked it up a notch, sending back links to these hilarious videos:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=RqzR-KwjlrI

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=rIFh1ydXWmg

Some rants are just too good!

This one, for example, covers all the relevant issues without so much as pausing for breath:

"For god sakes wake up you slumbering fools. Musharraf’s exit does not have to mean the return of another evil period for us. Why cant we make it mean something more and bring in more educated people into the services and politics. Talk, speak out, and demand action and accountability so that these goons don’t get to loot us again. Lets not be quiet and say lawyers are liars and politicians are pansies. Maybe if we just worked just as hard as making things work as we do in criticising, things could get better. Start by doing your bit – bit by bit – and wait for the change to happen. Don’t sit and complain in your comfortable houses and cars. Don’t do that because it doesn’t help anyone."

Get the full note here >>

Brilliant job by the author Saira Ansari.

D.H. Lawrence

Freida Lawrence wrote the foreword to the first published version of Lady Chatterley's Lover. The second part of the foreword deals with her husband.
"It is hard for me to write about Lawrence," she starts out. She picks up the thread again with, "I will try. I believe the spring of his being was love for his fellow men, love for everything alive, and almost all creatures were more alive to him than they actually were. He seemed to infuse his life into them. You cannot translate Lawrence into intellectual terms because he was so much more than a man with ideas, an intellectual. But he had a superb human intelligence in big and little things. It exasperated him to see how boring most people's loves were and how little they made of them, and he tried with all his might, from all angles to make them see and change. He never gave up, he did not get discouraged like most reformers. Always he took a new sprint. He was not tragic, he would never have it that humanity, even, was tragic, only very wrong, but nothing that true wisdom could not solve. It was not pity he felt; he never insulted anybody by being sorry for them. We have to learn to take it. It is strange to think that he never got into more trouble than he did, with his absolute independence. He was attacked and abused. It made him angry, but he never felt sorry for himself. It was a spur to go on. Years after his death, I saw in Buenos Aires many of his books in a shop window as I wandered through the streets. It was a shock. 'Here,' I thought, 'where he has never been, people buy his books.' One thin, narrow man has such importance all over the world. He was intensely aware of the importance of time, of the responsibility of every hour and minute. The span from the cradle to the grave is all we have to make our show, to prove ourselves. The older you get, the shorter is the time given us. The fact, 'I am alive', seems more valuable every day. Lawrence knew this quite young.
He made me share what went on in him. His inner life was so powerful you had to be a part of it, willy-nilly. It was hard for me to realise that nothing goes on in many people's insides - nothing at all.
For Lawrence, all creatures had their own mysterious being. Only humans seemed to have often lost theirs.
[...]
Lawrence had this desire to know all the universe in its different manifestations.
[...]
There was an urge in him to find new places on the earth as well as in the human soul. All races, all thoughts, all there was interested him. He had a full life, but the fullness was mostly in him. There is so much to experience and most of us experience so little. A little job, a little house, a little wife has little George and George gets older and one day he is dead and that's all. He has missed the great, vast show.
For me, Lawrence's greatest gift was this sense of a limitless universe around us, no barriers, no little social world to fidget over, no ambition to be a success. We felt we were a success in spite of the tiny bit of money we had, but we felt so rich. If a man owns a Botticelli painting and I enjoy more seeing it than the man who owns it, then that picture is more mine than his. We don't have to put things in our pockets to make them our own. Enjoying is more of possession than ownership.
[...]
We always lived very simply, he was just a man going his own way and I tacked along.
Even such a little thing, that might have looked pretentious, as a topaz ring I offered him with the Richthofen arms on it, he would not take. He looked at it - it was nice for a little while. 'No,' he said, 'that isn't me for me.'
The Lincoln story, when a senator finds Lincoln cleaning his boots and says, 'But Mr President, gentlemen don't clean their own boots,' and Lincoln replies, 'Whose boots do they clean?' might have been true of Lawrence.
They called Lincoln names too. 'Ape' and 'baboon' and pretty names they called Lawrence. The scarecrow they make of him! But birds never have been scared of him. Some make him a sad, mournful, sacrificial object. He wasn't often sad, but very often mad. Mostly, he was very gay and full of pep. The mournfulness lies mostly with the critics.
[...]
He died unbroken; he never lost his own wonder of life. He never did a thing he did not want to do and nothing and nobody could make him. He never wrote a word he did not mean at the time he wrote it. He never compromised with the little powers that be; if ever there lived a free, proud man, Lawrence was that man.

FREIDA LAWRENCE

1944

Lakht-e-jigar - this is what they have brought us to

I can take a lot but not this:



Not an aged mother forced to come out on to the streets to demand justice for her missing son. To this, I have no answer. In the face of this, any criticism - rank reformism, "bleeding heart", non-representative nature of the lawyers' movement - becomes irrelevant, pointless.

Not this.

Pushing the neo-liberal agenda - this is how you do it

A correspondent brought my attention to the newly released World Bank report on the state of rural education in Pakistan:

From: World Bank South Asia <enora@worldbank.org>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 7:48:36 PM
Subject: Dramatic Increase in Private Schools in Pakistan: World Bank Report

A new report released today by the World Bank calls for a reevaluation of education policies in the context of a dramatic increase in private schools for primary education in Pakistan. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of private schools increased from 32,000 to 47,000, and by the end of 2005, one-third of enrolled children at the primary level was studying in a private school. 

While overall enrollments increased by 10 percent between 2001 and 2005, the report says quality of education is lagging. Children in private schools score significantly higher than those in government schools, even when they are from the same village. In fact, it will take children in government schools 1.5 - 2.5 years of additional schooling to catch up to where private school children are in Class 3.

- Access the full report 
- Watch interview with report author 

# # #

Permanent URL: http://go.worldbank.org/YUFOT05SA0

My correspondent has some experience with education in Pakistan - as a relatively privileged student herself, as a volunteer at various schools in Lahore (teaching and fund-raising), as an evaluator for an education-oriented NGO in London seeking out partners (schools or school networks run by NGO's/CBO's) in the Punjab and Pakhtunkhwa (NWFP).
So just when she started to explode with indignation and outrage, I asked her to put down her thoughts in writing:

Advocating policy recommendations on a national level based on a study in one province - that too, the one with the most resources - is a basic flaw in their research methodology.

Some of the analyses and recommendations of this report are quite inhibiting and do not take stock of the cost of sending children to private schools - the economic burden on a poor family is so enormous that sending a child to a private school means less food to go round, no money to buy medicines and chronic undernutrition. This is the disconnect between the reality of the lives of the masses and those who claim to project their voices. If only the researcher could appreciate exactly how many hours a day a couple has to slog in a factory, toil in the fields in abominable working conditions, or in people's houses without the labour entitlements we enjoy, only to live in a rented room with a bulb, to send their children to school every morning with one roti and diluted tea and to work the evening shift without a break just to be able to buy school books and stationery. Advocating for the spread of private schools simply because of the current poor quality of the state school system is not the solution for it tends to push the masses into even greater poverty - what the country needs is an improvement of the state education system which can only be brought about by appropriate and effective quality control mechanisms. On the other hand, to talk of the education sector in 'market' terms (as the report does) is itself a renunciation, a priori, of the citizen's right to education. This viewpoint also absolves the state of its responsibilities to its citizens. It's the WB's classic privatisation, and public-private partnership agenda. In the developed world, nobody would argue in this way for the replacement of the state school system with private schools which of course benefit only a slim section of privileged society. But for the big multilateral funding institutions operating in the Third World, somehow the poor performance of the state school system (which is even more a question of accessibility to masses than in the developed world) is an acceptable basis to advocate for the mushrooming of private schools.

Changes

It's been quite a while... this blog started out as a replacement/continuation of my first essay on chowk... but somehow, the sharp edge of despair - that, with me, often acts as a motive force to write - got dulled, was lost in the routine of pretending to grow up, putting on the disguises of respectability, tempering my anger.

But the "winter of our discontent", as the fashion editors at The News perceived it, has been a season of changes and experimentation for me: discovering Khoj, working with the Students Action Committee, the Concerned Citizens of Pakistan and the Institute for Peace and Secular Studies, trying my hand at amateur dramatics, learning about revolutionaries, a little bit about Marx, about transformation as a series of experiments.

These days, I'm thinking seriously about content provision as service that may pay for itself. The content I have in mind is diverse: scholarly discussion, esoteric, original photography, reporting on events in town, maths puzzles, scientific articles... anything that provokes a potentially fertile stream of thought.

I have concerns - is it ethical to work with an advertising service? Even one such as Google whose context-sensitive/semantic search technology is pretty good (though, not a 100% accurate)? Am I giving in, joining the rat race by a different route? Or is it okay to accept payment for helping readers get to a service that actually helps them?

As part of the whole try-it-out philosophy, I've decided to give it a go. I've submitted an application for AdSense and if it comes through, I'll put up a couple of ad boxes to see what happens.
Major concerns:
relevance,
embarrassment,
ability to block ads from particular services I don't approve of.

Questions:
How good is the context-sensitive technology, after all?
Do the ads change each time a post is viewed, or are they fixed as long as the content of the post remains substantially the same?
Correlations between:
blogging frequency and earning.
content type (text, images, video, audio, mixes) and earning

All this is a way of finding out about the world of online revenue generation, learning that will help me decide the direction in which I will take certain web-oriented projects I have in mind.

If you have any articles to share on ethical advertising or ethical business practices (is that an oxymoron?), please do share them with me.

Choices, choices...

I was chatting with a friend, discussing the big protest in London by the Pakistani community.

The discussion came around to Hina Jilani and how so many people attended out of respect for her work.

My friend, in a fit of ire, goes, "But what is she doing outside when her sister is in jail in Pakistan?" My friend can exaggerate a little when annoyed (Asma Jahangir is under house arrest, not in jail).

I try to justify Hina Jilani's freedom in terms of her campaigning abroad, but realise that I was BS'ing... I have no idea what Ms. Jilani is thinking or planning, and it is not my concern to defend or to judge her... and then my friend utters the golden words, "NO, anyone who's not in jail should be ashamed. I know I am."

There has been much talk of the play-it-safe strategy of the youthful resistance to martial law. Very derisive too. It's a case of "who will bell the cat?"

Surely they can't put all of us in prison? Surely something needs to be done before more people decide that collaboration is the best strategy - a la Dawn News, Aaj TV, the gradually swelling ranks of the PCO judges, etc.

Protest at Barkat Market Lahore - update - 3:40 PM

Update from Ailee who is at Barkat Market for the demonstration against the arrest of Imran Khan:

1. Extensive baton-charging by police who, in any case, outnumber the demonstrators.
2. The strategy of the police is decide on a couple of targets and then go after them in a brutal manner.
3. Aileee himself is still unhurt and safe.
4. This part not perfectly clear: There are even tussles going on between female protestors and lady police.
5. Aileee got arrested for 3 minutes and was then released!

the gloves came off today

in Islamabad... and that too at a totally unnecessary moment, when the Supreme Court and the Election Commission had already decided in favour of power... arrogance, jubilation at their fresh 'victory' or just plain stupidity? what was it that led to the totally un-provoked beating of senior (in fact, elderly) lawyers as well as journalists in front of the Election Commission?

aaj bazaar mein...

The fault, dear Brutus

sheer revulsion, laced with style

Non-functional CJ in Lahore

So, here's the deal:

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan ("non-functional"), will address the Lahore Bar Association tomorrow at 5 PM.

He is travelling by road, in virtual defiance of the veiled threats by the Government (worded as an inability to guarantee his security).

Apparently, when he last went to Peshawar, the 2.5 - 3 hour journey took him 9 hours!

So, realistically, given that at least two other cities along the way plan to honour him, he probably won't get to Lahore before 6 or 7 PM.

The current plan of the political parties is to gather together at the Data Durbaar chowk by 5 PM.

See if you can make it.

General Pervez Musharraf facing a student - transcript

The following is a transcript of a student's contribution at a student's conference presided over by the President of Pakistan, Army Chief, General Pervez Musharraf. Senator Mushahid Hussain seems to be the moderator. The transcript is in English, that is, it is a translation from the original spoekn in Urdu. All the mistakes are my own. It would be nice if word got back to the student, Syed Adnan Kakakhel, and he could verify its fidelity to the original.

Senator Mushahid Hussain: "...I'm sorry, you have exceeded your time, ji. Thank you very much. The last speaker for this discussion on national integration, Syed Adnan Kakakhel Sahib, seat number 93, associated with the Jamiat-ul-Uloom Islamia, in Banauri Town, Karachi"

Participant: "Jamia Uloom ul Islamia, Banauri Town, Karachi.

"My companions said many pertinent [/good/interesting] things on this subject yesterday. Today, I will try to present it [the subject] in a very concise manner in the light of their reflections.

"There are no two opinions about it: our biggest crisis is the lack of ideological unity, coherence of reflection and accord and unity [in general]. But the question is: why does this lack persist despite the passage of 58 years? The reason is that the basic platform that was given us, that is, "La ilaaha ill-allah" [the first clause of the first kalima in Arabic, translating to "There is no God but Allah"]... confusions have fogged [/clouded/bedevilled?] that concept. Following a well thought out plan, there are people who still ask why was Pakistan created, what was the vision of the Quaid [-e-Azam, the honorific title by which Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of the country, is referred to in Pakistan]? Aren't these things quite clear? And who can answer this question better: you or I or that generation who coloured the map of the creation of Pakistan with blood [meaning the blood of their sacrifices]? This is a joke on their [departed] souls. This is a joke on their [departed] souls, this makes a mockery of their sacrifices, as if to say, 'It is sad that you got cut up, but we didn't understand what you meant.'

"Our second big issue is the law and order situation, and unfortunately, sometimes this is blamed on Islam, even though the study of the Qura'n informs us that Islam places the most emphasis on peace and security. Just consider the prayer of Ibrahim (PBUH) [Abraham]: he talks about the economy later, he talks about the economy later, he mentions peace first. He says: [prayer in Arabic here, skipping it, translates to:] 'God Almighty, should that this settlement of mine be a centre of peace', then he says [again in Arabic, translates to:] 'Also, please put in order the economy of its inhabitants.' And God too, when he enumerates his blessings, says to Ibrahim, 'We have settled you in a place that people visit repeatedly and which is a centre of peace.' All this is perfectly clear. The issue here is, why was our peace and security destroyed? How did our young man [actually, the word nau-jawan is gender neutral, but in practice and especially in this context, it is used to refer to men] become the tool of terrorists [in the sense of vulnerable or susceptible to their doctrine]? And why, day by day, do we find ourselves sinking further into the quicksand of lawlessness? Mr. President, the point to note is that this lesson was not taught him by some religion. This lesson was not told to him by any creed. It is the [prevailing] class divide, economic system, de-valuation of talent, the hollowness of the educational framework [actually, he plays on words as the word he uses translates best to 'skeleton', but that just sounds odd in English], unlimited corruption and the abuse of power that are the fearsome problems that have {clapping starts} led the young man in this direction. {2.51} [If] you solve these problems, you solve these problems, then see [in the sense of check or monitor] whether this young man is a terrorist or a peace-lover.

"Our third great issue, that at the moment has assumed great significance for us is the absence [/scarcity] of democratic traditions. We have, as yet, been unsuccessful in creating a real democratic culture and an environment respectful of the popular mandate. The traditions of [legislative] assemblies that form and come undone, the manipulation of elections and, Mr. President, the bypassing of the Parliament in important issues affecting the national interest have undermined the confidence of the people in the present political system. {more clapping}

"Here, we should learn some lessons from the neighbouring country from where Mr. Mushahid has returned and where you are headed in the near future. We have the same date of independence. {relatively subdued clapping, more in anticipation} We have both been given the same time, but they have strengthened democratic traditions to such an extent in their country that regardless of the extent of the failure of the [civil] government, whatever storm breaks out, it is impossible [inconceivable?] that the Army should leave the barracks and assume power. {sustained applause}

"In the same vein, Mr. President, I believe that today this portrait of the Quaid {points} hanging in this hall questions you {points}, where you are standing, 'General, you {points back} are supposed to be the guardian of the frontiers, who guided you in to the avenues of power [literally, the avenue of authority]?' {enthusiastic applause}

"And [coughs in that self-effacing way characteristic of maulvis on the pulpit], exalted sir, exalted sir, our third... our third biggest problem... our third biggest problem {raises his arm to ask for silence from the audience} is the elite class economy. According to your magicians of statistics, the economy is progressing, foreign exchange reserves are on the rise, loans have decreased, the begging bowl is broken. You repeatedly say that earlier we used to go begging, now we go to bestow [/give/offer]. And the people are amazed [, asking themselves, ] 'Dear Lord, what is this conundrum [literally, matter or issue]? The economy is progressing, [while] the poor man's hearth is going cold [literally, the poor man's stove is going out]. The foreign exchange reserves are growing, [while] the price of fuel is skyrocketing. Rupee... {has to pause due to burst of applause} rupee.. the value of the rupee has devalued so much. Where is it now?'

"And one more thing, Mr. President, you said that there is no harm in Basant, Islam does not prohibit entertainment at all, that, in fact, it encourages healthy entertainment. But, by the grace of God, let's not insult the graves of the aspirations of the hapless victims of injustice. {Musharraf is seen to bite his lower lip} Please consider: Islam says that if in one home... there is this strange impression - fine, people, in their individual capacities fly kites, no one declares it haraam [prohibited]. But, when a poor man sees that I have nothing to eat [literally, no bread in my stomach], [while] my president is flying kites, then it appears to him that this gap that exists between us {makes motion indicating the two parties, much applause}, exactly [as if agreeing with himself!] - the poor man says, the poor man says that I - the poor man sees - the poor man... you have to understand his feelings - it looks exactly as if in one home there is a wake and in another, you play the drum, that [you say] I am free, the grief is yours, not mine. So there, no one will allow it, any religion would say, 'Have a care for his feelings, share his tears, clasp him to your breast.'

"Apart from this, Mr. President, one very important thing that we feel [strongly about]: certain issues are exacerbated by the harshness of your tone. You tell the people of Balochistan, 'We will hit you so you won't even know where we came from'. {enthusiastic applause} These things.. You are the elder of the nation; you should converse with the nation in just the same way that you would converse with your son Bilal. You should - Mr. President, your tone... My sister invoked the subject of the uniform [the popular term for the dual-office controversy]. You yourself told [this] nation of 140 million that you would take off the uniform and then you betrayed the promise in the name of the national interest..."

Senator Mushahid Hussain: "Thank you, ji. Thank you, thank you. Your time is up..." {looks at, presumably, the President, with a somewhat bemused expression, camera pans to audience clapping enthusiastically, the speaker, sitting back in his chair, satisfied, trying not to look smug, camera pans back to the audience as some stand up to show their appreciation, shot of Musharraf allowing himself a smile acknowledging the audience's appreciation}

national interest

in my opinion is overhyped - why is your selfish national interest more important than, for example, those of the Uighur Turks (Eastern Turkestan) or the Tibetans whose autonomous territories were occupied by the Chinese, the first in 47 or 49, the second in 59? - another way of formulating this would be: at what point do more basic humanitarian concerns over-ride the national concern? if at all? - in a way this reminds me of Asimov's Foundation stories... the perennial quest to take everything into account, balance it all out - so yet another way of formulating it, more algorithmically this time, would go like this: given the following: a) solution space too big for exhaustive search b) many variables unknown, to the extent that that neither their number, nature nor inter-relationships are known, perhaps, even perhaps not knowable c) a rich history of previous decisions and recorded consequences and interpretations of such decisions what is the optimal local search strategy? I use the word 'local' to indicate a certain limitation of vision/knowledge. I was going to ask: what is the optimal greedy search strategy? in order to emphasise the limitation also of time and other resources involved in making the decision, but I wasn't sure if 'greedy' was the right word to use in this sense. The criteria for judging optimality would be that no other strategy would have given a better solution given the same knowledge. Again, very difficult to evaluate! (shades of Gödel?!) A subsequent question is: is there just one fixed rule or set of rules? or do you need to figure in a lot of flexibility (in the human domain, things like creativity, patience, tolerance, humour, pragmatism) that cannot be captured/unified at a sufficiently abstract level? ok, I seem to have enlarged the scope way too much and gone on to what is beginning to sound like jurisprudence!! not at all my original intentention, but it shows you my analytical weakness. I wanted simply to point out that actions do have consequences, what goes around, comes around and all that, and that i) what you may think is in the national interest is not actually quite so, either because there are hidden factors at play in the present, or because of the way things will play out later, maybe even one or more generations later ii) it is often way too early to decide what is and isn't in the said interest, hence all claims pro and con need to be considered with caution Finally, what I've been laying the ground for and shying away from stating explicitly: given my personal level of knowledge with respect to a - c above, it seems that an ethical approach based on fairness tempered with mercy is the best. I'm quite sure that this is a good overall strategy at the personal level (i.e., for individuals and also for laws governing individuals), but I wonder how far this applies to affairs of state, especially given the lack of precedent! It appears that a basic study of international law and its applications is called for. That concept is itself so new that there are still arguments over the ICJ, the Nuremberg trials, the Balkan genocide trials. But actually, my question is bigger in that it deals with realpolitik which everyone assures you will never be governable by cissy things like international law. In a sense, my belief would correspond to a national khudi (timely that the song is playing in the background!). Self-respect through mutual respect. Self-accountability at a national level, things like that. Do unto others what you would have them do to you. Yet again, there are other facets: what are the components of the national interest? Does your nation have a coherent raison d'être, all actions being subservient to it? If yes, is it, when considered in depth, really so different from the grandiose goals of a hundred other nations, so different that a compromise based on basic principles cannot be arrived at? A just, honourable, mutually fruitful compromise with longer term benefits. Maybe I'm unconsciously echoing many different people (and plead guilty in advance to piracy if that's what it is), but isn't each quarrel also a meeting? An opportunity to get to know the other better? Is its best utilisation: a) in the worst case, war, in the best, some milder form of conflict (e.g. trade embargo/tarrifs) b) a basic division of the spoils c) a mutual exploitation of the bone in contention, leading to greater cooperation between the two parties I suppose that to many this would seem like starry-eyed optimism, but after two centuries of intermittent war culminating in two glorious world wars, the French and the Germans realised, to use the old cliché, that 1 and 1 make 11, not 2, to the extent even that Schroeder a few years back actually let Chirac represent Germany at an EU meeting. This is without precedent among great powers as far as I know, but is also a measure, though anecdotal, of the amazing mutual confidence of the two countries. Sorry - maybe I'm flogging a dead horse here, but on a personal level, I think this should make sense to anyone who has found that the best way to end a heated dispute is to talk it over calmly after a little while preferably in a neutral place like a club or bar or restaurant or a friend's place. I wonder sometimes if I make any sense at all. And I still can't construct logically flowing arguments on the run.

(May 29, 2004)

the framework

(again, stuff everyone knows, but I feel like writing out even the obvious these days)


The problem for hawks and doves is finding a common language.

Of course, the frustrated (hawkish?) doves would say that it's a problem for them alone since they want dialogue and the hawks don't. Often, I suppose, they are right.

But what if you interpreted aggresive behaviour as a desire to communicate on the part of someone unable or unwilling to do it any other way? That would mean that both sides want to communicate.

So which are the positive elements that each side brings to the negotiating table? The doves bring an overall desire to settle matters through talking about them and one hopes that in talking about things, people arrive at fairer dispensations than otherwise, though, again, this is never a foregone conclusion. I'm unwilling to cite Versailles as an example here as that was a victor's (that is, a hawk's) revenge more than a mutual agreement. I suppose overall one could say that when the doves give in to the hawkishness within (their nature or as personified by some members of their respective delegations), that they fall short of justice.

By giving in to hawkishness I mean when one take advantage of one's superiority (real or perceived) in material terms to gain concessions at the expense of the other party. In other words, when the terms of the negotiation reflect the nature of the power struggle (possibly an armed conflict) that has preceded it rather than starting a new creative process based on a belief in solidarity (hang together or hang separately / fraternité / les copains d'abord) as the fundamental source of empowerment (sorry, I didn't mean to, but somehow I've ended up sounding like a UNESCO/UNHCR/UNFPA brochure! You could replace 'fundamental source of empowerment" with "the only way out for all parties" or "the means of securing salvation for all". To taste.)

It's as if, to lapse into Friedmanese, one could imagine a negotiating table with two sides to it, ostensibly the two parties to a quarrel. But then, within each party, there are two broad divisions - the doves and the hawks. This second division is at a somewhat more abstract plane than the basic, real cause of the disagreement, and the job of those who believe in living together, in an inclusive, respectful manner, is to struggle against those who don't, in their camp and in the other, and build bridges that the hawks on both sides are trying to sabotage.

The most important bridge is language, for communication within one's camp and and across it, generally first with the doves "over there" and then with their help with their own hawks. So that in the end, hawks on both sides can begin to talk and contribute to the discussions in ways other than walkouts, fisticuffs or assorted rude noises.

So what do the hawks bring to the table? A clear idea of their claims, much righteous anger and indignation, which is generally a sign of a straightforward spirit, a certain force of character, just
expressed differently. In this context, I can't help thinking of Muhammad's concerted effort to convert Umar, his most outspoken, dangerous enemy.

Maybe a good way to express the situation would be to say that the two hawks represent the puzzle that the two doves have to solve. They are like recalcitrant and enigmatic oracles (Friedman again?) who define the problem in real but discordant terms and it is the job of
the doves to descend to the real root of their grievances in order to find solutions, many of which may quite naturally not be prejudicial to the interests of the other hawk.

Coming back to language, for me, the two people who really re-appropriated language for me have been Edward Said and Roy. Without their decoding effort, I would be completely lost in trying to gain an understanding that goes deeper than "geopolitics" or "international relations". Which is not to say that they are pioneers, rather they are the authors (along with Chomsky and Eqbal Ahmed) I relate to most, authors who subscribe to a fairly ancient and robust tradition of straight speaking.

displacement?

well, one, because of this song from U2:

"
...

If you should ask then maybe they'd
Tell you what I would say
True colors fly in blue and black
Bruised silken sky and burning flag
Colors crash, collide in blood shot eyes

If I could, you know I would
If I could, I would
Let it go...

This desperation
Dislocation
Separation
Condemnation
Revelation
In temptation
Isolation
Desolation
Let it go

...

"

Then, it's actually true, I am a fish out of water most of the time... a witty friend describes himself as a misanthrope trying to improve to misogynism... me, I'm not even trying, haven't a clue.

Then there's Eureka, in case you forgot middle school physics.

evolution and development
--
stuff you know
--
human foetal development exhibits so many stages from the theory of evolution, only, compressed into 9 months.
subsequently, an individual's development after birth seems to reflect stages in civilisational development.
--
The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were about big ideas, new systems, entirely new ways of organisation. Let's call it the paradigm centuries. The first time that secular organisations and almost pagan individuals conferred such authority on themselves. Terribly liberating, yet tyrannical in that the different visions of utopia (oops... actually the first vision was published in the early seventeenth century I think... right, wikipeadia says 1516, Thomas More) sought exclusive control, demanding, in the same manner as religions such as Islam, that perfection was only possible when all of humanity was within the fold.

You see I'm just a poor software developer. The computing paradigms that found acceptance first were called top-down approaches - where the analysis proceeded in a top-down breaking down of the problem in ever smaller bits that then served as the basis for the construction of the
system that solved the problem. In parallel, but generally restricted to the academia or the defence, developed other approaches to computing, called artificial intelligence or biologically inspired computing. Here too, there is a first stage of top-down analysis whose aim is to produce an approximate system that will be able to learn from instances of a class of problems in order to refine itself optimally. Thus an element of the bottom-up approach to design makes its
appearance.

Thoreau did actually live in nineteenth century - as did Whitman and Emerson. As did the founder of the Sierra Club. The twentieth century saw the big ideas being tried out, competing ferociously. We know the results. But the small world approach was also tried out: the Red Cross, the Sierra Club, the SPCA's, syndicates and unions, women's lib (no offence), non-violence (India and the USA), the very idea of clubs or associations grouped around a common interest or concern, Greenpeace, the Russell Tribunal (aside: Mahmud Ali Kasuri was a tribunal member!), the anti-nuclear power movement, the relatively new International Solidarity Movement, the Grameen Bank, the open source software movement, ATTAC, perhaps the Global Justice Movement, the World Social Forum even, since it is a coming together of people
and ideas and is trying (I desperately hope) to be creative and open rather than following the stupid mistakes of the Internationals, the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the Bolivians fighting Bechtel, the Indian women's rights, reproductive health and anti-caste-based discrimination
NGO's.

It's happening.
Dignité oblige.
It's happening.

A French review called "Manière de Voir" has published a number on "In combat. State of Resistance in the World". The review in the Le Monde Diplomatique says:

Cet ensemble hétérogène d’organisations, associations, ONG et syndicats s’assemble d’abord autour d’un consensus négatif, qui laisse par ailleurs une grande latitude d’action à ses différentes composants. Mais cette configuration génère aussi « une série de tensions, voire
des contradictions, qui handicapent sérieusement son développement et brouillent sa visibilité de l’extérieur » : sur le type de développement à promouvoir, les modes de régulation des échanges économiques, le rôle des Etats-nations, l’articulation entre principes universalistes et droits autochtones. La ligne de fracture principale concerne sûrement l’accès au pouvoir et les alliances avec les partis de gouvernement : entre risques d’éclatement et de récupération, on peut alors se demander si des solutions peuvent être recherchées ailleurs que dans la conquête de fractions plus larges de la population, pour espérer peser sur les décisions politiques.

-- Le Monde Diplomatique, décembre 2005, page 2, Etat des résistances, Une nouvelle livraison de "Manière de voir", Franck Poupeau.


My stab at translating it:
This heterogenous ensemble of organisations, associations, NGO’s and syndicates comes together, first and foremost, around a negative consensus, which leaves, moreover, a great latitude of action to its different composants. But this configuration also generates “a series
of tensions, even contradictions, which seriously handicap its development and fog its visibility from the exterior”*: regarding the kind of development to promote, the modes of regulating economic exchange, the role of the nation-states, the articulation between universalistic principals and indigenous rights. The principal fault line surely concerns the access to power and the alliances with government parties: between the risks of splitting up and recovery, one
wonders if solutions could be explored elsewhere than in wooing larger fractions of the population in an attempt to influence political decisions.

* the quote is taken from the preface of the number under review.

This is a description of a very curious utopia, first brought to my notice by a Polish Jesuit. I had trouble at first believing the speed and depth of inter-cultural interaction in the newly-discovered lands.

Some remarks on violence, democracy and hope (translated from the original in French)

We all cried "no blood for oil", but it has been a long time that oil and blood have run together. Since the betrayal of the Arab world by the French and the British during the fall of the Turkish Empire in 1917 up to the current war, passing by the constant support accorded to Saudi Arabia and to Israel, the Persian Gulf war of 1991 and the embargo imposed on Iraq, western policy has been dominated by oil and has caused much blood to be shed. In 1945, the American State Department qualified the reserves of Saudi Arabia as a "prodigious source of strategic power" and as the "most valuable material in world history" [1]. At least, in those days, the Americans were sincere.

Today, everyone seems to rejoice at the replacement of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein by what they call democracy in Iraq, as if adversaries and partisans of the war lumped together admitted that the Pentagon had, in the final analysis, done something good. From that point onwards, all armed resistance to the American occupant is to be denounced as being anti-democratic.

I would like to question this unanimity and briefly address three questions that vex the anti-war movement: the question of violence, that of elections and democracy and finally that of hope in the future.

Firstly, in its struggle for emancipation, the Third World has not only produced "Saddams": Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung and Chou en Lai, Gañdhi and Nehru, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, Lumumba, Arafat, Ben Bella, Ben Barka, Nasser in Egypt, Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala , Goulart in Brazil, Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic, Allende in Chilli, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Amilcar Cabral in Guinea, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Sokarno in Indonesia, or Othelo de Carvalho in Portugal, all of thm, whether reformists or revolutionaries, socialists or nationalists, believers or atheists, whether they supported violence or not, have been, themselves or their countries, at one point in time or another, like Saddam Hussein, subverted, demonised, invaded, put in prison or assassinated by the West [2]. Mandela is today treated as a hero, but one should never forget that he had been in prison for 27 years with the complicity of the CIA.

When the Third World tries to free itself through essentially pacific and democratic means, whether it is the Palestinians during the Oslo period, or Allende, or the Sandinistas, or today Chavez of Venezuela, they have had their land stolen and have been subverted in a hundred ways. When they revolt violently, whether it is Castro, the Palestinian kamikazes or the present-day Iraqi resistance, the demonising machine rolls into action and the western humanitarians cry out in indignation.

It would be very nice of the oppressors to let the oppressed know once and for all which arms they consider legitimate for their defence.

It is an old story, that of revolutionary violence which responds to counter-revolutionary violence, but which does not precede it; it is also all of our history, that of the Commune of Paris, of the Russian Revolution, of the Spanish [Civil] War, of the struggle against fascism and of decolonisation.

Coming now to the elections. The ritual invocation of democracy and human rights as justification of imperial domination is today the veritable opium of the intellectuals, an opium that allows them to delude themselves as to the reality of the world. Imagine, for example, that the Ukraine should be occupied by Russian troops and that elections should be held there, without independent observers, without a free press and with the candidates approved by the occupier. Imagine, moreover, that the election is sold to the population by some religious leaders as a means of recovering their sovereignty, while others opposed to the occupation recommend boycotting these elections. I seriously doubt that, in these circumstances, a supposedly high, but un-verifiable [3], level of participation, would be seen in the West as an immense cry of "thanks" addressed to the occupants. What is more, this is the exact expression used by an American journalist [4] regarding the elections in Iraq and it sums up rather well the point of view of those who consider these elections a victory for democracy. Another example: who, among those who celebrate here [in the West], the liberty of the press, will be outraged because the press, concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, was able to convince, on the eve of the presidential elections, 50% of Americans that Iraq was linked to Al Qaida, thesis that is probably one of the best refuted in all of human history [5]? Finally, the CIA has just published a report saying that Iraq did not have any more chemical weapons since 1991 [6]. Which amounts to admitting, mezzo voce, that the genocidal embargo against the Iraqi people was in fact totally illegitimate. One will remember that Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under the Democrat Clinton, declared that even if it meant the death of 500,000 children, this embargo was worth the trouble [7]. One wonders whether some human rights defence organisation will make a note of these facts.

Coming now, finally, to the question of hope. In 1991, with the fall of the USSR, its uncertain protector, the Third World seemed to be on its knees. One could dream of eliminating the Palestinian resistance through the Oslo accords. The mechanism of indebtedness could be used to organise a gigantic hold-up on their [the Third World's] primary materials and their industries. Nevertheless, hope is in the process of switching sides. The New York Times admitted, after the anti-war protests of February 2003, that there were still, after all, two super-powers in the world: the United States and the global public opinion opposed to its policies [8]. Criticism makes it comeback against the force of weapons and no one can say where this will lead us. In Latin America, the neo-liberal illusions have failed and the neo-colonial system is sinking everywhere. The resistance of the Iraqis has shaken, for two years now, the confidence of the part of the world that believes itself to be civilised. In immobilising, even temporarily, the American army, and in putting in doubt its invincibility, the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese in their time, fight and die for all of humanity.

Finally, let us consider history in the long term: at the start of the 20th century, all of Africa and a part of Asia were in the hands of the European powers. The Russian, Chinese and Ottoman Empires were powerless in the face of western interference. Latin America was invaded even more often then than the present-day. In Shanghai, the English controlled a park that was not accessible "to dogs and to Chinese". If all has not changed, at least colonialism has been overthrown, at the price of millions of deaths, in the dustbin of history (with the exception of Palestine). It is this that constitutes, without doubt, the greatest social progress of humanity in the 20th century. The people who want the re-birth of the colonial system in Iraq, even with what Lord Curzon called, in the epoch of controlled monarchy, an "Arab façade", dream with their eyes wide open. The 21st century will be that of the fight against neo-colonialism, as the 20th has been that of the fight against colonialism.

Insofar as the progress of the majority of humanity is linked to European defeats in colonial conflicts, a narrowly Eurocentric point of view pushes us to see the evolution of the world in terms of decadence, which is one of the profound reasons behind the pessimism that dominates so many western intellectuals. But another vision of things is possible: during the entire colonial period, we, the Europeans, have thought that we could dominate the world through terror and through force. The absurd sentiment of our superiority and our hegemonic will have led us to kill each other, and with us a part of the rest of the world, during the two world wars. All those who prefer peace to power and happiness to glory must thank the colonised people for their civilising mission: in freeing themselves of our yoke, they have rendered, us the Europeans, more modest, less racist and more human. That this continues and that the Americans end up being forced to follow this path.

Jean Bricmont

Jean Bricmont is professor of physics at the University of Louvain-la-Neuve, and also collaborator of the analyst Noam Chomsky, prefacing some of his works.

P.S. Copied here from my chowk page.

Postmodernité à la brésilienne ( translation )

PAR GILBERTO GIL *

Lors d’un de mes derniers séjours en France, je me suis amusé – comme n’importe quel voyageur changeant de continent – à faire l’inventaire, par curiosité, des chaînes de télévision qui m’étaient proposées dans ma chambre d’hôtel. J’ai passé ainsi un moment à naviguer entre une vingtaine de télévisions arabes, qui m’ont frappé par leur diversité musicale : on pouvait voir des programmes de musique traditionnelle très «pure», de la musique folklorique mélangée à ces ingrédients cosmopolites que nous trouvons maintenant partout, de la musique urbaine légère avec chanteuses charmantes et grands orchestres, du rock, du rap, de la musique électronique… Une manifestation de ce qu’on pourrait appeler la «glocalisation» – l’agrégation du global et du local dans le langage musical, les moyens de production, les publics.

C’est, au fond, la même chose en France, la même chose au Brésil, et à peu près partout dans le monde : une musique universelle, tendant vers l’uniformisation, mais avec une présence éloquente de la dimension locale, de la diversité. Cette «glocalisation», c’est l’horizon vers lequel nous marchons.

Mais si vous, Français, et nous, Brésiliens, vivons cette même situation culturelle dans le domaine musical, il se trouve que nous la connaissons depuis plus longtemps que vous. Dès son origine, le Brésil est métissé par sa population ; dès son origine, il est multiculturel et interculturel. Prenez par exemple la musique du Nordeste, avec l’accordéon, le tambour zabumba, le triangle, prenez à Rio de Janeiro les tambourins, dans le chorro la mandoline et la guitare flamenca… La présence, dans les musiques traditionnelles d’un même pays, de ces instruments venus de partout est le résultat d’un long processus qui a commencé avec les explorations des premiers navigateurs européens, et se poursuit aujourd’hui par la diffusion planétaire et instantanée dela musique.

Le Brésil n’avait pas trouvé pleinement sa place dans la modernité. Alors il a dépassé cette question : nous sommes arrivés à la post-modernité avant d’être modernes. Depuis quatre ou

cinq ans, je me pose des questions sur le tropicalisme, dans lequel – avec Caetano Veloso, notamment – j’ai plongé avec passion il y a une quarantaine d’années. En réfléchissant à une
synthèse entre la musique populaire brésilienne, la samba, la bossa nova, le jazz, le rock, la pop music, il s’agissait pour nous d’appréhender la culture comme une entité fragmentée, comme un ensemble pluriel d’éléments pour lesquels nous recherchions un inter-langage. Nous estimions que la puissance culturelle d’un peuple tenait à sa capacité à digérer la réalité globale, mais en même temps à imposer sa singularité. Nous pensions le tropicalisme comme un mouvement moderne mais – cela m’apparaît maintenant – c’était le premier mouvement post-moderne.

Je suis conscient que cela peut sembler paradoxal aux Français, dont la culture est si souvent annonciatrice de mouvements à venir, mais nous avons élaboré avant l’Europe une réponse culturelle à la globalisation. C’est une question de cycle historique : quand les puissances coloniales – la France, la Grande-Bretagne, l’Espagne, le Portugal – étaient forcées à la modernisation par l’explosion économique des Etats-Unis, le Brésil aussi était obligé d’aller de l’avant. Exclu des voies de la modernité par sa situation coloniale, il a expérimenté les prémices de ce que l’on n’appelait pas encore la post-modernité.

Voilà pourquoi le Brésil propose aujourd’hui un modèle neuf de pouvoir. Ce n’est pas un pouvoir fondé sur la dimension militaire, commerciale ou industrielle, mais sur la capacité d’attirer l’autre, la capacité de séduction – un pouvoir culturel. La propagation de la musique brésilienne dans le monde entier, son poids et son influence dans des cultures extrêmement différentes sur les cinq continents (et, par exemple, dans la chanson française), peuvent être vus – en
caricaturant – comme une sorte de colonisation douce et consentie.

La façon dont la France nous accueille à l’occasion de l’Année du Brésil est significative : il nous est clairement signifié que nous avons quelque chose à dire, à montrer, à enseigner. Jadis, les modèles d’influence étaient soit le pouvoir colonial des puissances européennes, soit le pouvoir moderne, pragmatique, économique, des Etats-Unis. Ce qui me plaît dans la situation du Brésil
sur la carte du monde actuel, c’est qu’il montre un modèle différent. Au temps du tropicalisme, nous avions une idée, une ambition, un rêve, que j’ai la chance de voir aujourd’hui s’accomplir : la possibilité que notre culture et notre nation s’imposent au monde non comme une puissance
classique mais comme une force d’intégration et de rapprochement.

* Ministre de la Culture du Brésil.

Postmodernism, Brazilian style

By Gilberto Gil *

During one of my last trips to France, I indulged my curiosity - like any traveller changing continents - by making an inventory of the television channels proposed by my hotel. I spent a while thus surfing through around twenty Arab channels that struck me by their cultural diversity: one could watch very "pure" traditional music programs, folk music mixed with the cosmopolitan ingredients that we now find everywhere, light urban music with charming singers and large orchestras, rock, rap and electronic music… A manifestation of what one could call "glocalisation" - the aggregation of the global and the local in the musical language, the means of production and the audiences.

It is, essentially, the same in France, the same in Brazil, and pretty much everywhere in the world: a universal music, tending towards "uniformisation" [or uniform standardisation], but with an eloquent presence of the local dimension, of diversity. This "glocalisation" is the horizon towards which we are marching.

But if you, French, and we, Brazilians, live in the same cultural situation in the musical domain, it so happens that we have known it much longer than you. Since its origins, Brazil is "métissé" [hybrid-ised, mixed] by its population; since its origins, it is multicultural and intercultural. Let us take, for example, the music of the Northeast, with the accordion, the zabumba tambour, the triangle, let us take the tambourines in Rio de Janeiro, in the choro, the mandolin and the flamenco guitar… The presence, in the traditional music of one single country, of these instruments coming from everywhere is the result if a long process that started with the explorations of the first European navigators, and continues today through the instantaneous, planet-wide diffusion of music.

Brazil did not find its full [rightful?] place in modernism. So, she skipped this question altogether: we reached postmodernism before being modern. For four or five years, I have been asking myself some questions regarding tropicalismo, into which - with notably Caetano
Veloso - I jumped with passion some forty years ago. In reflecting on a synthesis of popular Brazilian music, the samba, the bossa nova, jazz, rock, pop music, we wanted to apprehend culture as a fragmented entity, as a plural ensemble of elements for whom we wanted to find an
inter-language. We believed that the cultural power of a people derives from its capacity to digest the global reality, but at the same time to impose its singularity [i.e., peculiar, individual character]. We considered tropicalismo as a modern movement but - it is clear to me now - it was the first post-modern movement.

I am aware that this would seem paradoxical to the French, whose culture has so often announced the coming movements, but we had elaborated a cultural response to globalisation before Europe. It is a matter of historic cycle: when the colonial powers - France, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal - were forced to modernise by the economic explosion of the United States, Brazil was also obliged to make an effort [or perhaps jump in?]. Excluded from the paths to modernity due to its colonial situation, she experimented with the basics of what one had not yet started calling postmodernism.

That is why Brazil proposes today a new model of power. It is not a power founded on the military, commercial or industrial dimension, but the capacity to attract the other, the capacity of seduction - a cultural power. The propagation of Brazilian music in the entire world, its weight and its influence in extremely different cultures on the five continents (and, for example, in French song) can be seen - if in caricature - as a soft and consenting colonisation.

The way in which France welcomes us on the occasion of the Year of Brazil is significant: it is clear to us that we have something to say, to show, to teach. Earlier, the influential models were either the colonial power of the European powers, or the modern, pragmatic, economic power of the United States. What pleases me about Brazil's situation on the map of the world today is that she presents a different model. In the days of tropicalismo, we had an idea, an ambition, a dream, that I have the good fortune today to see accomplished: the possibility that our culture and our nation should impose itself on the world, not as a traditional power, but as a force for integration and rapprochement.

* Culture Minister of Brazil

[1]accordi(e)on
[2]zabumba tambour (and curiously)
[3]tambourine (same as the dafli, the only musical instrument allowed by many orthodox Islamic interpretations)
[4]triangle
[5]choro
[6]mandoline
[7]flamenco guitare
[8]tropicalismo

Translator's notes: Where I'm not sure about certain translations, I have indicated so within square brackets. The footnotes are entirely my addition to the document as I thought it would be a nice idea to use the web to illustrate Gil's point about the diversity of musical influences in Brazil.