Let it go

When the Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras called for a referendum to allow his people to have a say on the atrocious measures of austerity, I was truly mesmerized.

And I felt almost ecstatic when the Greek population gave an overwhelming OXI against all kinds of blackmailing and bullying from Brussels.

Thought Greece just gave the world a repeat course on democracy after 3000 years.

But how my ecstasy changed into agony in just one week! It beggars belief that, the defiant Mr. Tsipras would surrender so meekly just within days.

He first tried to broker a deal while remaining in Euro, which was fair enough. He thought the overwhelming mandate from his own people will give him an edge while negotiating.

But like many of us, he also couldn't fathom the utter worthlessness of his fellow Euro-zone leaders.

None of them has any leadership qualities or a strong popular base in their own countries. They're surviving on coalition trickery,talent voids in oppositions and political agnosticism of general public in their homelands.

The popularity and support of the masses like Mr. Tsipras got in that referendum, is something beyond their wildest dreams;They can't mobilize a mass even to save their lives.

They're just a bunch of mediocre bureaucrats, who at best can serve in the boardrooms of medium size companies. But true leaders of the people, with long term visions, they are absolutely not!

Moreover, they play in the hands of big banks and business houses who want to nip any sign of socialist movement at the bud.

Hence it's no wonder that Brussels played vindictive politics. They saved the Euro (for now) but broke the spirit of the Union.

When the European politicians got the Greek prime minister on their home turf of European parliament, they savaged him for his audacity of asking for a mandate from his own people.

Soon economics took a back seat, it became a "trust issue" or in other words, game of revenge and humiliation.

The debates reached such a low that Nigel Farage's speech seemed more sensible than most of them!

But shouldn't Mr. Tsipras have had a plan B? to leave the Euro?
What's so special about it anyway? When clearly it is failing for Greece?

True, most Greeks wanted to remain within Euro. But was it for no matter what? Event at the cost of their future, their sovereignty, their standard of life?

When the  Union itself has failed...when it proved to be nothing more than a club of bully boys...why still then this obsession with Euro?

Eurozone obviously professed Grexit synonymous to unimaginable abyss, but why would Syriza, of all people, have to buy into that?

Even when eminent economists like Paul Krugman or  Mark Weisbort argued along the opposite line and Argentina did make it happen in the past!

May be Tsipras together with his Syriza colleagues should have talked to people to ease out their fear of the uncertainty by presenting an alternative plan. It's already been proved that the Greeks trust them, even when the choice is difficult!

After all there is world beyond Euro. Very many countries not only exist but also thrive with growth far beyond Euro-zone.

It would be difficult, especially the initial months, but definitely a doable and viable solution, unlike the present joke of a deal!

Euro was probably worth fighting or negotiating for; but only up to a certain point.
Beyond which, like many other once precious things in life, you've to let it go and move on!

Fair Play

It was such such an refreshing site to see Dilma Rousseff and Angela Merkel in the VIP box of World Cup final!

No, I'm not a fan of either of them. But at least they brought some balance to the otherwise hopelessly male dominant gala fest of power, money and muscle!

From players, to coaches, support stuffs, FIFA officials, even the vast majority of reporters and photographers....it was such an overwhelming male dominance to everything that were important!

It's not the World Cup Football for men...it is THE World Cup.
All women's sports of course always comes with the tag "for women".

If aliens had watched the clippings from the prize distribution arena, they would've thought us to be a species without sexual dichotomy! Other decorative elements such as those Emirates hostesses standing behind with plastic smiles fixed permanently into their lovely lips....could easily be mistaken as aesthetically designed robots.

Two other middle aged, bald, male politicians would have blended so well with the scene, if not for these two ladies! May be I'm too optimistic, but at least to me it symbolized an world where the power dynamics are changing...slowly, but surely!

You can no longer ignore the "weaker sex" even in high testosterone activities such as the world cup football final; where traditionally the "fairer sex" would only be used as show piece elements like those bubbly-bouncy cheer leaders.

Now suddenly you have two feisty ladies at the center...with the power and importance to actually distribute the mega prize! And they didn't even have to be any important man's daughter/wife/widow to be there; they earned it themselves through years of professional rigor.

Surely the world is changing! Just wait till Ms. Clinton joins the gang!

Once again, I'm not a Clinton supporter; yet the prospect of having an woman at helm of the most powerful nation makes me a little excited.

Some people believe that an world led by women will be a much better place to live in; as women, according to them, are more compassionate and nurturing. This I find almost as stupid as any other stereotypes like "men have aptitudes for technology and women for fine arts".

I don't believe that women leaders...as a generic category....will be any better than their male counterparts. You just can't attribute characteristics...good or bad...which will be true for all the members of any gender.

There will be good woman leaders and bad ones; possibly more bad than the good ones; just as we have had with male ones.

It'll not make the world any better;just a little fairer!

We the people

Who would have imagined that Vladimir Putin would look better at least in one single human rights issue, than the Nobel peace prize winner Brack Obama!

Yes we all know that Putin is no saint, has many skeletons in his cupboard and has his own axe to grind in this whole saga of asylum to Snowden.

Yet he deserves some respect as the only one having the guts to stand firm against the monumental intimidation from US.

Let's  have a stock of the reactions from world's big players around this issue:

The "conscience of the world", Scandinavian countries, chickened out citing technicalities.
France and Austria meekly succumbed to US dictates against global protocols.
Germany cried foul-play without having any impact on the issue whatsoever.
UK once again shamelessly wagged it's tail behind the almighty US.
....at least Putin's Russia had the courage to do ONE right thing.

That one good act doesn't negate hundreds of blatant civil rights breaches, but at the same time those blemishes can not tarnish this one heroic defiance.

After all someone had to support this courageous young man...and I welcome it even if it comes from Putin. With their medieval treatment to Bradly Manning, handing him over to US for a "fair trial" would have been totally inhuman.

We are all hugely indebted to Snowden, not just for exposing NSA's Prism; but also for tearing off the fake moral cloak that US and European countries pretend to wear.

It reinstates our faith in humanity. For every secret court they form and every lie they spin in NSA (and alike world wide), there would be a Manning or a Snowden...bearing a legacy of Daniel Ellsberg.

Their acts might be illegal but not unjust. And it certainly does not condone the bullying and witch hunt US had been engaged into ever since.

"when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty".

It's neither the alienated lawmakers nor the big corporations who would decide the fate of 8 billion inhabitant of this planet.

At the end of the day democracy will triumph as "of the people, for the people, by the people".

Begining of the end?

Are the welfare states on the verge of collapse? No matter how I might dislike it, present signs increasingly point towards that.

The concept of sharing and caring, which emerged from the runis of world war II, when people understood the importance of a collaborative soceity in a hard way, seems to be easily forgotten within just sixty years.

The hurricane of biggest world war flattened many barriers quickly:  The strong class barriers and elitism were swept away. It even eroded the centuries old gender discrimination to a large degree and propelled the feminism to a new height. The scarcity of working age men opened the hetherto closed doors to women whose competence dispelled age old myths about "gender-suitable" jobs.

But all these are coming back in a new look. We are seeing a new generation of nouveau riche "celebs" whose socio-emotional gossips in page 3 attracts many more readers than the actual news. The feminism has also taken a back step in the recent years whith the increasing number of stay at home mums; espsecially where the affoardable child care is not available.

In the recent years the welfare states were under big pressure due to increasing demand of the growing population and stagnating economy of the developed nations. The recent economic downturn seemed to work like the last straw that broke the camel's back.

Yet if we look carefully, it seems to be more like a shift in attitude rather than a solely economic one. The neo-elite rich, who once again are controlling the money and power in the society care about nothing but themselves.

Their greed, incompetence and selfishness brought the banking sector to the brink. But the biggest irony is these very people were put in charge to draft the rescue plan where they protected their interest unashamedly while preaching austerity measures for the rest of the soceity.

Wheather it is Obama's incapacity to put stimulous to the economy, or EU's bailout packange to Greece with some absurd conditions of austerity or Cameron's latest rhetoric on benefit cuts....it's the different facets of the same agenda: save the interest of the rich at the expense of common public.

It's fine to destory the best public health care system in the world (NHS) or to terminate the housing benefits for unemployed youth or to cut the child care allowance for struggling families. But you can't take a farthing away from the hefty bonuses of the bank bosses.

As Gandhi once said:"There is enough for everybody's need, but not enough for anybody's greed"!

Versailles never ends

Two hundred years after the French revolution, in the Land of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", a statue modeled on French first lady Carla Bruni Sarkozy is to be erected in Paris suburb of Nogent-sur-Marne, part funded by tax payers' money.

To add insult to the injury, Bruni-Sarkozy, who probably never have done a single day's of honest work for a living supposed to represent "plumassière" – a female worker from one of the area's former feather factories.

This brilliant idea to spend more than €40,000 of public money in this statue came from the local Mayor from Sarkozy's ruling right-of-center (?) party.

Was Marie Antoinette more out of touch from the general public when she suggested them to eat cakes, if they don't have breads? At least she wasn't elected by the same public!

I am no fan of French Socialist party; but have to agree with William Geib that "It's sad for the women who were employed in this job. Carla Bruni must have seen more ostrich features on the catwalks than in a factory."

Truly, revolution is not an one time event, you have to keep doing it.  200 years is a long time to gather the scum again!

Seems the Versailles never ends.....!!!

Outsourcing Insight

Barak Obama is pitching hard to stop, or at least halt, the massive outsourcing by US companies to other countries (to India, mainly). It was always there in his political agenda and with tough November Senate elections in sight, he has sharpened his attack on outsurcing in an attempt to woo the recession trodden Americans.

Without even considering the typical American hipocrasy of banning outsourcing while trumpetting for the free market economy, let us first analyze how this is proposed to be achieved.

Obama said he is trying to change a tax rule whereby the companies outsourcing their jobs will loose the tax break which will be given to the companies creating jobs within America.

Come on, can someone as talented as Mr. Obama seriously think, that companies outsource their jobs ONLY to get some tax cuts? The money that these companies save in salaries and capital expenditures for the outsourced posts far outweighs the tax break gains.

And what about the talent pool? Though the outsourcing originally started with cheap labour in mind, now it has moved much beyond that. IT Jobs are outsourced to India because of the vast pool of educated and experienced professionals. That is why big American giants like Motorola, IBM or GE are opening more and more R&D center in Bangalore. They're not just investing in cheaply laboured support or call center.

Experienced Indian brain is no longer cheap; Some multinational biggies pay to some of its prized engineers in Banglore more than what it pays to their engineers in similar positions in Europe. They do crib about it, but can not help investing more in R&D centers in India as it cannot ignore the vast talent pool and the work quality.

Cutting the tax breaks for the outsourcing companies will just be a political gimmick which may even work with ignorant American voters; but the actual remedy is much more complex and time consuming.

If Obama is really serious in tackling the issue then America should invest in serious education. Scrapping the teaching of Creationism can be a good start! And this would be a long term project without much hope for immediate effect on the ballot boxes.

The outsourcing companies will even find ways to get arround this tax break rule. For example, they can form subsidiaries in other countries. That'll not amount to outsourcing and hence the rule will not be applicable to them. I'm sure qualified tax lawyers can find many more elegant solutions!

Anybody with the knowledge of the industry knows it. That is why neither the American companies nor their Indian suppliers are worried much.  All they have to do is come up with some new arrangements and tax consultants will walk happy to their banks.

Indian share market is running all time high, profit of the IT companies are increasing and they're hiring more than ever. No one is unduly perturbed.

In capitalism, if anything is good for the companies (capitalists) and bad for the masses then that will prevail. Profit is the almighty here which American people, in general, claim to support wholeheartedly.

Outsourcing is here to stay, not because it is bad for America, not because it is good for India, simply because it is the way the capitalism works.

A plague on ALL your houses

The Swedish general election was held yesterday. The result is out now. And for the first time in history a far-right, racist party called Swedish Democrats entered into the parliament.

They have own 20 odd seats in the house of 349 seats; but that's enough to influence the formation of government as both the rulling Alliance (with 172 seats) and the opposition Red-Green coalition (with 157 seats) fall short of securing absolute majority.

The good thing is both Alliance and Red-Green prefer supporting each other than taking support from ultra racist Swedish Democrats. Even a minority government can be formed with issue based support from other parties (something which I suggested could have worked in Britain). This kind of minority government is not unprecedented in Sweden.

The Swedish Democrats will however will leave no leaf unturned in pursuing their way to the government. And with the very recent memory of fierce electoral battle between the two main coalitions and the prospect of getting into a-pain-in-the-neck of a situation of running a minority government, who knows what will happen eventually!

I can only hope (that's the disadvantage of being an Atheist, I can't pray, just hope....) that they do not succeed in their sinister attempt to hold government into ransom with their small but crucial number of 20 seats.

It seems only yesterday that I was considering myself lucky escaping a Tory Britain to come to Sweden, the epitome of civil liberties and race-gender equalities. So imagine my dismay, barely 4 months later, at the prospect of being governed by neo-Nazis. Talk about being thrown from frying pan to fire!

The puzzling thing is how did they manage to get so many votes! Their success was mainly in southern Sweden, in Skåne, Malmo, parts of Stockholm. And yet these are the places with educated, urban population. Xenophobia aparently run much lower among peasants and fishermen in the north than that among the savy corporate executives in the south.

I do not really understand how, of all places in Earth, Sweden can afford to be anti-immigration; this is a vast country with barely 9 million people, 1.5 million of which are immigrants. They just do not have enough people to run this country.

This sub-arctic place is not an obvious choice with immigrants either. Most of them come from war trodden places like Iraq or Afghanistan and they do not really have a choice. And a handful come attracted to this free and fair society which will be destroyed fast thanks to rise of parties like Swedish Democrats. The generous benefit system which the Swedes are so much proud of, will dwindle fast if the contribution from the immigrants stops. They can have this cold, dark place all to themselves then and can start re-sharpening their skills as Viking pirates for survival.

What upsets me most is that far right xenophobic parties are getting ground all over Europe; from Switzerland, Austria, France, Netherlands and Germany to now in Sweden. Recent economic downturn just added to the problem. "Those foreign immigrants have taken our jobs" is a very popular line with people suffering from deep economic recession.

Growing Islamic terrorism is another big contributing factor; somehow people feel being hostile towards Muslims and in general to all foreigners would help reducing Islamic fundamentalism. In reality though it is quite counter-productive; it allianates Muslims even further and to quote Mr. Obama, works as a "recruitment bonanza for Al-Queda".

I cannot think of any place in the earth now where intolerance, insensitivity and warmongering is not rising alarmingly. Where to take the refuge now? It is a plague on ALL your houses.

Crime and Punishment

After 26 years of painful wait, the final verdict has been delivered this year for the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. And what was the verdict? Only 8 convicted for a maximum of 2 years in jail, for which they were granted bail immediately. And this is for the gross negligence and greed which caused thousands on deaths, tens of thousands of injuries and birth defects. Till date, children are born in Bhopal with birth defects which can very well be attributed to the leak of leathal mythyle isocyanate gas in that cursed night of 1984.

This is a case of Justice delayed AND Justice denied.

Poinsionous mythyle isocyanate gas leaked at midnight from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal and killed thousands in their sleep. But they were perhaps the fortunate ones; thousands of others suffred months, even years of sickness; were paralysed to various extents, lost eyesights, developed cancers and waited for a slow, painful death.

While their losses were incompensateable, at least they could still have some consolence if the people responsible were brought to justice. But after long and tedious judicial process which lasted for over 25 years involving numerous trials, wittnesses and cross examinations, they were finally told that no one was practically responsible for their peril.

Their own government simply cheated them. Indian government took the case from victims' hands and claimed to represent the case in their behalf. And then went for an out of court settlement with the Union Carbide and agreed for a peanuts amount of settlement money ($470 million). With this money, Union Carbide (and their present taker Dow Jones) washed their hands off the whole episode; they were free of all criminal and civil liabilities regarding this case.

The central government investigating agency did not furnish the required proofs; the Indian government did not excersise its extradiation treaty with America to bring Union Carbide chairman to Inida to face the trial. And America did not bother to try him in its own judicial system either; who cares, if a few thousands poor Indians die thousands of miles away? That's no reason to bother an wealthy American businessman!

Of course it is a different matter if the disaster happens in American soil affecting American people. Just look what happened when the oil leaked from BP well in gulf of Mexico. BP top bosses were grilled in Senate, made to set aside a compensation pot of 2 billion dollars and had to spend billions more to seal the leak. This was the penalty for causing 11 deaths and putting a few thousands out of business for one season, endangering wild lives and making the American coast dirty.


Yes, the environmental impact of the BP oil leak is enormous, but so it was for the Bhopal gas leak. If the formar is worst environmental disaster for America then the later is that for the whole world.

I'm not advocating for the less severe penalty for BP; they deserve every bit of it and should be punished even more,if possible, for their negligence. American government did a very good job dealing with the situation....making sure that the leak is stopped as soon as possible and that everybody concerned gets compensated.

Bhopal tragedy survivors are not so lucky; their own government betrayed them and the all powerful America, including their Nobel peace prize winner president, could not care less. They are simply not interetsed in brining one of their welthy citizens to trial to provide justice to a bunch of poor, black people in another continent.

The two incidents just show that the value of human life is not same for everybody. The punishments for these two similar crimes are anything but similar or compareable. This could be against the basic rule of justice; but then life is anything but "just".

An Unholy Matrimony

What is the opposite of "Conservative" ? "Liberal", most people would answer. I thought so too, until a few days ago. But now I am a bit confused after the formation of new coalition in Britain.

How on earth a Liberal party can form a coalition with the Conservative party? Aren't they supposed to be poles apart, as their respective names suggest?

It seems not; Nick Clegg is a happy deputy of David Cameron while "rebel" Vince Cable is working in perfect harmony with George Osborne.

It is the new politics, they say, the thing that the country needs at the moment. Then why weren't the voters told about this before the election? If the parties have indeed so much in common as they both are claiming now, then why didn't they form a pre-pole coalition? At least the voters could have made an informed decision. Isn't that the democracy is all about?

I am not at all convinced that all this is for the sake of providing a stable government; to me it is just a case of utter opportunism and sheer lust for power. And among the two, it is the Lib Dem who looks more ugly in this unholy matrimony of Con-Lib.

Conservatives at least have won most seats and were very close to securing majority in the house. So it is expected that they would try to make some deals with the other parties, which would mean a little compromise but would secure five years in the Westminister. This is exactly what they did.

But why the Lib Dems made such a political harakiri is beyond me. In the next election why would anybody vote for them? If someone actually likes Tory policies s/he will directly vote for them; while anybody with anti tory political views will have no choice but to vote for Labour; because any vote cast in favour of LibDem will be a proxy Tory vote. The cost of sharing power for five years will be too dear for Lib Dems to bear.

And I do not buy Clegg's argument that Lib Dem had no other option but to form this coalition. True, Labour have been rejected by the voters and hence siding with them would have been incorrect. Also the arithmetic was against them..... a Labour-LibDem coalition would not have the sufficient number. A multiparty coalition with Labour, LibDem, SNP, Green and some others would have been a too fragile coalition of looser.

But LibDem could have just remained neutral and let Tories form a minority government. They could have abstained from the first motion of confidence in House and then could have given policy based support to individual issues. They could have supported the bills like educational reforms, ID card abolition or banking reforms. But could oppose the Trident or Immigration bills. There is no reason why a minority government can not function like this, as long as all oppositions are not bringing a no confidence motion together against the government. But a responsible opposition should reserve this option as a last resort against any disastrous decision made by the government.

Lib Dem would have looked much more respectable in this arrangement and the voters would not have felt cheated. And by next election there could still be a party called LibDem, a sensible alternative to Tory and New Labour.

A much needed reform

I thought of writing a blog about the much needed banking reform, so that the taxpayers in future are protected against footing astronomical bills of Great Bailout for the irresponsible and reckless business of the greedy bankers.

But then this speech of Barak Obama has saved me the trouble; he said the exact things I wanted to say and unsurprisingly in a much better way.

So, I decided to include the speech instead. Hopefully leaders in other countries follow him, too. Because as brilliant as he me may be, Obama can not save the non-Americans like me through his reform bills.

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 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!