Terrorist Strike in China

A few hours ago, there was a terror strike in Kashgar, a small city in Xinjiang (Western China). The city lies very close to the Chinese border with Kyrgyzstan, and the Karakoram Highway connects Kashgar to Pakistan.

Sixteen policemen died in the grenade attack launched by two men. The attack has raised some serious concerns about security during the Olympics, even though Kashgar is thousands of kilometers away from Beijing.

Initial speculation seems to center around the issue of a recent crackdown by the government, whereby many Uyghur people (who are Sunni Muslims) were arrested on suspicion of being involved in terrorist activities. The Telegraph reports:

The authorities in Beijing have repeatedly warned that terrorism is a major threat to the Games, and have staged a series of raids on Uighurs both in Xinjiang and elsewhere in the country to break up what they said were "terror cells".

If you ask me, Islamic terrorism seems to have caught up with China. The world is watching.

Will The Government Survive?

There aren't too many people putting their guesses on record. Let me stick my neck out and say that I think the government will survive.

Unfortunately, this is only a hunch, so I have little reasoning to offer except what has been outlined in the post to which I just linked: those in power can afford to offer a lot more incentives than those outside power.

One blogger is going to live blog the vote of confidence. Keep an eye on it.

Liberalize Others, Not Us

The Indian media, which is usually leading the pack in calling for more liberalization across all sectors of the economy, is scared of liberalization of the Media. Vested interests are threatened, and their reaction is entirely predictable:

The government's move to allow Indian editions of foreign news and current affairs magazines has drawn flak from political parties, leading editors and opinion-makers who feel that this would undermine the media's right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Constitution, and will be detrimental for the Indian media.

You can read the rest of the article if one-sided coverage is your thing.

I am quite surprised that one of the arguments being proffered against liberalization of media is the "media's right to freedom of expression", because it makes no sense whatsoever. The other line of argument is that it will be "detrimental for the Indian media", which could be true if you change it to "detrimental for the owners of Indian media" because competition will probably reduce the profit margins.

The common man can only gain from such liberalization, because competition usually leads to better quality. As it is, the quality of news coverage in the India media can't possibly get any worse. This is why I find this quote from the article quite hilarious:

Nai Dunia chief editor Abhay Chhajlani agreed with Raut on the issue of the decisive role played by the media. Chhajlani said that foreign investors would focus on profitable returns and not on the providing people with a product that was suited to their ethos. (emphasis mine)

Yeah, right. Is the Indian media a non-profit venture? And looking at the "products" being provided by the Indian media, one might conclude that the only thing that suits the Indian "ethos" is tabloid journalism.

The opposition to this move is nothing but protectionism, the very same thing that these media houses have been opposing for quite a while. Unfortunately, one can't expect their columnists to take an independent and fair view in this case (keep an eye on Swami and Gurcharan Das, just in case). That should tell you all that there is to know in this affair.

Goodbye, Sam

(Image source)

Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw is no more. As this man rightly puts it, they just don't make 'em like you anymore.

India for McCain

About 2 months ago, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar wrote that India needs John McCain as POTUS. At that time, Obama was not the presumptive Democratic nominee, so Swami mentioned all three candidates and said:

However, what matters for Indo-US relations is not the colour, gender or war record of any presidential candidate. What matters is their position on key bilateral issues. And in this regard, McCain beats Clinton and Obama hollow.

Indeed. I agree with him completely. Swami's article provides concrete reasons to back his preference (basically trade and nuclear affairs - which are major concerns for India). At the end, he says that it's a pity that McCain would probably lose. I agree with that assessment too.

What's really interesting is the reaction of Obamaniacs (and Indian-American ones at that). Sample just one:

Vishal Agrawal,Harrisburg,says:I am a big Swami fan but I disagree with him completely on Indo-US politics. Here's my approach. Hillary Clinton is not even worth mentioning. MCCain a republican means another 4 years of casual rich man's attitude, low social awareness and a self-obsessed warrior. McCain can ruin Iraq and walk away. I mean literally. History will only talk about Bush. Thats a big risk there. MCCain will be bad for US as high level corruption, economic slow down and a rightist approach towards world's social prolems will continue. Offshore jobs,lenient US government or likeable president should not be India's approach. We must only look forward to a president which will help America become a better country. India will get what it deserves. Obama is the correct choice as he is against Iraq war and that's all matter for any thinking brain in this world. War in Iraq is a big leak in everybody's wallet and it must stop NOW. Obama will also restore faith of a common man in democracy which is frittering away because of Rahul, Raj Thakrey, clintons etc. A good president is a must in US for domestic hence global economy. But I have full faith on Americans that they are rightist by nature and so for once I agree with Swamy that McCain will win but he will prove a disaster for India and rest of the world. India must take lead in the fresh distribution of roles. We must favor only positive people. Negatives dont make a positive in economics, sociology or politics.

You can tell quite easily that the bugger has not even read the article.

Obama is now the presumptive Democratic nominee. Hillary has thrown her weight behind him and pledged to campaign for (and with) him against McCain (who is trailing Obama in the polls).

I suppose only time will tell how things turn out, and while I continue to wish that McCain wins, a part of me thinks that Obama should win - because his presidency would do wonders to instill the cynicism back in the Obamaniacs' minds. That ought to be worth something, I think.