text: Jasdev Singh Rai 2016-05-25T20:43:53-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=jasdev-singh-rai Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jasdev Singh Rai Good old fashioned elbow grease. Resurrecting the Caliphate tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.8694142 2015-12-01T20:56:18-05:00 2015-12-02T07:59:01-05:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ Caliphate is strengthened if Britain also joins the war. Within a decade a handful of men holed up in the mountains of Afghanistan have made their main mission the central issue in the Sunni Islamic world. Al-Qaeda started with the idea of resurrecting the Caliphate, ISIS established it in reality much sooner than Al-Qaeda intended. Now more seriously it has caught the imagination of millions of Sunni Muslims, although not a majority. Whether ISIS survives or not, the idea of resurrecting the Caliphate won't die. It has been festering since 1924 when the Turkish revolution under Ataturk abolished it. It is part of Islam. Instead of lobbying for the Caliphate within Islam, AQ and now ISIS have revived a narrative of survival of Islam against a crusading Christian west. That strategy has drawn in many Jihadis to its cause and made the issue of the 'successor leader' of all Islam, the Caliph, a burning desire in large sections of the Sunni Islamic world. Unfortunately, the west has obligingly been playing in the script. Western interventions in Middle East in the last 10 years have blindly fallen into traps set by Al-Qaeda and now ISIS. David Cameron might like to ponder if he really is in control of events or merely a victim led by the nose by jihadi masterminds as the US has been. As strategies go the west seems to win battles, but the war seems to be going in favour of Al Qaeda's mission. From the war of retribution in Afghanistan following 9/11 to current massive air strikes on ISIS occupied lands, the United States has been provoked by the Jihadis into reaction. The unwarranted US invasion of Iraq must have convinced Al Qaeda that its mission is blessed by 'Allah'. It is from the chaos in Iraq rather than Helmand that the administrative institution of the Caliphate took form. Within a decade of Anglo-American excursion in Iraq, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has taken advantage of the power vacuum in the region and established the Caliphate. Western bombing of ISIS Caliphate is now being propagated by Jihadis as a Christian crusade to deny Muslims of the Caliph. After all, the coalition of countries taking on ISIS with airstrikes are all essentially Christian countries such as Russia, USA, France, UK and other European countries joined by some Shia countries. 'If the Catholics can have the Pope and the Anglicans their religious sovereign', it is not difficult to see how this is playing in the Sunni Islamic world. It is also obvious that there seems little interest from the Sunni countries surrounding ISIS Caliphate to take it on. In fact ISIS is complimenting a deeper agenda of the Wahabis in challenging rising Shia power and addressing general concern among Sunni Muslims of resurgent Shia Islam. The speed with which ISIS established the administrative structures of its rule suggests that ISIS was not only long term in planning but has been aided by some of the powers that precipitated the uprising against Assad. They are the powers that UK and USA calls its friends. ISIS must be getting considerable tacit support, if not direct support from many neighbouring Sunni countries. The question Mr Cameron should be asking his war machine is not when to join the bombing spree but what is the best strategy to outwit Al Qaeda's mission and ISIS' popularity. Joining bombing and even sending ground troops after a possible terrorist incident in UK isn't going to win this war. Destroying ISIS wont vanquish the idea of a Caliphate which has now firmly taken root. As one of the powers that aided in bringing the Ottoman Caliphate to an end, UK intervention could make the demand for a resurrected Caliphate even wider within Sunni Islam. History isn't easily forgotten. ISIS wants western ground troops to come to Syria. If it has any military sense, it must know that it will be defeated. Perhaps that is something it has planned for. But its battle for the idea of the Caliphate will gain even wider currency. If ISIS is defeated, the possibility of an even more violent movement for the Caliphate could arise drawing from a much wider resentful Muslim population around the world and the remnants of a dispersed ISIS. In fact reactive western responses have made the prospect of a Caliphate an irrevocable one. The issue before the world is no longer whether the Caliphate should exist. That landmark has long gone thanks to ill thought out strategies and responses to Jihadi baiting. The choice now is what form of Caliphate the world can live with. It is time to stop deluded statements such as 'they (Jihadis) don't like our way of life' and address the real issue instead. Cameron's challenge is to resist the temptation of reacting and instead explore a strategy to outflank and checkmate ISIS in the realm of ideological and abstract war. Will he do it? Trouble is that democracies have an Achilles heel. Democratic leaders look weak if they do not react aggressively to provocations. That is what AQ and now ISIL have preyed on. Ingenious but sheer evil. What the world is fighting is an idea, not a force. Western bombing is not the answer. Perhaps the only option left for the world now is what version of a resurrected Caliphate can the world accept. The one established by ISIS is seen as unIslamic by most Muslims. The one that might emerge from its ashes may be even more brutal. But there are alternatives.]]> Corbyn May Have the Last Laugh in 2020 tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.8131218 2015-09-13T20:14:47-04:00 2015-09-14T07:59:01-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ If Corbyn holds his nerve and he wins the next election, he may repeat history of the first postwar Labour Government which introduced enduring socialist policies in Britain. Corbyn's Government could entrench a second wave of socialist institutions in the State system to cope with twenty first century. His shadow chancellor, John McDonald is a feisty and determined intellect in himself. Corbyn is no Miliband. He has charisma and a presence. These are invaluable assets in democratic politics. Secondly he is not influenced by focus groups or media pressure both of which disorientated Miliband's otherwise formidable intellect. Miliband felt it necessary to turn on the Unions and concede the 'austerity' argument. His offering to the public was 'Austerity with a human face' a contradiction in itself. Corbyn's main focus is likely to be growth and redistribution. He will fire at the bankers and the fat cats. He will tear apart Osborne's narrative of blaming the economic downturn on Labour and challenge Osbornomics squeeze on the middle classes while making the rich super rich in the name of Austerity. Corbyn will point the finger right where Brown should have done, the bankers and the financial markets. Had Brown taken a couple of Banker scalps, he may have won that election. Jeremy Corbyn wont show mercy. Rebels make merciless dictators when in power. The main apprehension about Corbyn is whether he can govern and keep Labour united. Those who doubt his skills know him from a distance and base their assessment on caricature. Those who know him close have seen a man with a very cool mind, determination and able to persuade and govern almost flawlessly. Corbyn heads the NGO Liberation, an organisation full of emotionally charged Freedom struggles around the world. Yet under his managing skills, this organisation has worked smoothly with occasional tensions with the countries whose human rights Liberation has exposed. Even when threatened with expulsion from UN consultative status by India, Liberation under him made the appropriate adjustments to shrug off this danger with ease. He has an uncanny ability to handle and control the most difficult situations. He will show this skill immediately at the PMQs where he is likely to reign in Cameron's play ground style. The debate will be on his terms rather than on Cameron's bullyboy terms. If he manages to turn around this decades old style, he will dominate politics. As for his other wild policies in the areas of foreign policy, he is likely to surprise the pundits. He is not as much of an ostrich with head in the sand as the media has been portraying him. He will compromise on these and will be flexible on many foreign policy issues. But he is likely to draw back the British War machine much to the anger of those institutions perpetually eager to join a scrap anywhere in the world and who write imaginative reports on 'imminent' dangers from as remote as South Pole. The need to review British engagement in foreign wars is a much needed change in post colonial British Foreign policy. It is Europe where he may triumph most. The surge towards UKIP by the English working classes has not been properly understood by Labour. The English working classes have seen their lives affected by the migrant white labour from Easy Europe who have displaced them in predominantly white areas in England. Asian and Black labour never made much inroads in white areas, but the East Europeans did. It is not racism, but livelihoods that have driven many a working class vote towards UKIP. Corbyn has cleverly made isolationism as anti -capitalism. Corbyn is riding on a wave of disaffection with capitalism. Capitalism is a harsh way to prosperity that strips apart communities and crushes the weak. People are rightly fed up having to live in insecure rented accommodation, counting every penny in the 7th largest economy of the world and seeing their children crying for basics such as healthy meal. Which leaves the rebellion from the unrebellious. The centre ground Blairites and the 'pragmatists' who think they know the 'nerve' of the British electorate and yet lost two elections, are the ones who will join Tory attempts at unseating Corbyn. Not because of their ideological commitment but because many know their careers are at an end now. Unlike his predecessors, Corbyn is not going to be influenced or bullied by these hangers on from a receding Thatcherite era. The £3 investment by those clever Tories might end up being the most expensive own goal they have scored. Corbyn may end up being Telegraph's boomerang. The next two years are going to be a real battle ground between Capitalism and socialism and an exciting time both for Britain and the world. Much is likely to change. Meanwhile wait for Osborne to be doing complete U Turns after a little bravado. The media might feel powerless.]]> Corbynitis tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.7974116 2015-08-11T19:17:26-04:00 2015-08-12T05:59:01-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ Corbynitis, the phenomenon that has sparked 'home coming' excitement in the youth, the ideological migrants from Labour to other refuges such as Socialist Party, and the giant Unions is alarming the luvvies and the maturies. Many of them are foretelling 20 years of life in the wilderness. Campbell even has visions of the political grave for Labour. How wrong they might be! This is a cyclical pattern in British politics. A party wins. In Government, faced by civil servants and obfuscation it develops ideas and popularity fatigue. It messes up the economy or events mess it for it. Since no party has yet found Brown's holy grail of 'no more booms and busts', people get fed up with the bust periods. It loses. The electorate gives the opposition a chance. The losing party goes into bunker mode, 'back to basics'. The various factions within it push for 'core values' with each little group having its own ideal of core values. The fundamentalists chose leaders they think represent those core values. For a while they forget the electorate beyond. It is womb time and party goes into gestation for a few years. It does not work. The electorate is selfish, thinking of house prices, jobs and kids' schools instead of nuclear disarmament, Euro exit and the final solution promising nirvana on earth. Leaders come and go through the swing door as one group fails with its leader, the other hard core group pushes its messiah forward. Then the penny drops. In a democracy it is the electorate that counts, stupid! A mesmeriser emerges who can talk in forked tongues. The new leader sees the light and starts to negotiate some of the core values to win over the wider electorate and make the fundamentalists believe their beliefs are safe. A PR team is chosen that does this deftly. After a few tries, Party wins as the one in power messes up, becomes sleazy or goes into internecine warfare. So it happened after Labour party lost following Wilson-Callaghan Government. There was Foot, Kinnock and Smith before slick Blair came on the scene. He could talk in many tongues. He maintained the mirage of core values but was effectively beating with a Thatcherite heart. Brown could not keep the mask long enough. The two of them cut welfare costs, reduced the national debt and privatised like an American Republican frothing with Rabies. When Thatcher exiled Labour out of power, she too gave the Tories an illusion of right wing fiscal responsibility. She threw enough working class people out of jobs and punched the Unions black and blue. She excited 'gung ho' Britain reviving imperial glory fighting a few weak armies around the world but at the same time sold UK Plc to foreign funds and companies. Welfare costs increased during her time, national debt went a bit out of control and she refused to privatise Socialist Britain wholesale. After Thatcher came the series of core right wing leaders, William Hagye, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard . Then came Cameron who like Blair is an illusionist. He conjures images of right wing despotism over liberal views, but is a Europhile, bit generous to those in need and seems to have no appetite to privatise the NHS in the way Labour did. That Labour members are flocking to Corbyn, is simply following pattern. Under Miliband, Labour's core voters had started to drift away, just as its core Essex voters did under Callaghan in favour of Thatcher. What the other candidates are offering is a flip side of Toryism laced with focus group fine tuning without assuring Labour's core voters that their values are sacrosanct. They don't talk the faith. Corbyn restores the confidence of core voters. He is bringing the drifters back to shore. If Corbyn is smart, he may not make the mistake of Foot. He is already talking of socialism with a growth agenda, rather than just a redistribution agenda. Corbyn is the first person in recent memory clearly making the ideological difference between Labour values and Tory values. He is suggesting that welfare has to be paid for through growth. The Tory mantra is that growth has to be encouraged by cutting welfare. If Corbyn shows pragmatism, he may begin the negotiating of some core values with the wider electoral pool during the third year, two years before the next election. If he doesn't, he will have made Labour restart the process of winning by securing its core voters and give way to another leader. British democratic politics is a predictable phenomenon. Political parties depend on retaining their core voters, gaining voters from the floating pool and then poaching the less loyal from the other party. It is a simple game plan in a simple democracy of simple majoritarianism. In fact if any of the other three candidates becomes leader, Labour is unlikely to win an election for 10 years. They have become too much of 'tweakers' under the shadow of Osbornomics and have taken the core for granted. Corbyn on the other hand will ironically restore Labour's chances of winning by 2025 if not sooner. How soon will depend on how dexterous he is playing the great British political game, predictable but not certain.]]> Osbornomics, Not Wallace, Is Miliband's Problem tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.5624450 2014-07-27T08:10:29-04:00 2014-09-26T05:59:06-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ Not a poster boy for bacon sandwich! Miliband has promised us he won't look for a job with glam models agency. But that is the least of his or Labour's problems in the run up to the next elections. The British public has not always chosen Mr Handsome into office. Policies do matter. UK's world status and UK's economy are also decisive factors. If economic policies don't inspire trust and credibility then looks and stature get a compensatory look in. I wrote quite early on that Miliband is a cerebral person whose intellectual appeal could overcome shortcomings in the 'look like a PM' department. The problem is that both Miliband and Labour started with a baggage they willingly shouldered. It wasn't the economic crises but the unwillingness to fend off the blame. In fact, at a time when confessions and sorrys had become fashionable, Labour was almost admitting fault and apologising through its silence. The financial crises was precipitated by runaway global banking gone licentious. It was neither a British invention nor a Labour creation. Bigger economies such as USA and Europe were caught in this. Surely even the last surviving jingoistic imperialist can't boast that 'Rule Britannia' alone can bring the entire western world to its economic knees. It was only last year that a robust challenge was being mounted by Labour politicians against this. Labour kept quiet when it needed to confront this flak and nip it in the bud. First it was embroiled in leadership battle then it waited for the leader to lead or fall. That precious window gave Tories a clear run to blame the financial crises on 'Labour'. They rubbed in the old cliches, 'Labour cannot be trusted with the economy'. 'Labour overspends'. 'Labour pushes the economy into deficit'. The message was repeated ad nauseam. It stuck. The economy has recovered even though people's incomes have not recovered much unless one is in the millionaire club. People are aware of the unjust policies that Coalition Government followed, making it an easier ride for the rich but throwing the burden of the recovery on the rest, especially the poor. Now the Tory message is building on its earlier foundation. 'Don't let Labour push Britain back into crises!' It is a clever one. Once culpability sticks then it isn't difficult to pile on further doubt. As it is, the Coalition Government did almost exactly what many economists were advising. It subsidised the economic recovery. After the first few years of 'austerity' loading the brunt of it upon those most likely to vote Labour, the Government threw in 'quantitative easing' and tax breaks for the better offs. Then it kick started the housing industry through subsidies. It also started some infrastructure projects. However some buzz words have now become given. Austerity, welfare cuts, trim Union power etc. Labour too has internalised these and is cornered by the parameters set by Conservatives. It seems to be chasing Tory policies now just as New Labour adopted Thatcherism piecemeal. The difference then was that the Tories were unreptently wearing 'Me sleazy' on their T shirts in their twilight years in late 90's. That allowed Blair to walk in as 'Mr Clean'. Today, the Tories have jealously guarded their reputation with some slip ups such as donations from Russian oligarchs. Whether austerity and welfare cuts, especially the punitive ones such as bedroom tax on disabled, had any effect on the recovery won't be known for a long time until economists in the distant future compare with other economies retrospectively. Currently the Tories have made people believe that sacrifices by those on lower incomes were necessary. It is Osbonomics. Osbonomics is essentially a form of Keynesian economics but with emphasis on supporting a different section of society and investing in sectors different than classical Keynesian models. Apart from the staple support that Labour enjoys, Labour is going to have to fight hard for those who are not diehard socialists. What seems almost certain is that a year is too short a time for Labour to wash off the mud. Labour can present Miliband as 'intellectual heavyweight full of ideas' better able to lead a country than win on the catwalk, but will Labour be able to blow holes in the Conservative propaganda against it and make Tories look like economic despots steering myths? A bit of an impossible task, given the time left to chalk our the soundbite 'Labour-Deficit' from the voter's mind. Miliband is certainly an intellectual full of ideas and a clever strategist. But Osborne has proved himself to be an equally powerful intellectual, better at gaming strategy. Labour could outwit Tory strategists. Instead of fielding Miliband in a 'presidential style' election, it could play the party instead as a collegium. Unfortunately Labour may continue to play safe campaigning by Tory rules. It seems the next election will be about who controls the political game and shines at the personality show. Miliband with his ghost team or Osborne with Osbonomic's champion, Cameron.]]> Modi, A Transformative Hope For India and South Asia tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.5389732 2014-05-25T14:35:11-04:00 2014-07-25T05:59:04-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ Narendra Modi takes over the reigns of power in India. Sixty seven years after India's first leader, Nehru started one of the largest social engineering pogroms causing tensions within and with neighbours; India is on the brink of binning it. The 2014 Indian election marks the end of secular liberal socialism in India and the beginning of a period yet to be defined in any clear terms, except perhaps 'Indian pluralism'. Much negative press greeted Modi during the campaign both in India and internationally. Judgemental statements are still slipped into news in most western liberal press casting him as a communalist and divisive Hindu nationalist figure with foreboding consequences. We are repeatedly reminded of Modi's alleged complicity in the Gujarat riots despite the Indian Supreme Court acquitting him. Similar aspersions of divisive communalism were never made against the dynastic 'modern democratic party', the Congress, which exploited communal and caste identities to greatest electoral advantage in almost all the elections. No western leader nor western press ever pointed fingers at Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for justifying the massacres of Sikhs in November 1984 in Delhi after his mother's assassination. Nor was Narasimha Rao. the then Home Minister who failed to call in the police or Armed Forces for four days of massacres, ever hounded by western media, even when he went onto become PM.. The duplicity of the western liberal press and fraternity is sometimes spell bounding. No British Parliamentary EDM, or pontificatory journalists campaigned against prospective Indian Prime Ministers except Modi. This liberal hysteria may be symptomatic of twentieth century secular liberal evangelism realising that its intellectual sway is now coming to an end in Indian history. For sixty years it clung on to a dream that the Congress Party would transform India into its ideological prodigy. Western liberals understated Congress' excesses and overplayed its achievements, such as 'largest democracy'. Well that 'largest democracy' has delivered its 'verdict', so why whinge now with the Guardian and BBC wheeling in the 'bitterati' such as Pankaj Mishra and Anish Kapoor.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b043wgnd The Congress party had a veneer of secularism and unity. While it won its first few elections harvesting its leading role in the decolonisation struggles, its subsequent victories were based on appealing to 'fears' among different communities, as vote-bank politics.. In 1984, Congress 'unity' call was based on portraying Sikhs as 'secessionists' and uniting worried Hindus behind itself. It relied on rallying Muslim and 'lower caste' votes subsequently. In 2004 it succeeded in portraying BJP as an 'upper caste' party. In 2014 it was appealing to Muslim psychosis by demonising Modi as anti Muslim.. This strategy has fallen apart. In response the BJP coalition pushed the 1984 massacres of Sikhs into the public debate. Congress lost the Sikhs. The 'caste' vote bank also fragmented since Modi himself comes from a 'backward caste'. Many Muslims voted for Modi. Modi has managed to unite diverse sections of India without appealing to any fear psychosis. His call to majority Hindu India was to their strengths not their fears. It may be too early to talk, but odds are that he is more likely to pacify resurgent political Hinduism and give the country a sense of 'self', something that India has lacked except in the bureaucracy and newspapers. He is also likely to gradually replace liberal secularism with something indigenous. Secularism has proved to be a divisive philosophy in India with tragic consequences such as communal and caste violence. Its protagonists in India ignored 5000 years history of a civilisation which made a success of pluralism letting faiths and non faith ideologies to coexist in the public space. The Indian civilisation is ahead of the west and many other regions of the world in governing plural societies. Only in India can one find a synagogue in a Muslim area. Yet it was extraordinary that in 1947, it chose to discard its successful approach and adopt a new political pogrom to change its culture. It never worked. A plural civilisation that does not create a clear distinction between religion and secular has been thrown into bitter adversarial political chaos. Despite good intentions, Congress's long rule has bequeathed an electoral field of block votes ridden and fought along caste, religion, regional communities. The Indian State became absorbed in its internal strife while trying to meet its developmental obligations. The new Prime Minister has a monumental challenge on his hand. Modi is different than some other BJP leaders. He is keen to give India a sense of 'uniqueness' and decrease the tensions within the region. He is keen to concentrate on development. He could end up being India's Deng Xiaoping rapidly bringing poverty to a real end rather than 'statistical end. Modi is more likely to review the skewed 'reservation' policy for 'lower castes' sustained by Congress to ensure a continuous supply of votes. This policy has entrenched 'caste' as a political entity deep into modern Indian fabric frustrating social movements that try to end this system which was given institutional form during colonialism. Caste vote bank politics is now being introduced into UK by some Labour MPs in the name of 'equality'. Contrary to predictions, he is also more likely to give Indian Muslims and other minorities a better deal in return for peace and coexistence. In its sixty years of domination of Indian politics, Congress India has not been able to resolve a single internal dissension. Minorities may finally see light at the end of the tunnel as Modi explores indigenous solutions to tensions created during the 'modernising' agenda. One of the unexpected outcomes of Modi's rule might be serious negotiations with neighbouring countries rather than letting conflicts simmer on. Many seasoned politicians and business people in Pakistan think that a solution is more likely with him. He has already taken the first steps confounding many critics by inviting all the neighbours to his inauguration. Modi's idea of India's future is a pluralistic society, comfortable with its diversity and its civilisation. Given the clear majority he now has, perhaps he could start by replacing the word 'secular' with the word 'plural' in the constitution. It will give India something to say in the world of ideas. More importantly it will begin transforming Governance of India basing it on the strengths of its own civilisation.]]> Ukraine, We Need a New Script tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.4907498 2014-03-05T18:49:20-05:00 2014-05-05T05:59:01-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ The collective wisdom of the west seems to be lacking that skill. Smaller power junkies, like Europeans, think that Uncle Sam and his missiles will put any upstart or even powerful country in its place if it challenges western writ. The fact is that Uncle Sam sapped his strength in Iraq. That was the height of US hegemony in a twilight period between the Soviet collapse and the yet to rise China. Having exhausted its sole superpower dividend in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US no longer seems 'Almighty'. The world appears 'dangerous' from even Uncle Sam's spectacles. The paranoia of its security agencies is apparent when they are reduced to preoccupy themselves with trashed personal emails of citizens whose 'right to privacy' they are meant to protect. But the script hasn't changed. The response to Ukraine crises is classic contemporary western huff. It has been full of gesture politics and threats with empty barrels aimed at Russia in the hope it will be intimidated by lectures on international law. Trouble is that international law works within a feudal system. There is one interpretation for the most powerful and another for the rest. The club of 'powerful' is growing. Russia and China too feel they can impose this dual interpretation of international law. Russia used the US logic of pre-emptive strike (used in Iraq) to take over Crimea. Now using the logic of 'failing State' somewhat similar to US explanation about its protracted role in Afghanistan nation building, Russia is justifying possible incremental encroachment into Eastern Ukraine. The rhetoric of the west in dealing with this new multilateral world is still based on cold war logic and the twilight years. When the challenge is too powerful, or economic stability at stake, the west has to eat its rhetoric. Increasingly western leaders look limp and weak. This does and will in future give the 'others' more confidence to act rashly until one day Uncle Sam will either have to stand up physically precipitating the last war of humanity, or accept defeat. Take Ukraine. Once the revolution reached its goal, the west should have sensed Russian design and quickly changed tack by abandoning the new unelected Government of Ukraine for including neo Nazi elements. It should have taken Putin's bluff of EU, US and Russia working together for a financial package. It should have outsmarted Russia by suggesting a UN sanctioned interim Government and call urgent elections. That is exactly how this standoff will end. Russia will hold on to Crimea but refrain from entering Eastern Ukraine and an early election called with international monitors in the country and protection for minorities. Had the west scripted this option early it would have been in the driving seat. Instead we are doing 'catch up' issuing free lessons on international law (Rasmussen, Hague and Kerry) which are unconvincing when others point to Iraq, Libya and Syria. The issue is not that the west should be tougher. The point is that the west needs a better script adapted to the changed multi superpower world. It needs a more sophisticated approach that can increase the ante but then do a quick witted U turn with honour without looking weak. International diplomacy is a game of deceit (Wikipedia, NSA files) played with honour but our politicians seem stuck in a bygone era of hegemony reading from a chapter forged at a time of power vacuum. Putin on the other hand does appear prepared for 21st century's new multifocal world diplomacy. Whatever we may say about his 'evil' actions, let us face it, his footwork was deft.]]> SAS and Golden Temple. Has the FCO moved on from Pre War Britain yet? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.4628665 2014-01-19T17:12:56-05:00 2014-03-21T05:59:02-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ Operation Blue Star (1984) still remains a fresh wound within the worldwide Sikh community. This is why the revelations of the British SAS advising the Indian Army has angered the British Sikh community, leaving a bitter taste of betrayal. It calls for a change in the way Foreign Policy is pursued. In twenty first century Britain, Foreign Policy cannot ignore the multi ethnic character of British society. It cannot simply be sensitive to the majority while bartering the sentiments and rights of minority communities. The Sunday Times reported in June 1984 that the SAS was not only involved in mere advice but even trained Indian commandos to launch the attack. Now we have confirmation. The Sikhs feel betrayed particularly as many an old British soldier will remember the passion with which Sikh soldiers fought in the two world wars for Britain. Yet, to many Sikhs it appears this country's establishment has no sense of gratitude. The correspondence released reveals a Government which knew quite well that an attack on the Golden Temple would cause considerable reactions and any knowledge of British involvement would cause deep resentment. So why did Britain do it? The Prime Minister has promised an inquiry. Given other inquiries (Iraq, Hillsborough etc) there isn't much expectation by the Sikh community. Many expect dilution of facts or the matter put out to the long grass. This won't placate the sense of betrayal. What is needed is for the Government to redeem itself in this obnoxious episode. The Golden Temple precinct houses two of the most important institutions of worldwide Sikh community. The Harimandar Sahib, which is the Gold domed building and Sri Akal Takht Sahib, the temporal seat of worldwide Sikhdom. The Harimandir Sahib reflects the principle values and teachings of Sikhi. Its four doors symbolise an open house for people from all four corners of the world regardless of their background, creed or descent. There are no speeches in it. Only kirtan, the Sikh recitation of the Guru Granth Sahib (the textual guide) in raags (classical music). The Akal Takht is the building that was mostly and symbolically destroyed in 1984 and subsequently rebuilt by Sikhs. It translates as 'throne of the Eternal'. It is the temporal seat of Sikh affairs, consensus decision making, interpretations of teachings and engagement with the wider world. Its edicts and consensus decisions are revered by the majority worldwide Sikh community. The Akal Takht has a long history of being attacked by rulers and Governments to subdue the Sikhs. But each time the Sikhs have fought back and restored its sovereign status. Today it again enjoys a de-facto sovereignty. The Sikhs are campaigning for internationally recognised sovereignty of Akal Takht. The attack on Sri Akal Takht Sahib by the Indian State in 1984 was seen as an attack on the Sikh community and an attempt to subject the community to the will of Indian State. The attack on the rest of the precinct was seen as an act of desecration. Why, knowing all this, did the British Government still get involved with the Indians? Crass immoral opportunism is the only word that comes to the mind of most Sikhs. There is wider question. Does the Foreign Office realise that Britain is no longer a State full of white citizens? Are the only sacrosanct regions, the Anglo Saxon dominated North America, Australia and New Zealand, and Christian institutions such as the Vatican? Are the deeply revered spiritual institutions of minority groups in UK still fair game? Has the FCO not caught up with the reality of a multi-ethnic, multi racial Britain. Can it continue to ignore the sentiments of well settled ethnic minorities whose spiritual institutions are abroad. Can it barter their human rights for political and financial gains? The accusations cannot just be made against the Conservatives. Labour sold out the right of free speech and action of two Khalistani groups in UK and proscribed then under pressure from the Indian Government in 2002. This episode now calls for a wider inquiry on the nature of Foreign Policy and the need for the Foreign Office to face up to the reality of modern Britain. The FCO needs to represent modern Britain and not a prewar Britain. The British Government's guilt in this episode also calls for an act of support for an international inquiry into the attack. For one thing this correspondence is further evidence (previously by Vice Chief of Indian Army, Gen Sinha) that contrary to the Indian State assertion, the attack was not a spontaneous response to alleged deteriorating circumstances, but a well planned action developed long before the actual date of the attack. It was to stop a peaceful protest to withhold wheat according to the General who led the attack, Gen Brar. But wheat is in the farms. So why did the Indian State attack in the first place. The released letters can begin the trail to that answer. Why did FCO get involved to stop a peaceful protest?]]> Mandela, a God in Our Times tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.4487134 2013-12-21T20:22:01-05:00 2014-02-20T05:59:01-05:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ this remarkable life. A man whose achievements are those of gods, yet he remained a simple and humble person to his last days. Many claim prerogative on his moral wisdom. Yet there is something original about Mandela and something uniquely African about him that can teach the world a lot. While struggling against Apartheid and then bringing it down, Mandela maintained his core belief in the equality and dignity of all human beings irrespective of race, religion or gender. He added another element. Irrespective of action. In that he upheld the rhetoric many religions pronounce but rarely live by, many leaders say but rarely deliver. The ability to forgive and move on. Mandela believed in the intrinsic goodness and innocence of most human beings. It was the system that he wanted to destroy, not the people. People become trapped in the systems they often create, either as perpetrators or victims. When freed, human beings have the capacity to change and readjust. In bringing down Apartheid but refusing to start a witch hunt of the perpetrators, Mandela put in practice his belief. It was the end of the system that was the point of his closure, not punishing the guilty. This is neither solely Christian, Gandhian or modern secular liberalism nor for that matter a claim that can be made uniquely by any other religion or philosophical school. Most of them have failed to show closure without revenge in their regions of dominance. Revenge was rampant in the glory days of Christiandom; not to forget the crusades and lately right wing Christian movements' vociferous calling for the wars that US-UK start these days. Nor does it seem to be a deeply held belief of modern secular liberal worldview. It was the secular liberal press that provided moral support for the invasion of Iraq to bring the 'tyrant' Saddam down rather than find reconciliation. Neither can Gandhian pundits claim Mandela's moral compass. Gandhi insisted on a peaceful struggle for decolonisation, condemned the insurgents whose actions weakened British resolve but then unsuccessfully tried negotiating support for British war effort in return for home rule. He even supported the war against Pakistan. Not quite a consistent peace philosophy. Mandela did not acquiesce to authorities. He refused to distance himself from the armed struggle of African National Congress. In fact that prolonged his detention. He remained consistent. Mandela did not denounce violence when he was weak only to take it up when he had access to arms. In the post Apartheid period when he and the ANC had control of the full coercive violent power of the modern State, he did everything to prevent revenge attacks against the white population. What is even more significant, he prevented an all out communal violence between the common South African and the mighty Zulus whose leaders were still considering a separate country under King Buthelezi. It was his extraordinary political skills and wisdom together with qualities of the ANC that kept the country united and the transition peaceful. To have this much power yet seek peaceful routes to resolve differences makes him a unique and perhaps only one of a kind. An equally remarkable act by the ANC under his leadership was the dismantling of the nuclear option whereas most post colonial and post oppressive countries have sought to develop it by any means. Critics say that Mandela's decisions have ensured an affluent white class, a corrupt leadership and large number of black South Africans still living in dire poverty in the townships. One only has to look across Africa at other examples where independence was followed by disruption, violence and eventually despots. Their economies suffered, poverty became deeper and violence is always simmering under the surface. South Africa has been spared the worst. Today it is one of the most stable economies in Africa, with perhaps the most stable political system and communities coexisting side by side. True there is a lot of progress to be made. Mandela achieved what he set out to do. He brought Apartheid down without sacrificing his principles. He delivered his people through their most emotionally charged period and prevented reckless destruction of institutions. He kept his country united. He embraced peaceful routes when he was in total control of the means of violence. Having seen his country through this, he gave up power and lived peacefully like a common man. There is something very African about this deep wisdom. In Africa they call this ecology of wisdom, Ubuntu. He was a true son of Africa and a true elder of Africans from whom there is much to learn. South Africa after him has the opportunity to continue the legacy of Ubuntu and teach the world about real African wisdom..]]> Has the Commons Changed the International Game tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3932183 2013-09-15T21:20:53-04:00 2013-11-15T05:12:01-05:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ historic vote, first since 1782 (Guardian), to reject Syrian invasion without UN resolution is proving to be a game changer in several ways. It set the mood music that gave moral boost to a sceptical American public and Congressmen to oppose war. It opened the opportunity for Putin to push in with a diplomatic initiative that could set a trend and end the long period of interventionist wars by the west. It has isolated and made the French appear out of sync with world opinion. And while appearing a loser at first, Cameron seems to have come out of it with greater integrity by ditching the war option altogether. Miliband who triggered it all, seems to have been faded by events. The bigger question is whether international politics is going to be different now? More to the point, will British Foreign policy take a new direction and will there be a cultural shift away from wars. The significant of the Commons vote on current diplomatic initiatives and future world events cannot be underestimated, even if there was only a majority of five against war. British identity is characterised by wars (Lawrence)? The English Crown has been at war with someone or other for 500 years, year in year out, except perhaps 1946. (Wold War fatigue) No other country or race comes anywhere near this relentless appetite for wars. The British war machine is always preparing for another war, when one comes to an end. The drums for a Syrian invasion have been beating for more than a year as Afghanistan winds down. Before Afghanistan was Iraq, before that Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Operation Desert Fox, Bosnia, Gulf War, Falklands etc etc. British Foreign Secretaries still like to pretend they rule the world. Of course there is always officially a pious reason (just war). To save the world or save the British from imagined missiles from Bagdad etc, often masking an addiction to war. Most people realise that intervention in Syria would be madness. It will escalate the combustion unfolding in Middle East, the conflicts between Sunni and Shia, Israel and Arabs, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Secularists and Islamists. Where do we fit? What is it that we will sort out that no one has been able to do for over a thousand years? The Middle East will come to London. We all know that. An uncomfortable fact is that there has been an internal logic in British Foreign policy propelling decisions towards wars, often complimented by the war machine, media and tough acting politicians. In calling for intervention initially , Cameron was merely following established policy. The vote brought out a different instinct in him declaring 'I get it'. After decades of wars, many futile, it appears the British public is weary of interventionist wars as it seems is the American public. Why always us, many are asking. Why do we always end up sorting problems of the world? This time even the liberal press seemed against 'intervention for nirvana'. War is no longer a simple matter of going in, sorting the natives, install a friendly Government and coming back as saviours. The consequences of war on the people in the region and on the ethics and freedoms of the countries that wage interventionist wars have been too obvious in the last decade. This realisation may be precipitating a tectonic shift in British attitudes. The British public does not want to play 'God' despite what some moralising liberals and arm chair generals believe is the purpose of the British on earth. There are too many problems here. Housing, unemployment, poverty, failing health care, sick economy and so on. Besides the world isn't that keen on our 'moral' interventions and countries like China have shown that you don't always need to attack a country to make it a complimentary trading partner. Cameron has caught the public mood. That is why Cameron is not weakened by the electoral defeat anymore than Miliband is strengthened by it. Cameron comes out as a better leader in a democracy showing respect for Parliament and public opinion as opposed to the likes of Blair who misled Parliament and showed contempt for public opinion (Iraq war). By taking a step back from warmania, Cameron has enabled the giants, USA and Russia, to explore diplomatic initiatives. And it seems he has also acknowledged Britain's realistic reach in today's world as opposed to the French, whom one Russian diplomat described as irrelevance playing it big. Where to British Foreign Policy now? More importantly will it transform the way the west deals with international tensions? The Parliamentary decision brings a chance of shifting the paradigm in British Foreign policy. We might see diplomacy playing a greater role in future than interventionist wars. And we might even see the USA concentrating on diplomatic solutions rather than shooting before talking (Afghanistan). But then there is always a Bush lurking somewhere in American politics.]]> The Enigma of Modi tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3792697 2013-08-21T19:32:33-04:00 2013-10-21T05:12:02-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ 'secular' family firm, the Congress Party. On the other is the party of 'Indianness' or rather 'Hinduness', the BJP, which does not like crown princes. Denying them clear majorities are a plethora of regional, communal and caste based parties in 'secular integrated' India. The 2014 election looks to run around 'demonising' BJP candidate Narendra Modi instead of important issues like poverty, economy and corruption. His invitation to UK has already attracted adverse media attention. Modi is accused, not convicted, of complicity by negligence, or failure to act (Res_ipsa_loquitur) in one of India's numerous communal riots, the infamous 2002 Godhra riots of Gujrat. Godhra riots occurred following some Muslims allegedly setting fire to a train full of Hindus coming from another flashpoint, the Ayodhya Mosque demolition site. 58 Hindus burnt to death. What followed is modern India's recurring pattern of mob justice. After 65 years the Indian State has still not configured preventative measures. Cops and communities turned on each other. Approximately 720 Muslims and 250 Hindus died according to official figures. Shops were looted and houses burnt. About 100000 Muslims and 40000 Hindus were rendered homeless. There have been some 249 convictions; 65 Muslims and 184 Hindus including Maya Kodnani, a minister and close aide of Modi. Since the riots, there have been three National level Enquiry Commissions. All exonerated Modi and found little state complicity. But Modi remains accused by Indian secularists, human rights organisations and the west which refused him Visas. It should not be forgotten that India has a record of politically orchestrated communal violence allegedly instigated by the ruling Congress Party, particularly in the organised massacre of Sikhs in 1984 after the death of Indian Prime Minister, Mrs Gandhi. More than 4000 Sikhs were burnt, bludgeoned or axed to death by a mob armed with kerosene, tyres and addresses of Sikhs. Nine major Commissions have sat on Delhi 1984 massacres duplicating police work, but not asking why riots occur recurrently in India. Most Commissions implicated the Congress Party, the police and the administration. Some even named senior Congress leaders. 30 years later no senior Congress member has been convicted. In all the major communal riots, no senior Indian leader (especially Congress leaders) has been persistently accused let alone vilified by the Indian media and political class. Except Modi. Why? Modi is accused of negligence in the Godhra riots. No similar accusation have been made against Congress leaders of 1984. Mrs Gandhi's son, Rajiv Gandhi, dismissed the riots with, "when a big tree falls, the earth shakes". He became PM. The then Home Minister, Narasihma Rao, whose responsibility it was to direct the police and call in the army, not only has never been accused of Res_ipsa_loquitur but become Prime Minister too. No 'ethical' western country flagged his negligence let alone refuse him visas. Modi has been different say his friends. He maintained meticulous record of official instructions in the post Godhra incident. He even moved court for death sentence for Kodnani, his minister. This disturbs the political class. In the ten years he has been in power, Modi has reached out and taken decision steps to prevent recurrent communal riots in a state where riots were common. In contrast, communal riots are commonplace in the rest of the country (77,565 public order crimes comprising riots and arson in 2011, Indian Home Ministry pp 51) His economic achievements disturb other politicians. Modi is running a successful economy in his state whereas India's national economy is faltering and the Indian Rupee fast losing value. But what is scaring other parties is that Modi is offering Indians an identity, something that to date has been confined to a passport and territorial boundary. He says he is a Hindu and wears it proudly on his sleeve. But he says he respects all faiths. Many ordinary Indians, including many Muslims in Gujarat, prefer him to the secularists who insist people put their religion in their pockets and pretend that faith does not matter in Indian Statecraft. Modi is a renown strategist and has yet to play his cards. He remains an enigma. As the Congress party makes Godhra riots a central issue in the next election to harvest Muslim votes, perhaps Modi can throw in the Congress party orchestrated 1984 massacre of Sikhs in the ring. This will finally offer Sikhs a national debate. The 2014 elections will determine India's ideological future, between more of the communal riots infested 'secularism' (668 incidents in 2012 pp69) or an allegedly communal but pluralistic politics led of BJP by Modi who has already established a riots free record after Godhra. As for the 'ethical' west and its visas. Ethics is a noble virtue in western democracies. But a nobler virtue, as Obama eloquently stated on Egypt, is 'national interest'. EU and Britain have lifted Modi's visa restriction.]]> Egypt, Islam at Cross Roads tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3592833 2013-07-13T20:33:57-04:00 2013-09-12T05:12:01-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ Nothing in Egypt is unpredictable. Islam follows the course and conflicts that Christianity has gone through. Christians were at this stage in the thirty years war in 1618. After sweeping across Europe with its universalism, Christianity eventually succumbed to schismatic wars around 'true interpretations'. It gave way to disbelief, the 'enlightenment' and the new universal, the secular State. So has Islam come to this juncture. Having started 600 years later it has made time in the internet age. Today, Sunni Islam is in conflict with Shia Islam for total domination. Rigid interpretations are in conflict with less committed Muslims. And all are uncomfortable with the growing legion of secularised Muslims, if that is not a contradiction. The Middle East has entered a version of the European thirty years war. Except it is a five way contest between Sunni, Shia, Secularists, Jewish security and western interest. It seems an all out war between Abrahams many prodigies. The spokesperson of Egyptian 'revolutionaries' said, 'On the one side are the secularists, liberals and human rights believers and the other side are the religious Egyptians, the Brotherhood. Syria and Iraq are already gripped in this conflict. Turkey has gone from secularism to a moderate Islamic State and again being challenged by secularists. The secularists are underground in Iran. Elsewhere in the Maghreb, Algeria continues to simmer while Tunisia and Libya hushes the tension between backers of Islamic Stateand secular State. Sixty years after decolonisation Pakistan has still not been able to decide whether it wants to be religious, very religious or secular. These conflicts are not about democracy, but whether the majority Muslims want a universal secular State or a universal Islamic State. Islam like Christianity and secularism cannot deal with the genuinely plural State. Iran is perhaps the one Islamic country that has managed to reconcile Democratic Statecraft with Islam but at the expense of treating non Shia, other religious minorities and secularists as 'inferior citizens'. The Brotherhood in Egypt does not yet have a political philosophy to accommodate the plurality of schisms in Islam let alone plurality of religions and even less to give secularists and atheists the same status as Sunni Muslims. But it was beginning to act with considerable maturity in power. It was showing signs of wider responsibility in the plural State. The Brotherhood in Government was a hope for Sunni Islam reconciling with the Democratic plural State without the despotic power of Kings and dictators. The neighbours weren't too happy. A successful democratic Sunni Islamic State could have given ideas to their subjects. That chance is gone now. If the Brotherhood returns to power, it won't forget why it was toppled. It will probably seek to purge the State of 'secular liberals' as did in Iran. So where now? More likely the next decade is going to be the decade of Islam bumping its way towards an end point in the age of republican States. Between Shia and Sunni. Between Secularists and Islamicists. Between armies, Kings and peoples movements. From Maghreb, down Middle East, Afghanistan to Pakistan. And of course the likes of western strategists such as Blair and Wolfowitz, trying to push their two penny worth of influence in a trajectory where interference matters for not. Miracles can happen. Islam may be the first Abrahamic creed to become pluralistic. It is a contest between Islam choosing to reach Christianity's end point and adopt Secular liberalism, or become Indic and pluralistic. Meanwhile pretentious journalists and pontificating pundits (including me perhaps) will no doubt keep us occupied on TV and internet. Still human beings eventually reach periods of peace. There is an end point.]]> U Keep UKIP tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3299603 2013-05-18T16:09:33-04:00 2013-07-18T05:12:01-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ miracle of Nigel Farrage falling down to earth in a little plane, UKIP has ascended the clouds casting shadows upon other parties. Like 'secular' Indian politicians who turn to holymen for guidance during elections, 'moderate' British leaders are foraging Farrage's ultranationalism for votes. He wants out of Europe, keep out immigrants, keep out wind farms and reintroduce smoking in public houses. A dream-er's charter. I say 'English' nationalism because I doubt Salmon wants Scotland to leave Europe. Some Scottish nationalists made this clear by packing Farrage back in a police van. If a referendum is held now and the English vote to leave EU, Scotland will have an even better excuse to leave UK, to become member of EU. There won't be much of Great Britain left if Northern Ireland and Wales vote for EU. If Britain votes to stay in EU then UK will have lost its most powerful negotiating card. Without the threat of UK leaving, Europeans won't take UK's demands seriously. Either way, 'referendum now' is politically suicidal for England. Cameron is right in insisting 'first renegotiate then hold the referendum'. For some reason, Europe is eager to keep Britain in and might give in to quite a few demands to keep English voters happy. But this entire idea of breaking from Europe and going solo lacks realism. How will UK single compete in a tough economic world on its own. Ukip is harking back to grandiose days of the Empire. What they fail to appreciate is that Britain's colonial economy was based on forced trade, captured markets and taxes on colonised economies. For instance only British sanctioned companies could mine salt in India and it was taxed. That sort of salt economy is history. Today, UK plc has to earn every dollar and rupee. It is up against giants like USA and EU to compete in markets around the world. Are UKIP and others seriously thinking UKsolo can outdo EU's collective bargaining muscle in international trade? UKIP's other policy is as naïve. UKIP doesn't appear to be racist in the mould of National Front. It has changed the immigrations argument from race to 'numbers' and its target appears to be East European migrants. Not difficult to see why. While most Asian and Afro Carribean tradesmen work within their own communities, Eastern Europeans have been able to invade traditional working grounds of white workers, that is white dominated areas, with cheaper rates. Keeping East Europeans out won't increase the purchasing power of people. People will still seek affordable deals or not build that extension at all. Perhaps UKIP members should lobby for waiving of VAT and become competitive, rather than seek French type protective tradesmen's market. Moreover what will happen to the more than million Brits working in Europe. Will Europe retaliate and close doors to British workers? Perhaps UKIP's and Tory soloists' most short sighted vision is the idea that United Kingdom can regain its 'glorious place' in the world by unhinging from Europe. There are inevitable changes emerging on the international scene. Countries once colonised now call the shots in the world. They have been strongly hinting at changing the United Nations Security Council whose membership gives Britain its tremendous clout in the world. Either the Security Council will become redundant as these countries, such as India, Brazil and South Africa, throw their weight around or the Security Council will have to change and include them. One of the three western Security Council members will have to go as the world won't tolerate three from one stable. Chances are that representation in the UN Security Council will be either on regional blocks or civilisations or both. Of the three, USA won't go. The west will sacrifice either France or UK. If UK leaves EU, that will be it. 'Punching beyond our weight will become punching air'. Europe may retain its place collectively or through France. UKsolo will be seen as part of US axis. History shows that the 'special relationship' is more rhetoric than real. The USA doesn't give a toss about UK. At least if UK remains within EU, it will continue to be a big player and can mould EU and international policies. UKIP's agenda is forged by memories of lost power and insecurities in a fast changing world. Fact is that some British are still suffering from post Empire blues. UKIP is right about one thing. England needs to stop wallowing in guilt over the Empire. Empires come and go. The British Empire is history, but there were proud moments as well as bad ones. Now England's future lies in Europe otherwise it will go adrift. The Tories seem to have been contaminated by UKIP's yester year utopia. They are in disarray. Miliband et al have been cool. It seems it remains for Labour to keep a steady head and steer England away from grandiose visions and come to terms with the real world, where competitive advantage is best achieved by forging relationships, networks and partnerships. Fate brought Farrage crashing down to earth, unfortunately his head is still in the clouds with Tories joining while Scotland sent him back to England with Ukeep UKIP.]]> Caste Not Class Is the Main British Problem, Lords tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2989148 2013-03-31T14:02:19-04:00 2013-05-31T05:12:01-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ amendment by the Lords prohibiting an allegedly rampant discrimination in UK. Caste, not class. The evidence for caste discrimination? Last Labour government commissioned a report from NIESR, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which gave a new meaning to 'evidence'. Statements making all sorts of allegations, neither tested nor shown to the accused even in anonymised form, have been called 'qualitative evidence'. It seems academia has a different threshold for evidence than English courts. Labour is keen to fill this microscopic lacunae in English law while ignoring the mega crater of class discrimination. Contrary to its policy, the Labour Government passed over consultation dialogue with accused communities when it introduced caste issue in 2009. The foundation for this legislative initiative has been theories such as 'Aryans invaded India thousands of years ago instituting caste and untouchability!' And apparently facts such as 'Hindus discriminate against other Hindus!' Aided by pious liberalism, 'no one should suffer discrimination on the grounds of anything that they cannot help (except class).' Not to forgo xenophobia, 'and stop people bringing to this country attitudes that are wholly contrary to the traditions of Britain.' Trouble is 'castism' as an attitude was promoted by Britain in the first place since 'caste' as a category is a wholly British colonial construction. An elementary fact is that the word 'caste' has no literal translation in any Indian language. There was untouchability practiced against waste and carcass collectors in some regions of India by some Hindus zealous about hygienic purity. Just as in medieval Europe. It got weaved into a Brahmanic reincarnation theory called Varna theology based on incremental birth cycles before reaching nirvana. This was and is condemned and discarded by Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Muslims and many Hindu traditions too. Indians do have remarkably long persistent social communities called jatis, which are people with common shared history, ethics, dietary habits, sometimes gods and sometimes occupations. As people moved from one region to another, they often changed jatis. Even early colonialists acknowledged that jati system was fluid. It still remains one of the enduring systems resisting wealth based capitalist ordering of society. As in Europe, Indian society was witnessing many revolutionary changes in seventeenth century. But colonialism reversed those. Eighteenth century British orientalists found varna, jati and reform movements all too confusing and challenging. They conflated varna and jati and confabulated a then prevalent European term, 'caste'. This is equivalent of throwing Scottish clans, English 'national superiority' and welsh tribes into one formula, 'race'. 'Caste' was introduced in Indian census forms in 1871. Indians were confused particularly as many didn't accept the varna system and their jatis were often interchangeable. No problem. British orientalist were there to help Indians learn about themselves. Using varna theology as the framework, orientalists squeezed different jatis into a hierarchy with the help of marginalised opportunist groups such as Brahmins who again gained advantage by pushing others into lower status groups. In nineteenth century an entire horror brigade of missionaries, phrenologists, ethnologists, anthropologists, orientalists and wait for it, eugenicists, set about identifying and classifying Indians like zoological specimens into different castes (now 25,000 of them). They used head measurements (Risley 1901), skin colour (Huxley 1869), physique (Elliot), occupation and a few other mad theories that mushroomed during nineteenth century European sciences. Risley, the Chief Commissioner of India's census in 1901 came with the definitive identifying marker of an Indian's caste. 'The social status of a particular group varies in inverse ratio to the mean relative width of their nose!' By 1921, every Indian had a caste. Within a century Indians were transformed from a people with fluid, ever changing complex and plural social systems into a rigid stratified one leaving each individual little option to change. The practices of a few Brahmin groups were universalised in India by colonialism and the achievements of reform movements sunk. India still struggles with this colonial legacy. Privileges, occupations and rights such as civil service, military, judiciary and land ownership etc were handed based on 'caste characteristics'. Others described by orientalists such as Huxley as lazy, dark skinned, broad nosed etc were left with menial jobs. Where there were porous boundaries, discrimination became institutionalised. Even the Aryan invasion theory has been debunked by serious academic research as wishful creative inference by colonial orientalists searching for European origins of Indian civilisation. The British Suprintendent of 1921 Census confessed, ' We pigeon holed everyone by caste and if we could not find a true caste for them, labelled them with the name of hereditary occupation. We deplore the caste system and its effect on social and economic problems, but we are largely responsible for the system we deplore." Some of these internalised colonial infused habits lingered in early migrants to UK. But much has changed as new research destroys orientalist constructions and individualism undermines group myths. Can cliché ridden eighteenth century orientalism be the basis of legislation in twenty first century multi cultural Britain? Obviously it can! Labour and Liberal legislators want to reignite a dying issue in UK. Of course there is some lingering discrimination among handful, but dialogue and mutual action by communities can bring this to an end. Legislation will institutionalise it. The Tory Government prefers dialogue. Two million Sikhs, Hindus and Jains have been judged on orientalist literature without a hearing by Labour and Liberals. Perhaps Rushdie was right when he said migrants were brought here as subject peoples with whom the British can deal, in very much the same way as their predecessors thought of and dealt with. The real issue of class prejudice at the work place? 'People suffer prejudice in this country because of their class and we have no legislation on that', reminded Tory Baroness Stowell of Beeston to her fellow Noble members. Labour and Liberal legislators remain in denial.]]> Lib Dems, Now Really Think of the National Interest, Dump Coalition! tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2554844 2013-01-25T21:26:39-05:00 2013-03-27T05:12:01-04:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ triple dip recession. Even the ultra-conservative IMF has advised Osborne to change course. Like an ostrich, with his head in the sand, Osborne bleats, 'Recession, what recession.' Isn't it time the Lib Dems did something REALLY for the nation. Dump the Tories, precipitate another election and let people decide whether they want to continue to be martyrs to Osborne's austerity mantra. Or elect a Government that will help people to get the economy going. Osborne's economic policy is barmy gradually leading this country to junk status. You cannot pay off a massive loan just by reducing spending and toiling on fixed income but by improving earnings and reduce spending. Osborne's is an economic policy driven by what his rich friends whisper in his ears and psychosis of bankruptcy. Balance the books and phobia of borrowing. But borrowing is the engine of modern economics. Good businesses borrow to invest in expansion, increase market share and plans to make more money. Bad businesses borrow to buy luxury cars for directors while still waiting for a profit. Sensible governments borrow to invest in economic growth. Profligate Governments borrow to buy votes. Unimaginative Governments balance books, without progress. There is no denying that the last Labour Government borrowed too much with an eye on votes rather than economic growth. It bloated its own spending and gave away a lot of unnecessary grants, social welfare money etc. The only growth it relied on was the financial sector's magic mushroom money. Even Brown has admitted that belief in the financial sector was a big mistake. But that is no reason to go into a bunker mentality. Of course Government spending needs to scale down dramatically, particularly where spending adds nothing of real value. Government needs live within its means. But at the same time, the Government NEEDS to borrow to invest in REAL growth. It needs to borrow like any business, to encourage growth in innovative industry, to encourage new enterprise sectors, to enhance skills and to promote consumer spending through infrastructure projects. It needs to increase employment to reduce welfare burden. Even non-economist can see that. IMF sees that. Now Goldman Sachs sees that. But Osborne is waiting for the rich to come in with infrastructure projects, new enterprises and so on. He was naïve to rely on his rich friends to drive economic growth. Yet after two years, he still believes that. Money does not do 'nationalism' even if nationalism does currency. All the rich want is less taxes and have more to invest where ever there is the maximum profit in our globalised world. Paying back the nation by investing here is not in their wish list. The Lib Dems finally realise that after two and half years in the coalition. At least that is what Clegg seems to be hinting at. Clegg said he formed the coalition 'in the national interest' of the nation. Six months ago, he said that he made compromises, 'in the interest' of the nation. Now reality faces LibDems in the face. People are suffering; children are undernourished living in poverty. The country is standing still. Meanwhile we have a Chancellor competing with 'mules' and a Prime Minister driven by UKIP, obsessed with the European behemoth. It is no longer 'in the best interest' of the nation to continue with this sclerotic coalition. Lib Dems should now call it a day with this Government and try and form a coalition with Labour, or precipitate an election in the hope of a coalition with Labour. Whatever Ed Ball's mistakes in the Brown era, once the financial crises faced the country, he did change his thinking. He has been consistent in the last two years. 'Reduce deficit slowly, borrow to invest in growth'. That is exactly where Clegg is now. People want to work. Britain needs a Government that will make it possible for them to work. It is up to the Lib Dems to take the boldest step in the 'best interest of the nation'.]]> Rapes in India, Whose Culture is to Blame? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2420062 2013-01-06T08:06:38-05:00 2013-03-08T05:12:01-05:00 Jasdev Singh Rai http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ blame Indian culture for most of India's social ills, including rape including the recent tragic rape and death of a young medical student. No less than the eminent lawyer Indira Jaising, now Additional Solicitor General of India ended her BBC Today interview by saying that self correcting mechanisms were missing in Indian Society! She was subtly repeating one of the Indian State's most used excuse when defending its own mindboggling failures to enforce laws against rape (1 in 600 convictions), gender violence, child labour, corruption etc. 'Not us Gov', it's them, the people, they are backwards'. Why Indians permit their State to get away with portraying 'them' just short of barbarians is a surprise. Why Indians, led by their women, have expressed their anger at the State and its institutions in this case is no surprise. They haven't been protesting in front of cultural icons such as Mandirs or Mosques. Indians are not fooled by cliché theories, 'rape is the result of sons favoured by culture'. They know that the rot is in the very nature of the Indian State irrespective of which political party rules. Culture did not stop the police prancing around for hours before finally covering and taking the raped woman to hospital nor influence the indignity she experienced at the hospital. Culture does not prevent the 'enlightened' Police Chiefs from demanding better rates of prosecutions from their juniors. Nor does it stop the world savvy Indian judiciary using a lower threshold of evidence in rape cases or the activist Indian Supreme Court from ordering an enquiry on low conviction rates. Demonstrating women say they are afraid of reporting cases because of the attitude of the police, degrading medical examination techniques and the near zero conviction rate which leaves them with stigmas. They are cynical about another commission, another 'independent' body, another series of laws and of course now fast track courts. The Indian State, notwithstanding what political party governs, can boast of bodies and progressive laws that make the UN appear illiberal. There are laws against dowry, against extravagant marriages, child labour, corruption, caste discrimination, gender foeticide, rape and even rape in marriage. Yet India excels in almost all these social evils. Rapes, violence and other crimes occur around the world where there is breakdown of order, lack of proper governance or accountability. Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, Egypt, USA (Katrina) and even Afghanistan. Every rapist knows that he is doing wrong. No culture sanctions rape however misogynist it maybe. Rape occurs in high numbers even in 'enlightened western' countries, including UK. The issue in India is bad bad governance. In fact it is the very nature of the Indian State and its governing document, the Constitution. It is framed as 'ammendment' of the Government of India Act 1935 which was the 'last hurrah' of British colonialism to rule 'over' Indians, not 'for' Indians. Indians were asking for greater participation. Participation without real oversight was all Indians got. The Constitution gives almost unmitigated power to the executive and its branches without appropriate checks and balances or accountability as the Act did for the British. What good are laws if the bodies meant to ensure compliance have no effective accountability. Democracy itself does not transform a colonial system to one of the people, by the people, for the people if the governing document and the institutions retain all the trappings of a colonial power. The British did not expect Indians to carry on with the 1935 Act. Neither did ordinary Indians. Unbridled power corrupts. It encourages brutality and indifference. Rapes by security forces are part of the State armoury in major regional struggles such as Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and formerly Punjab. One in three of Indian Parliamentarians face criminal charges, including murder and rape! Several police officers around the country face criminal charges but continue in their posts. The Director General of Police of Punjab was appointed while facing charges of abduction and intended murder! This has nothing to do with culture of the people. It has everything to do with culture of the State. People's attitudes are influenced by what their leaders get away with. What good is an even stricter law if an alleged rapist in India can become a legislator. It is the ultimate insult. Others with access to money and power can buy justice by bribing police, judges and politicians. If the Indian STATE is serious about rule of law and protecting the women of India, perhaps it can start with the Lok Sabha (Parliament). The Indian President inherited extraordinary powers from colonialism to enact law for six months without legislative approval. So why not use article 123 powers once for the 'benefit' of the people rather than 'against' people with more 'detention laws'. Introduce an Ordinance immediately suspending all MPs facing criminal charges, set up fast track courts and decide whether they are fit to govern, uphold the constitution and respect the dignity of people of India! Two years ago veteran Gandhian, Anna Hazare started a movement against State corruption with poignant words 'second war for independence'. It has been drowned in misrepresentations. The 'them' (Indian society) need to bring the State under their control to reclaim dignity. What India and its women need is a corrective against a narcissist State obsessed with power than its 'citizens'.]]>


text:
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — Two days from judgment by the voters, President Barack Obama raced through four far-flung battleground states on Sunday while Mitt Romney ventured into traditionally Democratic Pennsylvania, seeking a breakthrough in a close race he mused aloud he might lose.
Appearing before some of the largest crowds of the campaign, the two rivals stressed their differences on the economy, health care and more while professing an eagerness to work across party lines and end gridlock in Washington.
DENVER (AP) — In a showdown at close quarters, President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney sparred aggressively in their first campaign debate Wednesday night over taxes, deficits and strong steps needed to create jobs in a sputtering national economy. "The status quo is not going to cut it," declared the challenger.
Obama in turn accused his rival of seeking to "double down" on economic policies that actually led to the devastating national downturn four years ago.
Our Websites/Apps
Our Products
A-J Services
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal ©2016. All Rights Reserved.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Posted by Dean Davison on the B2B Marketing Professionals Blog on January 14, 2011
I hear you! My earlier post about battle cards, and my title in particular, confused some readers. By outlining some of the problems with battle cards that have surfaced in our current research on the topic without providing a clear context of where battle cards are headed, I did not play out my cards effectively. My bad; thanks for the feedback.
Here is what we are up to and why: We are in the process of interviewing competitive intelligence professionals and reviewing a raft of tech industry battle cards. Our research to date shows that the wide range of purposes -- and the inconsistency of content -- in battle cards are undermining the value to sales reps at many tech vendors. This lack of a clear design point and focus on content that will be useful to the buyer -- and thus usable by the rep -- is making many battle cards mushy -- but not all of them!
At companies where battle cards are successful, they are very successful.
Effective battle cards provide valuable talking points that lie at the intersection of buyer expectations and needs and the product advantages and competitive differentiators that satisfy those needs. Great battle cards don't deluge sales reps with facts out of context, but rather equip reps with usable insights to engage customers about meeting their needs. That is what we are finding so far.
Our purpose in researching battle cards is to identify what makes them successful and to develop a design point and methodology for creating great ones. Our research indicates that as the tech industry moves toward outcome selling, sales battle cards will become one of the important vehicles that portfolio teams will use to enable their sales channels.
Posted by Dean Davison on the B2B Marketing Professionals Blog on January 12, 2011
We recently interviewed dozens of sales enablement professionals within the tech vendor community. These interviews painted a less-than-ideal picture of how sales teams value and use competitive battle cards – that competitive battle cards are a relic from out-dated selling models.
Battle cards still focus on products – just as they did in the days when customers purchased one product over another based on a side-by-side comparison of their features. In those days, competitive intelligence teams created battle cards about competitors – their company financials, products, sales tactics, and weaknesses – literally for sales reps to keep in their pocket.
A sampling of battle cards that we collected from across the tech industry confirms that battle cards are fashioned from a product point of view and often created because they are among the checklist of items for product managers when creating sales content. Today, portfolio managers also use the term "battle card' for almost anything prepared for sales teams. In addition to competitive battle cards, we uncovered materials labeled as battle cards that talked about:
Posted by Dean Davison on the B2B Marketing Professionals Blog on December 17, 2010
Leaders of competitive and market intelligence teams know that something is wrong. They tell Forrester this every day. They describe it as being similar to when your car doesn't drive quite right, but the mechanic can't find a problem, or when you feel sick, but the doctor gives you a clean bill of health.
You know that something needs to change, but can't seem to find a point of view to guide you toward the right way to change.
The most frequently used word to describe this problem is "credibility" — and is usually couched in questions such as "how can we build credibility with sales?" or "why isn't our content credible with sales teams?" Forrester's practice serving sales enablement professionals will discuss the challenge of building CMI credibility with sales during our February teleconference.
Across the tech industry, marketing and portfolio teams place massive amounts of content into sales portals and measure their success from the usage data — views, downloads, prints — from these repositories. During a recent research interview, one sales rep at a leading software company said, "I know that a lot of materials are supposed to be on our sales portals, but in my nine years, I haven't ever taken the time to look."
Your supply chain is broken if a sales rep can succeed for a decade without ever using your materials or even visiting the primary site holding your content!
Posted by Dean Davison on the B2B Marketing Professionals Blog on October 29, 2010
A few years ago, I took the helm of customer & market intelligence (CMI) for a large vendor. Executives wanted analysis that was more relevant — intelligence that was "deeper," "more actionable," and provided "knock-out punches."
As a CMI leader, you likely hear the same thing. But, as you try to improve, you get feedback such as "the material is not helpful," "looks the same as before," or "isn't specific enough."
In hindsight, if I were to join a CMI team again, I would take a completely different approach — instead of trying to refine the research itself, I would change the design point.
CMI's sales-oriented purpose is to prepare sales teams for customer conversations!
Earlier this week, during an interview with Forrester, a CMI leader commented, "CMI can make a strategic impact on sales because it prepares sales teams about important topics and potential surprises in customer conversations."
But across the tech industry, CMI is not succeeding:
Posted by Dean Davison on the B2B Marketing Professionals Blog on October 3, 2010
Successful sales enablement reaches beyond just sales. Marketing functions such as customer and market intelligence (CMI) supply materials to your direct sales teams. This content can significantly improve sales impact if it is timely, relevant, and in-context, which for CMI means:
Posted by Dean Davison on the B2B Marketing Professionals Blog on October 2, 2010
The words of "War," Edwin Starr's 1969 Motown classic, began ringing in my head this morning. It was brought on by a Harvard Business Review blog post by Steve W. Martin, "Why Sales and Marketing Are at Odds — or Even War." Within tech vendors, sales and marketing teams often fail to communicate or align go-to-market strategies. Forrester's sales enablement visionary Scott Santucci discussed the different languages of sales and marketing in his blog over two years ago. As for my own experience with sales and marketing:
A few years ago, I sat with the chief marketing officer and chief sales officer of a Fortune 100 tech vendor. The conversation didn't focus on customer problems, which should be the starting point for sales enablement professionals. The conversation didn't focus on sales efficiency issues such as sales cycle duration or win rates, which should be critical imperatives for all sales and marketing professionals. Each of these executives controlled massive budgets but neither one sincerely trusted the other. Their words were about aligning sales and marketing programs, but the real conversation, when read between the lines, was about control, boundaries, and politics. They were at war!


text:
Bonnie Bruno
Bonnie Bruno is a professional writer whose books for families and children include The Young Reader's Bible, an ECPA bestseller. Bonnie lives in Albany, Oregon with Nick, her husband of 30-something years, where she enjoys camping, photography, and spending time with her grandchildren.
There are no products matching the selection.


text:
A week remains before the deadline for Washington's all-mail Nov. 6 election, but hundreds of thousands of people in King County already have put their ballots in the mail or drop boxes.
A week remains before the deadline for Washington's all-mail Nov. 6 election, but hundreds of thousands of people in King County already have put their ballots in the mail or drop boxes.
Call them the "decided" voters.
About 367,000 ballots had been received by King County Elections as of Tuesday, according to spokeswoman Kim van Ekstrom. That's more than a third of the roughly 1 million ballots King County expects to be cast.
Snohomish County reported more than 108,000 ballots in hand on Tuesday, and Pierce County had more than 126,000 ballots returned to its elections offices.
- Power restored after major, hour-long outage in downtown Seattle
- Trump, Clinton win Washington state primary
- Designed in Seattle, this $1 cup could save millions of babies
- Boeing plans hundreds of layoffs in local IT unit
- Walkoff magic! Leonys Martin's dramatic homer in ninth lifts Mariners
Most Read Stories
King County is projecting 87 percent voter turnout. That's substantially higher than the statewide projection of 81 percent turnout by Secretary of State Sam Reed, and higher than other nearby counties. Pierce County, for example, is projecting 80 percent. King County's voter turnout in 2008 was 84 percent.
But van Ekstrom said that, so far, King County's high turnout prediction is holding up based on the votes arriving by mail.
"We're a little ahead of where we thought we would be," she said. The county had 60,000 new voter registrations since June, she added.
Statewide turnout hit a record of nearly 85 percent in the 2008 election.
Ballots must be dropped off or postmarked by Tuesday, Nov. 6, to be valid.


text:
"Fly fishing spoken here"
Welcome to our new web site, exclusively for fly anglers.
Love fly fishing for smallmouth bass?
You've come to the right place
- Over a Dozen New Patterns -
Also Check out our new
"Big Fish Flies" Selection--
Tried, True and Tested, they have
each caught thousands of fish.
- Still Spring Spots -
2016 Ontario
Fly Fishinig
Slippery Winds
Fly-In Lodge
in Ontario
Spring Trip:
-- May 22 - May 27, 2016 --
Summer Trip:
July 10 - July 15, 2016 FULL
- Detect More Strikes -
- Catch More Fish -
Best Smallmouth DVD Ever
The best instructional DVD
ever filmed on fly fishing
for smallmouth bass
Guided River Trips
More Guides -- More Dates Available
Tim's Travels
Tim Holschlag loves to travel and fish new waters. Just last year he spent 123 days out of state, fishing across North America.
Read about Tim's best destinations
Lake Michigan Flats (NEW)
We would love to hear your travel stories, too!
Do you have an idea for a new feature or new product?
Send us an e-mail with your ideas and comments
Smallmouth Fly Angler, brought to you by Tim Holschlag, is devoted to the finest fish in our waters, smallmouth bass, and the special joys of fly fishing for them.
We are all about smallmouth bass fly fishing, plus added features on other warmwater species.
You'll find plenty of information about how, where and why to fly-fish for smallies, wherever you live.
We give smallies the respect they deserve, and want to share with you the special joys of smallie angling.
Welcome aboard!


text:
- Top of page
- Abstract
- Materials and methods
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Acknowledgments
- Supporting Information
The Val66Met, G196A (rs6265) polymorphism in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene, BDNF, located at 11p13, has been associated with a wide range of cognitive functions. Yet, the pattern of results is complex and conflicting. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis that included 23 publications containing 31 independent samples comprised of 7095 individuals. The phenotypes that were examined in this analysis covered a wide variety of cognitive functions and included indicators of general cognitive ability, memory, executive function, visual processing skills and cognitive fluency. The meta-analysis did not establish significant genetic associations between the Val66Met polymorphism and any of the phenotypes that were included.


text:
For nine months, Chris and Linda LaMunyon prepared for the arrival of their first child, a son they named Joshua Caden.
They painted the walls of the nursery. They bought a brown wooden crib and matching changing table.
They read books for expectant parents. They went to classes to prepare for birth and parenthood.
Joshua was born at 1:19 a.m. May 9. He weighed 8 pounds, 9 ounces and was 21½ inches long.
He died 37 minutes later.
Linda and Chris wouldn't have years or months or even days with their son. Instead, they had minutes.
But those minutes, and several more after his death, were forever captured by a photographer's camera.
A photo of baby Joshua getting his first bath. A snapshot of Linda and Chris cradling their son. The image of Joshua's little hand placed on top of his parents'.
"That's all you have. You only have those moments. We had 37 minutes. That's it. The pictures are so much of his life," Chris said.
The pictures came courtesy of Battle Ground photographer Amy Buma and a national program called Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep
Time, talent donated
The program was founded in 2005 by a woman who had to remove her 6-day-old son from life support and the professional photographer who captured images of her child. The program now administers a network of more than 7,000 photographers across the country, including 21 in the Portland/Vancouver area.
Buma is one of those photographers who donates her talent and time free of charge to families who have lost a child. She's the area coordinator for Legacy Salmon Creek Medical Center, where Joshua was born, and is on call 24/7.
Buma makes her living taking photographs of pregnancies and births. But through the program she's photographed stillborn babies and parents removing their child from respirators. She captured images of tiny hands and feet and swaddled babies who died too soon.
"I feel very honored to be able to get their baby's only pictures," Buma said.
One of Buma's framed photos sits on the fireplace in the LaMunyons' Salmon Creek home. Down the hall in the nursery, Joshua's memory lives among the images of lions holding soccer balls and monkeys playing basketball.
A photo of Joshua appearing to sleep peacefully rests in his crib. A collage of photos of Joshua, Linda and Chris sits on the changing table that's never been used. Plaster models of Joshua's hands and feet are displayed near the framed pictures.
On the days when Linda is feeling sad, she walks into her son's room and has "baby time." She looks at the photos and cries over what she lost — a healthy baby boy who had a strong heartbeat but died unexpectedly.
"It justifies my pain," she said. "That's why it hurt. He's beautiful."
Helping with hurt
The photos also gave the LaMunyons the opportunity to show their friends and family the baby they will never get the chance to meet. They displayed the photos at Joshua's funeral and printed images of the baby in the service program.
"Had we just shared a story it wouldn't be the same," Chris said.
The photos are helping the LaMunyons and their loved ones get through the hurt. And, one day, the photos will allow Linda and Chris' future children to know their older brother.
While Linda held Joshua at the hospital, Chris said he tried to take photos of his son. As much as he wanted to capture the image of Joshua, he couldn't bring himself to push the camera's button.
So Buma came into their hospital room at 3 a.m. and captured the moments for them.
At the time, Buma remains calm and unemotional for the parents. The tears come later when she goes home and hugs her three children.
"When I get a call, before I even leave home, I pray for strength because I can't screw up this job," she said.
While the photos captured the LaMunyons in a time of tragedy, they also represent joy, Linda said.
They had the chance to hold their son, kiss him, swoon over him.
And Buma captured all of those tender moments.
"You only have a moment, and then he's taken away," Chris said. "But the moments are caught."
Marissa Harshman: 360-735-4546; http://twitter.com/col_health; http://facebook.com/reporterharshman; email@example.com.


text:
Best Places To Buy Father's Day Gifts In Los AngelesWhen it comes to Father's Day gifts, you have to get creative and living in Los Angeles makes that aspect a lot easier.
Best Spots In Los Angeles For A Father's Day Drink With DadHere are some of the best places in L.A. where loved ones can salute dear ol' dad with a good drink and memorable experience on his special day.
Best Restaurants For Father's Day Brunch In Orange County Whether he's the type of guy who likes a cool ocean breeze with his meal, or a little art and culture, there's a perfect brunch spot out there for him.
What You're Eating - Best Father's Day Brunches In LASo what do you get the dad who has everything for Father's Day? Reservations of course! Dad deserves only the best for his special day, so make sure to impress him by taking him to one of these L.A. brunch spots serving up special menus just for Father's Day. You'll both be glad you did!
Best Experience Gifts For Dad On Father's DayWhen it comes to giving gifts for Father's Day, everyone can give a t-shirt or a tie, but how about giving dad something he won't soon forget?
Best Restaurants For Father's Day Dinner Weekend In Los AngelesFather's Day is approaching and if you have the sort of dad that already has everything, a nice dinner will always be well received.
5 Books To Give Dad For Father's Day GiftsDads can be tough to shop for. But don't let the pressure of finding the perfect Father's Day gift fill you with dread. Whether he's into baseball, history or humor, our sister company Simon & Schuster has a book that your dad will love.
Best Spots In OC For A Father's Day Drink With DadFathers Day is quickly approaching. Why not spend some time bonding with your dad, instead of gifting the usual card, BBQ sauce, tie or quick phone call? From wine bars to British pubs, here are some excellent places in Orange County to try out for a nice Father's Day drink with your old man.
Best Restaurants For Father's Day Dinner Weekend In OCFather's Day falls on June 21st this year and finding the right way to show your gratitude is not difficult. Give dad a break this year from the barbeque and treat him out to a great dinner at some of the best restaurants in the Southern California region.
Best Places To Buy Father's Day Gifts In Orange CountyYou could be like a lot of other people and get your dad a tie for Father's Day, or you could get him something he'll enjoy and remember.
5 Gifts For Dad That Will Make Him Feel Like A Kid AgainThis Father's Day, skip the neckties and coffee mugs and give dad something he can really use: A reminder of his youth.
Best Activities To Celebrate Father's Day In OCIf you want to show a little more imagination than buying your dad a tie for Father's Day, here are some of the best ways to do it.