Stupidity, thy name is Nick Griffin

I must admit that I was sceptical about BBC’s invitation to BNP leader Nick Griffin to the Question Time. Like many, I also thought that this will be a step forward to legitimise the fascist BNP who grabbed this opportunity with both hands.

But as the yesterday’s show unfolded, I was pleasantly surprised to find the damage it did to BNP. Mr. Griffin could not give answer to almost any question, laughed awkwardly, blabbered incoherent things which did not make any sense, caught lying red handed. He made a complete fool of himself and made BNP exposed to be a misinformed, misguided, confused, hatred preaching, racist organisation.

I do not know why so many frontline news papers are reporting the news as if BNP got a huge political mileage from the show; it did not. Mr. Griffin looked like a confused, pitiful joker amidst true politicians, scholars and a very well informed, witty audience. This was not an average BNP conglomeration of uneducated, uncultured, frustrated lot who blame the successful and hardworking immigrants for their failures in life. So Mr. Griffin’s distorted facts and figures blended with racial rhetoric did not work here. He could not answer most of the questions, tried to hide behind his favourite “I did not actually say this” phrase, only to be exposed moments later as a pathetic liar. He tried to explain his ever changing views on holocaust by some imaginary European law, only to be dismissed by all three politicians (one of whom is the Justice secretary) that no such law actually exists. At every point during the show he was exposed as deceptive, slimy, confused man. If this gives political mileage, well, then I am baffled.

Yes, the show put BNP in limelight, but the party was exposed very badly under that limelight. Although I think this was never BBC’s motivation to invite Mr. Griffin to the show; but with what actually happened there, I have nothing to complain about.

My personal favourite was the question from the young Asian from the audience about repatriation; "Where do you want me to go? I was born here, I love this country; I'm part of this country." Mr. Griffin clearly did not have any answer and could only managed to laugh awkwardly when he suggested buying him a ticket to South Pole “which would suit you being a totally colourless place”.

A Moment of Truth

If you ask a Dutch today about their past colonies, he will become visibly uneasy and tell you that was a horrible thing and that they are truly ashamed of it today. Ask French the same question, they will shrug in a typical French way and will change the subject; but will admit that was a bad thing do after all.

But ask the same question to the English, they will tell you that the British Colonies did a lot of good to the natives. They will also tell you how they helped to bring their colonies to modern era and setup the big railway network. The British colonialists took great pain, the “white man’s burden”, to set up those colonies mainly for the benefit of those countries. Such a huge altruistic effort! And hence unlike other European colonial masters, the British are proud of their Emperor, the British Raj.

They get really annoyed, if you remind them that India was on of the wealthiest and most sought after country before British occupation and after 200 years of British rule it was one of the poorest; that India is emerging again as a major economic power after being free from the British rule; that their utter exploitation of natural resources to fuel Britain’s industrial revolution caused hunger and famines in the colonies while the British economy prospered.

And they get really hurt if you tell them that the Indian railway was founded by British to ease the transfer of the troops (which comes handy to suppress any freedom movement) across different parts of the vast country. They are also blissfully unaware of the fact that the railways were instrumental in getting Indian raw materials transported fast to factories in England, leaving the Indians to starve.

The British nowadays are so much vocal about the holocaust. At least the present day Germans are unreservedly ashamed and sorry for the Nazi regime. But the present day British do not even acknowledge the genocides that took place during their 200 year rule in India.

Unlike what the lot of British people think today, there is nothing like a good colony. All colonies are bad by their very nature. Like other European colonies, colonies of former British Empire are also the victims of exploitation, oppression, murder, rape and genocide. The only decent thing to do for the modern British is to humbly acknowledge the mistakes of the past, just like other European nations.

There is nothing to be proud of the British Raj.

A difficult Choice

With the next general election due in next few months in Britain, it seems that Conservative Party is all set for a big win; or at least that is what is being projected all over the media. And with Sun’s official backing for the Tories last month, wining the election seems almost a certainty for them.

True, after fifteen years of labour with the mess of a totally unwanted, unnecessary and expensive war, a deep economic recession, huge job losses and mounting public debt, anybody in opposition would rather have an easy task in hand.

But what is the difference between the New Labour and the new Tories under David Cameron? One centre-left party and one centre-right party, both has moved a little towards the centre; no wonder they are on the same place.

Do the flabbergasted voters really think that the Tories will be helping towards creating new jobs or getting a strong control over the banking sector? They are already talking about the painful years ahead and of reduced public spending. Where would it hit? The NHS? The unemployment benefits? The Jobseeker’s allowances?

They are not telling exactly where they will impose the cuts. But the simply cutting the “wastage” (as suggested by Gordon Brown) and chucking the benefit thieves out will not help; the figures just do not add up. Where the vast amount of money needed will come from?

They did not oppose the bail out of the banks; they criticised government for allowing the crash to happen, but agreed that once it happened, the only way out is through the huge bail outs of banks by the government. They did not question why the government would subsidise the losses made by the reckless and often corrupt business of a private sector. Many other sectors like car, manufacturing or construction, desperately in need of money did not get any help from the government. What is so special about banking sector, then? It was not a question of protecting common people’s savings, but about consuming worthless ‘toxic assets’ of the banks by the taxpayers.

The Tories still do not categorically say that they will bring legislations to control the banking sector so that it does not happen again in future. They blow the trumpet of free economy and flourishing businesses without any government restrictions in a completely capitalist system. But whenever that system fails due to unsustainable greed, then the not-so-flourishing businesses are free to come under the shelter of government giving them a socialist asylum.

David Cameron is trying his best to give the party a fresh new look; but all his coming to parliament in bi-cycle and shopping in Tesco does not change the fact that his party is for the elites and not for the mass. He vows to nurture the NHS but another MP from his party declares NHS to be the biggest mistake and even takes side with the American Republican Senators rallying against Obama’s health care plans. So which one is the actual face of the Conservative Party? The one Cameron wants to portray… the clean, green, NHS-supporting, Obama-admiring party? Or the one that believes NHS is just a huge wastage of money because “There is no such thing as society” (as said by Margaret Thatcher)?

A very good example of what happens when Tories come into power is the election of Boris Johnson as London Mayor. Only last year the fare for London Underground was increased by 10%; and he is planning to increase it (and that of buses as well this time) again by more than 20% amid this deep recession. Boris will never understand what an increase of 20p on a £1 bus ticket means to an average family; after all, £250,000 a year is just “chickenfeed” for him. How can these Tories run the country efficiently, when they are so much detached from the common public?

Surely is a tough call for the voters. Having said all these things, another term of Labour does not seem to be an option. May be people can consider the Lib-Dems for a change. But the problem is no one takes them seriously. They also do not seem to be doing enough to grab this opportunity; otherwise why don’t they talk of renationalising the railways and making the public transport fares affordable?

So the voters are left to choose not the best party, but the least evil among them.

A Prize Too Soon?

I am a big fan of Barak Obama. I think he really is an exceptional leader. Anybody after Bush was bound to look good; but Obama is a great leader by any standard.

He is candid in his views, does not shy away from big issues and is not scared to talk about sensitive topics like race or faith relations. He has been proactive in opening the dialogue and removing the mistrust between the Islamic world and the West. He has put a lot of effort easing the situations in the Middle East. He is planning phased withdrawal from Iraq. He recognises that the true epicentre of Islamic fundamentalism is Afghanistan-Pakistan based Taliban and hence he is increasing pressure on them. He is a balanced, open, sincere leader who is well aware of the true power of his position and the responsibility that comes with it. And he does not end his speeches with the religious rhetoric of ‘God Bless America’.

Still I believe that the prize awarded this year is somewhat premature. Obama has very good plans on many things and he has also started acting on them. But they are yet to be successful. Not because of the lack of merit, but simply because they are still in very initial stages.

It is true that Obama has generated an unprecedented hope among common people all over the world. He had a land slide victory in America, but he would have won by a bigger margin if people all over the world could vote in that election. He has shown us a hope for the better, cleaner and fairer world.

But Nobel peace prize should not be anticipatory. Obama has shown his commitment for the nuclear proliferation and recognised the big risk of the climate change and has agreed to act on it. But he simply did not get enough time to implement his plans.

The Nobel peace prize should neither be awarded as a condemnation of Bush administration nor as an approval for Obama’s policies. I think it should only be awarded to the people with proven work towards world peace.

Nobel peace prize is notorious for being politically motivated and for being awarded to completely undeserved people. Even Nobel prizes in many other fields were also questionable at times (for example the Literature Nobel to Winston Churchill for his book which can be described as mediocre at best).

This award is not such a big disaster; Obama is a very talented man. And I feel everybody should try to help him implementing his policies, which look exceptional so far.

I do not object too strongly to the decision; I just feel it is a few years too early. Nobel peace prize should not be used to show people’s support for Barak Obama. It just devalues the prize and makes Obama’s position slightly embarrassing. Especially when he could have won it deservedly within a few years.

GeekySpeaky: Submit Your Site!

The Mighty Managers

What is the biggest problem in today’s world? Well that is a tough one, you may think. Poverty? Climate Change? Recession? Terrorism?

I think it is the Managers; all other problems are direct or indirect by-product of the activities (or lack of it) of managers.

They dominate everywhere; in shops, offices, councils, hospitals, banks, schools, universities, companies, governments, charities. They are present in every country in the world. America created them, Britain adores them, France nurtures them, China mass produce them, India wants more of them.

They know everything; they know what is required for treating the patients, better than doctors. They know what students and researchers need, more than the academics. They know the factory better than the engineers, the schools better than the teachers.

They do not need any special skill, education or training. One or two year’s course in mighty management apparently makes them more worthy in any field than anybody with years of training, education and experience in that field.

They are champions of managing budgets and cutting costs. Any organisation in need of a cost cutting drive, appoints a manager first to supervise the whole process. Although the manager charges a fortune, he always comes up with innovative ways of cutting “unnecessary” costs.

They advice hospitals to reduce number of doctors and nurses; technology farms to cut budget on equipment buying and upgrading; universities to cut research funds; postal services to close branches; councils to collect waste biweekly.

I wonder how the human civilization managed without them for so many years. Surely, Einstein could have done much better under a manager advising him on time management, setting a direction for research and motivating him to think out of the box.

This culture of having managers everywhere is basically a way of worthless people with good contacts to earn a fortune without doing any work and it is causing havoc to the society. A patient died after operation due to excessive loss of blood; the hospital did not have sufficient blood in stock to do the transfusion. But apparently, the hospital was compliant with the checklist provided by the health managers simply because the checklist did not include the stocking of sufficient blood!

This is what happens when incompetent people without the education and training of the subject are made responsible for taking decisions.

A hospital budget and practise code can not be decided by managers without a medical background. A decision about upgrading a factory can not be taken by a non-engineer manager. Though these decisions are “administrative” and does not involve treating a patient or running a machine, still it needs thorough knowledge and experience of the field. These are the jobs for specialists, not for a bunch of talkative mediocre with zero knowledge on the subject.

Management by itself is a vague word; it does not mean much unless you specify what is being managed. To work effectively, management should be tailored according to the scenario; all encompassing blanket management achieves nothing. And this tailoring can not be done without the subject knowledge.

Hence senior subject specialist can do a much better job, as they have historically done in the past, than any stand alone manager.

The sooner we acknowledge this fact, the better.