A new revolution?

Iran stands on the cusp of a revolution. It may seem presumptuous to state so; after all, can a few thousands or millions on the street really shake a 30 year old regime? I say 'shake' because the stated aims of the protesters is not to uproot the 'Islamic' part of the Islamic Republic of Iran; it is to emphasize the 'Republic' part. And that would be an important step forward.

Ever since the Revolution of 1979, the conservative factions of the Iranian people have systematically silenced the more reformist and liberal voices in their society. A nation that was once at the vanguard of globalization (the Persian Empire, the Safavids) now turned its back on the world and chose to stay secluded within the walls. They have denied their people the right to choose their leaders, those who will rule the nation in their name; true, they have elections, but the candidates aren't always those who want to serve; they are those who want to serve and are 'permitted' to serve. Permitted by whom, pray? For in a democracy, in a Republic, that was founded on the rage of the people against a tyrannical king, who save the people can permit someone to serve them? To presume otherwise is to subvert the will of the people.

True, Iran isn't just another Republic; it is a theocratic republic, guided by its clergy, the 'incorruptibles'. Whether they truly aren't susceptible to human emotions and prejudices is a matter of debate, but even they cannot be entirely trusted not to take care of their own power source at the expense of those whom they are to 'serve'. It's a classic case of a conflict of interest: to loosen up would endear them to the masses, but may mean a reduction in their authority; to tighten down may earn them the undying hatred of the people, but will ensure that they enjoy absolute power for their lifetimes (or till they can muster the brute-force to silence their critics).

Critics of Mousavi's protests state that he, being just as much a creature of the Revolution as Ahmadinejad, cannot be trusted with genuine reform. Mousavi's intentions are best known to him, but the courage and the determination that he has shown to challenge the establishment, to suggest that there's something rotting in the system, is admirable and worthy of being emulated. Gorbachev too was a dyed-in-the-wool Communist, but his perestroika and glasnost were genuine attempts to reform the Soviet state before it imploded on its own people; that they failed were both his and his people's misfortune. Mousavi promises more, because the people back him, and yet the perils of failure are even more.

What is more important is that for the first time the reformists have gained a slightly upper hand over the conservatives. Khatami received a mandate but couldn't get past the clergy's machinations; his failures meant that Ahmadinejad seemed a better bet the last time around. This time, it's time for change, and the Iranian people must raise their voices, for their lives, for Iran.

P.S. I find this song to be particularly poignant and pertinent to the situation. Especially the lives "We're not going to live in silence; we're not going to live in fear. This time we know we all can stand together. We have the power to be powerful, believing we can make it better."

Talking about the news

I haven't written much in fifteen days and there have been so many things to write and talk about, so here's my take on a few of them.

Iran:

Where do we go from here, is a question most Iranians and their neighbours and perhaps everyone else in the world is asking themselves now.

Just 30 years ago, similarly furious denunciations of the system that is, a desire to change the course of government caused a Revolution, a revolution that changed the very manner in which people would now view the Middle East and Iran. Relations between Iran and the world haven't quite been as normal as before.

Ahmadinejad is widely seen as a rabble rouser and a hard line leader, a hawk when it comes to Israel and the US, and somehow in the changed geopolitics with Obama's ascent and the coalition pulls and pushes in Israel, Ahmadinejad's stubbornness and belligerent tone does more harm than good to both Iran and the world. His confidence perhaps arises from the abundant resources of oil and natural gas at the disposal of the Iranian state and the currently high prices of these resources, but sadly he has failed to use satisfactorily the previous windfall, giving no reason to believe that he will do a better job now.

What will Mousavi's followers unleash on Iran and the world this time around is anyone's guess, but if Iran is showing any signs of moving away from an autocratic clergy-controlled 'democracy' to a truly representative one, those changes would be a welcome one.

• Why Obama isn't showing more outrage about the Iranian elections

India:

The 'racial' attacks issue pertaining to Indian students in Australia and Canada seems to have lost its lustre, at least in the eyes of the media. I guess we all suffer from a very short attention span, needing very fast changes of topics to keep ourselves interested in life, a sort of short-term memory loss à la Ghajini. That these attacks themselves have not ceased is a given, because these attacks are not the first on international students and frankly they will not be the last, no matter how hard we may wish to believe to the contrary. In a comment to my last blog on this issue, a reader said that sometimes simple vandalism and hooliganism hides beneath the cloak of racism; it's diversionary tactics at its best.

What we need to do is to protect ourselves, within the ambit of the law of the land. To be truthful, most people find it easy to single out international students because such students are literally neon-lit signboards saying 'I am different', an open invitation to be harassed. While retaining one's cultural and ethnic idiosyncrasies is one's personal choice and right, when in Rome, at least try to do as the Romans do; don't be like the barbarian at the gates, or at least don't give that impression. In the end, God helps those who help themselves, but an eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

The United Kingdom:

Gordon Brown must love roller coaster rides. From the dizzying height of being acclaimed the saviour of the free world economy to being denounced as a useless, good-for-nothing, self-centered, obnoxious and uninspiring git must have been quite a journey, and that too when it happens within just six months. But then in politics, a week's a long time. Mr. Brown's colleagues are either being implicated in the expenses scandal and are being forced to resign (a bloody good thing too, and something I want to see replicated in India; 90% of our fat cats would be out on the street then) or are leaving the sinking ship themselves, with no implied allusions to the rodent class.

In the end, Mr. Brown's woes are emanating from the fact that he is an unelected leader, thrust upon the people. So far, our Manmohanji was also sharing the ignominy, but with the recent election results, he's our leader, by our choice, not Madam's alone. Somehow the people of the UK haven't quite gotten over the magic of Blair and the fact that Brown is to some extent responsible for not having done enough to control the wildly spiralling economy when Chancellor of the Exchequer makes him no one's Darling (poor Alistair, being forced to clean up Gordie's mess).

Well that's all for now.

Going down under....

The crisis in Australia with regards to racist attacks on Indian students has now blown over into a full-scale evaluation of whether Australia as a nation is racist. While it is unfair to judge an entire country for the misdeeds of a few demented individuals, one must bear in mind that a country is made up of its people, no matter what be their ideology, and the country must in effect take some of the brickbats for their views and opinions. 

Australia is not new to accusations that it is racist, perhaps more because of the White Australia policy followed till the mid-1970's. While Australia wasn't alone at that time in trying to limit the numbers of non-Caucasian and non-European immigrants, 

it certainly was the most determined of the lot, perhaps following South Africa in its zeal. While the architects of the policy stated that it had been justified by fears of a potential deterioration of living standards with the influx of such immigrants, their own views at other fora spelt things otherwise. The chief architect, Alfred Deakin, stated then, and I quote, "It is not the bad qualities, but the good qualities of these alien races that make them so dangerous to us. It is their inexhaustible energy, their power of applying themselves to new tasks, their endurance and low standard of living that make them such competitors." A fine reason to exclude people from your land...

The current financial crisis and the fact that India and China remain amongst the few economies that were relatively unscathed and are finding it comparitively easier to tide over the storm means that an already uneasy local populace has even more to fear from Indians and Chinese. Racism, to my mind, is a manifestation of the innermost fears and anxieties of the locals about the security of their livelihood, about their ability to compete with the immigrant population and their belief that even if they are unsuited for the job in question, they ought to receive the job, merely because they are the locals. This policy is akin to the sons-of-the-soil policy in India, and is no less deplorable. 

In a globalised world, no nation can maintain its exclusivity. Australian mines served during the good times the industries of India and China, illustrating the link between the nations. But if, when the going gets tough, people wish to look inwards and cut off their links to the world, there is no greater tragedy in progress. If there is one nation that akin to the United States has welcomed those whom their homelands forsook or threw out, it is Australia. 

Just as the US has benefited from the toils of its immigrants, so also has Australia. And they continue to do so. That in these times one's race makes one susceptible to hate crimes is not only tragic; it's fundamentally stupid and reprehensible.

The financial crisis has served to underline that the veins of the global economy run deep in every nation and every part of the globe. Tremors felt in one part are equally felt somewhere right across the planet, underlining the fact that there is no such thing as a localised issue anymore, at least not one that concerns trade, commerce and the exchange of ideas and opinions. We must be prepared to welcome people of all colours and hues, of all backgrounds, so long as they consent and submit themselves to the rule of law and do nothing to subvert the safety of our nations. Their ideas combined with ours could yield better results; that they are darker in skin tone doesn't lessen in any manner the value of their opinion nor does our being fair-skinned increase our ideas' worth.

One could look sympathetically at the concerns of common Australians and perhaps explain away these acts of madness, but somewhere one knows that this approach is not enough. That these concerns exist is true, but then they exist everywhere. Such acts haven't taken place there with such ferocity, have they? Though this is madness, there is a certain method to it, and failure to recognize the patterns could prove very dangerous for everyone concerned. The callousness and reluctance on the part of the local authorities to accept that there is something wrong makes matters worse. One wishes that those perpetrating these crimes remember that hate injures the hater more than the hated. The authorities would also do well to remember Mary Shelley's words where she says that it isn't charity but justice that is wanting in the world. If there are noxious weeds that are poisoning the crop of Australians, the authorities must be swift in uprooting them. Till such time, as Marcellus said, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.