KAL

I am guilty of thinking this was much ado about nothing – some farmers agreed to sell; they get money for the land. They can’t change their mind. Certainly those whose land was taken away without their consent deserve it back – but the main issue remains, we in the cities think the farmers are getting a good deal and they should grab it. As Anand says:

In the prosperous cities, they sneered: Don’t they get it? They want land, not money? But the urban sneerers were early adopters. They may not realize it, but they live on a grid of advantages. They have bank accounts. They know how to invest. They have the ethic of thrift and saving that moneyed families pass down the generations.

The late adopters live in an economy of land, a universe where barter still operates, where status and prestige and security still come from the earth, and where the choice to join an urban, moneyed existence feels ever less like a meaningful choice.

More importantly, the middle class and above have become disenchanted with politics and politicians. This is a worrying trend – political power has shifted to the rural population and we urbanites have accepted it and moved on.

Anand Giridhardas writing in the IHT talks about these changes:

The great fault line today is not between wealthy and poor, but between those still invested in this society and those who have effectively checked out.

The checked-out classes love to read feel-good stories. The newspapers oblige, burying news about flooding and hunger and millions of easily averted deaths, depriving India’s change agents of knowledge of what needs changing.

The comfortable follow politics the way others follow heavyweight boxing. Over Black Labels with soda and ice, they grumble about spectacles like the ideas-free parliamentary debate. But they rarely vote, rarely run for office themselves and rarely work to reverse things. The disinterest of the thinking classes frees politicians to play their game unsupervised, with the pesky duty every five years to gather the consent of the unlettered poor.

Some nice gems in the interview.

Asked to reminisce about the old days:

“In Iran, in 1973, if you had blue jeans and a watch, people would
follow you down the street, saying ‘Please, sir, sell me your watch,
sell me your jeans.’ In Mashhad, I sold a pair of jeans for $15, quite
a lot of money, because they were real American blue jeans and everyone
wanted American blue jeans. It was cool. Hippies would go, and bring
three or four pairs and sell them in Iran, in Afghanistan.”

Asked what’s changed since:

“Some places haven’t changed much — Burma, for
instance. I still call it that . . . Burma. And the places that have
changed radically — like India — were hard to understand. It was
hard, hard, to understand where India’s going. The people there are
lost in the change. Bangalore, for one, and a lot of other parts of
India can’t keep pace with the change. They can’t build roads fast
enough, airports fast enough . . . It’s as though they’re all having a
nervous breakdown

“But I love traveling in India,” Mr. Theroux
continues, “because Indians are approachable. If I were traveling in
the U.S. and asked people some of the questions I ask in India, I’d get
a very dusty answer. People would say ‘Who are you?’ ‘You work for the
government?’ When you’re in India, you can ask, ‘Where do you live,
what do you do, how much do you earn, how many children do you have?’
It’s the accessible poor. You can do that in Southeast Asia, too. But
in America you can’t. Try asking those questions in Jackson,
Mississippi.”

About Japan:

“Hmm . . . let me think,” he responds, playing with his chin. “Japan
doesn’t have suspicion of strangers. They just have an utter lack of
interest. They have a settled sense of themselves as an advanced
culture, a sense that other people aren’t doing things right. They
think their food is best, their way of living is best. They lack space,
but in all other ways they feel they’ve got it figured out.”

And then golden one – Singapore:

“Singapore,” he says, stressing the “pore” and raising
visions of muggy, tropical discomfort. “Singapore is an example of a
place where people are self-conscious in the presence of foreigners,
because they feel that you’re going to criticize them for having
accommodated themselves to their government and this way of living.

“It’s like a gated community. You go in definitely
feeling (a) that you don’t belong there, (b) that they’re not
particularly interested in your staying there, and (c) that they’re
very, very defensive. They feel they have to explain why they’ve
settled for Singapore. And do you know, the sex trade there is booming,
but their boast is, ‘These aren’t Singapore girls . . . they’re
Burmese, they’re Vietnamese, they’re Filipina . . . but not us!’”

An article in the NY Times questions Pakistan’s loyalty. The Americans seem to have just woken up. But seriously, the direction is taking is really a ticking time bomb with real bad implications for India.

For once, Pakistan needs to get over it’s obesession with India and create an identity for itself that different from being “not-India”. Grow up guys, there is a whole world out there and lots of problems to solve in both our countries. So let’s not waste people by blowing them up.

His vision of pan-Arabia Islam with him as the Caliph did not materialize. The Muslim world did not stand up together when America invaded Iraq – quite simply most of Muslim world are engaged in their own battle – to stay in power…

The big losers are countries that not only have to import oil but
also are heavily industrialized relative to their economy. Countries in
which service makes up a larger sector than manufacturing obviously use
less oil for critical economic functions than do countries that are
heavily manufacturing-oriented. Certainly, consumers in countries such
as the United States are hurt by rising prices. And these countries’
economies might slow. But higher oil prices simply do not have the same
impact that they do on countries that both are primarily
manufacturing-oriented and have a consumer base driving cars.

East Asia has been most affected by the combination of sustained
high oil prices and disruptions in the food supply. Japan, which
imports all of its oil and remains heavily industrialized (along with
South Korea), is obviously affected. But the most immediately affected
is China, where shortages of diesel fuel have been reported. China’s
miracle — rapid industrialization — has now met its Achilles’ heel:
high energy prices.

Now the we know who the losers are, it’s time to see the winners – and unsurprisingly the answer is the countries of the Arabian Peninsla and Russia helping the rise of Russia.

The Chinese dilemma is present throughout Asia. But just as Asia is the
big loser because of long-term high oil prices coupled with food
disruptions, Russia is the big winner. Russia is an exporter of natural
gas and oil. It also could be a massive exporter of grains if prices
were attractive enough and if it had the infrastructure (crop failures
in Russia are a thing of the past). Russia has been very careful, under
Vladimir Putin, not to assume that energy prices will remain high and
has taken advantage of high prices to accumulate substantial foreign
currency reserves. That puts them in a doubly-strong position.
Economically, they are becoming major players in global acquisitions.
Politically, countries that have become dependent on Russian energy
exports — and this includes a good part of Europe — are vulnerable,
precisely because the Russians are in a surplus-cash position. They
could tweak energy availability, hurting the Europeans badly, if they
chose. They will not need to. The Europeans, aware of what could
happen, will tread lightly in order to ensure that it doesn’t happen.