Last night I was walking around campus and saw two girls driving around with their car’s headlights off. So, there window was down, and I yelled to them to turn on their lights less they killed someone. Well, they drove on not heeding my advice. Sure enough, 15 minutes later, they make a turn back towards my road and run over a family of campus dogs huddled together for warmth and milk. Only two were harmed, though it’s possible the mom was as well, I just never saw her again. But for sure, two puppies were injured. One could kind of walk slowly, the other could not use it’s back leg at all. For a place where one injured leg makes or breaks your ability to survive, I wonder if I’ll ever see the two again. I certainly did not last night.

A similar story occurred in Old Delhi last semester, but with humans sleeping on sidewalks instead of dogs. Six were run over by a Bollywood star in his SUV when he was drunk driving home. The parallels are eerie to say the least, but the entire thing got me to thinking about what rights animals and humans have, and how they should be compared. Specifically, I want to talk about sterilization. I believe that the best way to control the dog population is to spay or neuter them. That lets the surviving ones hop around all they like and rummage through as much garbage as they casually want, while the others that are just victims of malnourishment, low food quantities, and the JNU carrying capacity are spared miserable existences. It seems India has tried this with its rural population as well. China has its one child policy, while India has more or less attempted to sterilize people – most nastily forcibly during Indhira Gandhi’s emergency imposition of the 1970s.

I would like to say that forced sterilization is an awful encroachment on human beings. It’s basically saying that some are worthy to reproduce while others are not, but for a cash-strapped state back then, it seemed like a way to keep down social and population pressures. But realistically, how can you deprive a person from having a child? In one sense, it can provide joy and purpose to a life that’s already wasted with hunger, toil, and hardship (consider last year’s 1500 plus suicide farmer deaths), but where’s the satisfaction in throwing the child into your same miserable state? Of course, that’s not the only reason to have children, but it’s the argument I’ll consider for now (my favorite is where economists only consider children as investments for future care and protection – the more kids the more odds of getting your own “retirement” fulfilled.)

Clearly, animals are different than humans – I think the main point is that even if animals and humans in India live in similar states of squalor (sometimes, humans at the lowest castes have even less rights than dogs), at least the humans have potential. Now, let me make this clear – I am not justifying sterilizing humans, but if as a government you don’t intend to give them proper land rights, irrigation schemes, means to electricity or drinkable water, or most importantly… education! then why not? In essence, if you insist on treating them like dogs, why not go all the way? Of course, India shouldn’t go all the way, it’s only meant to highlight the pathetic inequalities that the system passes on to the people. It should be embarrassing that this comparison is possible, and especially on such a large scale. I mean, 80% of Indians live on less than a dollar a day. Meanwhile, I get the pleasure of walking around campus to find that familiar faces no longer exist, and if I do find them at times, they appear to me in the shortcut back trails as dried skulls and nothing more.

Being from the South, I feel like I’ve been around the Evangelical movement long enough to postulate on its worldwide success. I’ve seen it up close in Latin America and especially Central America, and I want to remark on some things that help explain it’s rise.

The movement is perpetuated by two things – emotion and money. The movement grows with both, and thus the two creates a cycle. You visit the church, you are given an instant high of “Jesus” during the service (whether it is or isn’t depends on your interpretation of the events), you are treated like everybody’s best friend outside of it, and you are repeatedly invited to return and to join the community. Once you are in, the religion aspect of it kicks in. A main tenet is focusing on Jesus’ death and sacrifice, and repeating the sacrifice in your daily life. Another is that God has given you everything, and thus, you should feel compelled to give it back to him. And finally, there is a strong emphasis on spreading the faith and helping other lost souls who need similar life fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with any of these things, especially since this is a mere brief explanation of my interpretation of the movement.

With the combination of sacrifice, desire to give back to God, and to continue as a missionary, we get the domestic or international ingredients for a successful movement. Domestically the money is used for the best of everything… massive service halls, a fellowship center, outdoor facilities, parking, child care, a flourishing youth program complete with trips, the best technology, and gaming options, and finally the money goes towards highly experienced pastors, youth leaders, or support staff. With this impressive array of options, it’s no wonder that people come back, and encourage their friends to as well.

Internationally, the same zest starts with the US domestically in the form of missionary campaigns but on the other end of the market, the same forces begin to shape the local population. Consider what’s happening in Latin America. 20 years ago, 98% of the area was considered Catholic – that number is now down to 80%. 5% is nonaffiliated, and the other 15% is Evangelical. Evangelicals have risen very, very quickly. It’s a passionate experience being in a church in a developing country. It’s easy to get people to believe in something that’s close to them, that’s as personal as Jesus, especially when they often have little other hope or places to invest their faith. But what’s interesting is that the money aspect has followed. Did you know that the 15% Evangelical portion of these countries brings in more money in church donations than the 80% Catholic? It’s shocking, but given the emphasized portions of the religion in these arenas, it’s no small wonder.

I wonder if it’s the same elsewhere in the world? I’m looking forward to exploring that same question in Africa quite soon.

I was reading a couple of articles the other day which I found quite interesting, especially considering I posted about Gandhian methods earlier. But this time, it revolves around the concept of nonviolence, and it’s applicability to some of today’s movements. The debate regarding violence vs. nonviolence for causes probably doesn’t get enough attention. And those debating on each side often don’t really know which side is doing what and why. Take for example the Dalai Lama’s visit to my university just a few months ago… he was there for a conference on Gandhian satyagraha – or essentially the usage of nonviolence as a means to an end. During his speech, he praised Mandela for his usage of nonviolence in South Africa. Really? Because I was pretty sure Mandela was arrested after scouring Africa for countries to provide his resistance movement arms and military training in tactical terrorism against the prevailing government. But, over time, the resistance eventually brought the administration to the table where Mandela became the face of a new peaceful nation. India, on the other hand, went nonviolent and everything worked out eventually. Who is say which is the more just cause, and who is to say which is the more just option?

I would like to say that I would prefer the nonviolent option, but it’s difficult to argue against violence at times as well. Sadly, violence can achieve results, and oftentimes it’s necessary. What are the odds that Kenya has a unity government this year without violence as its spark? But, where violence fails is that oftentimes, the violence can be used to justify an undesirable cause by undesirable leaders. With nonviolence, I find it difficult to side with anyone other than the one using the nonviolence. If they have a worthy cause, then morality will always rest on their side. If the cause is a bit farfetched and useless, then at least they’re not hurting anyone. This digression could surely go on forever, but where I aim to go is here:

Mainly, if you’ve been using violence as a means to an end, and you’ve yet to reach that end, perhaps it’s time to switch to a nonviolent tactic. Of course, nonviolence is useless unless it can inspire some sort of empathy within the transgressors and thus lead them to look at themselves, the way they are acting, and cause them to change. India’s independence movement is a classic example of this. However, the British made the mistake of fighting nonviolence with violence, and in that, they essentially sealed their fate of leaving India. So, I recently saw two causes that upon consideration, probably fit the bill of a shift in tactical approach…

First, there is Israel and Palestine. There is a growing nonviolent movement within Palestinians that needs to be drastically expanded. But with Israel’s propensity to use the military whenever possible, and their already borderline repulsive approach to the Gaza Strip, nonviolent demonstrations could do a lot to solidify Israeli support for the cause by showing the Israelis that the majority of Palestinians are not terrorists. There are two problems with this that could hopefully be overcome – one, there is a lack of legitimate leadership to carry the cause and two, it’s difficult to be nonviolent if there is no relent in terrorist violence.

Second, Tibet. The Tibetans seemingly are at a crossroads. The latest sets of protests/riots/Chinese targetting in Tibet show the growing irrelevance to the Tibetan youth that want to see immediate change. The Dalai Lama is NOT in my opinion going to be able to broker it for them. The article that mentioned the concept of the Tibetan nonviolence movement referred more to the 50s where they chose an armed resistance to maintain their sovereignty. The article hypothesized that given India’s successful situation, Tibet should’ve followed in that wake with similar means. I wonder if it’s not too late to try the nonviolent approach again. The Chinese are brutal enough to crack down on peaceful protests should the Tibetans return to resorting to them, and if they could remain nonviolent, it would potentially sway world opinion in their favor in a TANGIBLE way. It’s hard to argue that the West doesn’t sympathize with Tibetans, but they don’t care enough to act, and therefore, time is running out for the Tibetans to generate that will. The Dalai Lama’s world tour is not enough – his calling for China to not deserve to host the games is only seen as obstructionary by China, and most countries are willing to appease the Chinese. Take, for example, India throwing thousands of peaceful protesters in jail as they tried to stage a march from their exile in Dharamsala to Delhi and then east back into their “homeland,” or when the government has canceled meetings with the Dalai Lama for inflammatory remarks.

In this case, Tibet has two advantages over Palestine… First, it has a leader of incalculable value in the Dalai Lama. If HE marched back to Tibet, would India have the balls to throw HIM in jail? And if he got to China, what would the Chinese do? Either way, a Dalai Lama in either country’s jails on hunger strike would be massive worldwide and in Tibet, but it’s a very intriguing possibility that sadly I doubt we’ll ever see. Second, the Tibetans would have an easier time of maintaining discipline with the nonviolent approach, though that could be questioned as well. Regardless, these things could happen, and I always wonder why don’t they?

I have taken great pains this semester to attempt to understand the Indian bureaucratic system; whether it be the government, my university, or out in the private sector. It all started when I arrived in the country and was asked to procede to the local Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO), to re-register upon a new arrival in the country for a renewed residency permit. You see, according to the permit, I must forfeit it upon leaving the country, which I forgot to do. Thus, technically I should not have had one, and therefore needed a new one according to customs upon entry in Delhi. So, I had to enroll first at JNU, which I could not do without a student ID, which was stolen in Mumbai, which was not easily replaceable. First, I had to go to my Center to register for classes, but that was not possible until I had gone to the library to get clearance from them saying I had no outstanding books or fines, which they could not do unless I had a student ID from my School, which I could not get until I registered for classes with my Center. But before I could indulge myself in this bureaucratic love triangle, I found it was all irrelevant as I had to go to the Police Station to file a report saying my card was stolen and that they should “take any and all necessary actions in the matter.” I asked the School why this must be done, and they said it was in case any imposters were out there trying to register in my stead. Surely there isn’t another 6’3” white guy walking around with a reddish beard with 2 months worth of growth? But perhaps there was, so the police took all necessary actions, and upon my arrival they stamped a copy of my letter for me to show the university and threw the original away. Looking back, I was hoping they could at least pretend to file it until I left. Anyway, two days later, 8 office visits of the love triangle later, and then forcing the three offices to call each other until they were all sufficiently satisfied that I was in fact a student, I got to continue with the registration process. This involved another 6 identical forms for which I needed three signatures. When I asked what the forms were for, each respective office replied, “We’re not really sure, perhaps it is in case we need to access your information.” To which I always asked, “Why not use the computer network?” To which they usually laughed and said something along the lines of, “You really think that would work? Just because we have computers doesn’t mean we know how to use them for such things. What do you think they’ll do…fire us all and replace us all?” generally followed by more laughter…Well, when that was done, I had to get signatures from my hostel, from my meal hall, from my Center, and then from my School once more. I finally prepared my papers and went to the FRRO. I got there at three; they close at six. I asked to make sure I needed to submit the documents and that I had everything necessary. Well, they only had 8 people to process in front of me and failed to do so in three hours. So, I had to come back the next morning, and after another 5 hours (well, four including an hour lunch break), they finally saw me only to laugh and tell me I didn’t actually have to go there at all, that the old residence permit would be just fine, and that they apologized that customs and the man at the front desk had not been informed of such policies.

I tried to get a bank account and went through the same type of process for a week with numerous other addendums to the above story – a lot of it also involving the School, Center, Hostel, etc. Just to get a piece of paper with the JNU letterhead to write a letter to a bank, I had to write a letter to get the letterhead. Then had to write a practice letter to say what the letter should say so that they could write the letter for me. But then the guy that writes the letters was busy and requested I write the letter myself. And then the guy signing the letter accidentally spilled coffee on it, so I had to go write a letter to write a letter to write a letter again…

There are two points to arise out of these stories:

First, the way in which I treated bureaucrats last semester was with friendliness and respect. I laughed with their lame jokes, I kissed their asses, and they usually responded quite well. They knew they didn’t actually have to do anything for me, so they wanted me to acknowledge each this as a favor. It worked well. This semester, I don’t like what I’ve become. From the above, it would seem that I got pushed around a lot, but realistically, it became less and less the case. After showing them the tolerance of friendship and respect, I realized that quickly following up with an angry, pointed, and 100% degrading demeanor was the way to get anything done. I had to treat them like the British did, like I was a superior white person, and sadly, that’s how my most critical breakthroughs always arose – was through old-colonial intimidation and attitude. It bothers me a lot, because it’s against everything I stand for, but then again, it also works, and it continues to work just about everywhere. Whites are given a certain degree of reverence; like we are something rich, powerful, and special. We aren’t, but somehow that has been engrained in some people’s heads and they respond to that.

Second, another astonishing discovery with the bureaucratic structure here is that it’s largely confirmed and supported by the younger generations. I get upset when talking about bureaucracy, not because it’s annoyingly tedious, but because my fellow students refuse to acknowledge my points and disagree that the processes are unnecessary. Yet, they can never actually produce a reason for why things are done the way they are done except than to say, “This is how my parents said they do it,” or “this is how it’s always been done” or “this is just what you have to do.” There’s a couple of things to draw from this. I primarily believe that the appeal to parents and tradition is the key point. Indians have incredible respect for their parents, homes, traditions, religion, etc. They do not like to question the way in life that has been set for them. Even with my experience of second generation or maybe even third generation Indians of America this holds true. It’s just unfortunate that this attitude has been extended towards granting leniency on the some of the systems here that are in obvious need of reform (or perhaps that’s just my obnoxiously arrogant Western perspective flaring up again). The second, is that if the youth don’t question these things, who will? Is it so desirable that so much respect be granted to former generations that it jeopardizes your own sense of individuality and creativity. To this, I would argue that many fall into this “trap” (again, a matter of perspective perhaps). It’s the same attitude I see in class each day where students read, write, and repeat their way to success without truly assessing or analyzing that which they’re taught. I have a hard time identifying true revolutionaries or thinkers amongst a campus that prides itself on its revolutionary, intellectual base.

Regardless, the moral of the story is that the Indian bureaucracy can be a mess. There is a double standard applied to foreigners and locals where the foreigners need only pretend to be colonial British to get things done, and where the Indians go with the flow not because they enjoy it, understand it, or believe in it, but because it seems they’ve never stopped to consider otherwise.

I am currently preparing a Super Tuesday presentation on the US election, and I am working with an officer of the United States Air Force. We were discussing what aspects of the election to focus on, and how our election process may differ from other countries. The one thing he pointed out that I had never really considered is that the US military remains completely impartial in the process. Yes, those that aren’t asking are voting Republican and those that aren’t telling are voting Democrat, but beyond that, when is the last time a general made an endorsement? Sure, we’ve had war heroes enter into politics (John McCain or John Kerry?), or we’ve had generals take a stab at it (Wesley Clark), but of all the voices to weigh in on who would be best pull us out of the war in Iraq, the most important in General Petraeus has said nothing. Or military personnel are not supposed to wear uniforms to political functions, and if they do get involved, they get involved as veterans trying to protect their pensions. But they’re certainly not going to rig elections, or sweep away results they don’t agree with, or engage in intimidation, or threaten coups, or stage coups, etc.

It’s something that Americans clearly take for granted. Of course, the Turkish army gets a lot of credit for being the great secular watchdog against Islamism in that country, but rarely is an active political army considered a good thing. In some, like China or Vietnam, it’s propped up drastic economic growth while sacrificing personal liberties. In others, like Pakistan or Myanmar, it’s devastated the countries’ potentials. But it’s not just limited to this side of the world. Consider Europe in the past 100 years or Latin America or Africa. The list seems endless yet, somehow, Americans have remained more or less immune to this problem. So, if there’s anything about our democracy worth exporting, perhaps that’s it. Freedom of speech and press are obvious, but I think that often when you find those rights constricted, at the root of the problem lies some form of military rule or intervention.

If the US really cares about democracy in the rest of the world (which the overwhelming majority of Pakistan is now convinced that we don’t, and I tend to agree), then it is time that we start looking at our relations with military governments. It seems that since the start of the Cold War, we are far more inclined to work against the tides of democracy for short-term political advantages (which often bite us in the ass later anyway), instead of focusing on long-term processes of peace and prosperity. Pakistan has certainly weighed heavily on my mind of late. The excuse for supporting Musharaf has always been that we need him to control terrorism. But, what if we let the country take the course to democracy that seems so many there want to engage in? What if the military rule is overthrown? Maybe terrorism would spike for a few years, even a decade, but could it be worse than the spike since the beginning of the War in Iraq? And would a democratically elected government not have some sort of interest in maintaining the peace and stability of the country. Yes, it is a risk, but it is also a long-term strategy with at least a hope of success. The current strategy is a quick fix that really hasn’t been all that successful and which cannot be deemed sustainable.

Until we learn from this type of situation, the US will always be a hypocritical joke on democracy and our credibility will only continue to decrease more than it already has.

Late addendum: While reading this, it occurred to me that Hamas is an interesting example of democracy going against America’s favor. I don’t know much about the situation, but it could (emphasis on could?) be and interesting litmus test for what would happen with a truly democratic Pakistan with terrorism being a key issue. Will Hamas continue to rule? Or will they get voted out and my theory of short term loss for long term gain be realized? Would Hamas be too effective, influential, or downright corrupt to be voted out? If anyone knows more about this situation, please spare me a week of reading or correct me where I’ve probably already screwed up.

I’ll admit that I don’t know very much about Africa. I learn more and more about it every day, but regardless, I’m not very qualified to issue any educated all-encompassing opinions. But I did want to pass on an intriguing conversation I was privy to…

I went to a presentation by a friend of mine who is from Sudan and doing a PhD here at JNU. He led a diplomatic and informed discussion about the issues that face Sudan, the history behind them, and where the Sudanese must go in the future. A question was raised by one of my friends from Nigeria, who is always skeptical of the West, and particularly the US’s motives in Africa. And with a lot of emotion, frustration, and a hint of anger he said, “Don’t you think the United States and these other big countries are just coming into Sudan, not because they care about the country, but because they’re trying to make money and profit? Do you really think they help make things better, or are they really just making things worse?” And the Sudanese man, remained silent for a moment, gathering his thoughts before he replied, “But really, your question is irrelevant. We should be one African country, united in our politics and goals and opinions. It is because we have failed that we’ve had to turn to the great powers to start with. And where are we to go? If we go to the African Union, the Arab Sudanese will not accept any sort of ruling and will continue to repress the people with arms. If we go to the Arab League, the African Sudanese will not accept it either and will continue the armed struggle. Therefore, since we’re clearly not solving the problems ourselves, where else can we possibly turn to?”

Now, this is a very complicated situation, with no simple solution. The US is reluctant to truly get involved due to its other engagements and probably memories of other African missions. China has never had a problem with any of this as they hold a lot of valuable oil contracts. Thus, the UN has stalled as long as possible to make this an issue before finally arranging for the largest peacekeeping force in the history of the world (25,000 troops). However, it is still trying to respect the alleged “sovereignty” of the “Sudanese” government (which took over the country by force in the 80s) by not deploying the necessary helicopters and vehicles that would enable the troops to effectively patrol the area. So, even with an international solution, implementation remains a problem. This certainly helps explain why the problem has persisted, but not exactly why these sort of things have started.

So back to my focus – is it indeed, Sudan’s fault? How applicable is this to the rest of the African continent? Should we be surprised at the differing emotions of a Nigerian and Sudanese given their country’s histories? Might current national problems in Africa be the direct result of the West, and to what extent should the West take responsibility for the past? How can they do that without appearing to favor their own special interests and profit motives? Is that even possible (for us) or desirable (for them)?

I know it would be ignorant and arrogant for me to accept the above conversation as an encompassing model. It’s easy to blame everything on Africa from a present-day perspective with tribal warfare, infighting over power and resources, corruption, etc. However, who drew the territorial lines, who has exploited the continent for hundreds of years, and who is doing its best to persuade and corrupt politicians to allow us our own access to power and resources? I fear we lack the moral authority for real change, and the more I travel, I realize that real change must come from within – both within the US and within individual affected countries. But is it possible for us to change, and given the past wounds of indignity, is it desirable for Africa to accept and trust it?

I recently attended a lecture entitled “Reconsideration of Gandhian Economics,” to which I decided that perhaps I would only be considering and not reconsidering, since I didn’t realize he had anything substantial to add to the field. Apparently, my initial reaction was correct, and he really had very little to offer, at least in a conventional sense.

The tagline that stuck was this: “Production by the masses instead of mass production.” This roughly summarized his opinion on the direction in which India’s young budding economy should take as they pulled away from the British in the 40s. The idea was that industrialization-led machines dehumanized many Indian sectors–not just in the typical ways of fiercer competition commonly derided by anti-capitalist banter, but also by literally taking humans out of the production process all together. He didn’t want machines to come in and spin threads when it could just as easily be done by everyday people in their spare time with their own hands. He understood then, as is the case now, that India’s greatest asset and most significant problem would always be how to empower its burgeoning population economically and socially.

Thus, Gandhi typically sat outside the realm of day-to-day economics. Though not going as far as saying capitalism was bad for the world, he did believe that in many cases it was simply bad for India. He hoped that Indian problems could be solved by Indians. He understood that traditional economics relies on the idea that resources are scarce and people’s wants are limited. Rather than worry about how to distribute this effectively, efficiently, or equitably (as is the goal of most modern economists), he espoused the limiting of people’s wants instead. He believed that if Indians could only be happy to settle for more basic and plain lifestyles, that the needs of all could easily be met. Of course this sounds a lot like a Utopian ideal, and of course Jawaharlal Nehru (the first Indian prime minister who was very close to Gandhi and hand-picked to lead the country) refused to attempt the implementation of Gandhi’s ideals. Gandhi, himself, had actually implemented such plans both in South Africa and India, but only on limited bases; certainly not on the mass aggregate level of an entire national economy. If you think the current Indian bureaucracy and corruption are bad, imagine if the government was supposed to be acting on such a closely “supervised” national agenda…

Regardless, believe it or not, there are a lot of practical implications for what Gandhi discussed–especially on an international level. It becomes ever-more apparent that humanity’s means of living are quickly outstripping our actual resource allotments. It seems that we return to the above argument that Gandhi attempted to counter–humanity will be faced with two options. First, we can go the route of traditional economics and focus on what can be done from a technology/production perspective to continue to support our excessive lifestyles, or second, we can go the route of Gandhi and begin to limit ourselves in all that we do–whether we’re talking pollution, emissions, resource degradation, deforestation, or just consumption in general from food to the broad item of “convenience.”

I believe that technology, though quickly adapting, is only adjusting to the needs of yesterday’s society and isn’t on pace to satisfactorily rectify the problems of today, or really even tomorrow for that matter.   Thus, Gandhi’s ideal of curtailing our “unlimited wants” comes into play such that if we can begin to accept the realities of our world and our responsibilities within it, perhaps we can improve our habits alongside technology to put ourselves on pace for global sustainability.  Is this possible?  Well, this is something haughtier Europeans would argue that they’ve been doing all along – though realistically, they are little better than the Americans if you take into account the number of historical and geographical differences that has caused their societies to develop differently.  Paris doesn’t even have a system of recycling.  Rural Germany requires cars just like rural Alabama.  And if you’ve been on a Greyhound where a crazy woman spoke to someone that didn’t exist and there were stories about filming beastiality, you might see why those cars are so necessary.  Without casting blame in too many directions (though many could and should argue the United States deserves at least a special mention), the point is that we all must agree that we’ve overstepped our natural bounds in our ecosystem to a very dangerous degree.  And please don’t tell me that the Bible says God has given us dominion over everything and ordains it.

Regardless, I’ll close by saying that I see a potential way out.  I think the solution could come naturally, but probably at too slow a pace for many including myself to be comfortable with.  But at the end of the day, I believe that Economics and Gandhi, or technology and restraint will meet together in an awkward harmony.  I envision a world where it is cool to pay extra to support the environment or fellow human beings in developing nations;  where items that save energy, emit less, are more sustainable, or could better ourselves will become a strong factor on the demand side that will be met with the latest technological developments from the supply side;  where the proper markets will develop for that which we really need, instead of what Gandhi believed we must begin not to want.  Will it happen soon?  Yes, and in some cases it already has, but hardly for the masses.  Is it possible on a national or global scale?  Probably, but steps are assuredly going to be painfully delayed.  So then I ask:  What can be done to foster this process and enhance our opportunities to move forward with hope and dignity?  Am I even right?  Will humanity be able to adopt the mindset necessary to restrain itself?  How can this be done?  Without the demand for change, will the hoped-for technology even develop, and will it be even enough to curb our current path?  I wish I could say yes, but my current black-sooted coughing due to India’s “Development Race to the Bottom” with China is really making me wonder…

I think most are familiar with the Democratic Peace Theory (potentially first hypothesized by Immanuel Kant) which states that liberal democracies do not go to war with one another. it’s an interesting concept that gives rise to its own debates, which really aren’t all that important to this posting. I, for one, think that there’s a lot more to be considered than the simple fact of a country being a democracy. Instead, I prefer to focus on effective and stable governance (not good governance) to help explain why countries such as China with less liberal values and more authoritarian styles or India’s democracy that’s plagued by corrupt institutions/politicians/bureaucracy still share relatively peaceful values. I may be wrong in the long run. My poorly thought-out argument looks more like this – governments are stable because the people have no monumental reason to overthrow it since they are reasonably provided for (even if just at a subsistence level) and thus the nation as a whole has no violently pressing need to be militarily aggressive outside its borders because they have enough within them.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that globalization has linked economies so well that peaceful cooperation becomes more and more likely and necessary. Of course, it just so happens that well-run liberal democracies are the best-linked, and so perhaps that’s why they’re the least feared. According to this idea – is there reason to be afraid of China? I’m not sure, but I lean towards no. Are they really going to attack and attempt to take-over entire countries, or might they just play more of a hegemonic role one day of asserting themselves in situations economically dear to them as a new world police?

And anyway, aren’t most conflicts internally fought now? How many externally fought conflicts still exist? It seems people are more concerned with who shares the intra-country spoils (which is often internationally passively accepted in the good name of sovereignty) than the actual inter-country spoils.

All of this background brings me to some sort of point–which I know I rarely get to, but perhaps it’ll be clearer now:

Today I went to a Rotary Meeting in which the speaker proposed a new form of global cooperation. His is based on connecting all electrical grids across borders and thus simultaneously sharing one of the most precious of resources–electricity. Of course, being from San Diego, he went straight to renewable energy sources, which could or could not have their day in investment worldwide, but regardless, the main idea remains. Interconnect all nations so that they all rely on one another for energy, and energy distribution can be more efficient and effective while bringing about world peace.

It’s funny to hear a Westerner come into India and give his two cents about how India is going to magically foster peace and improve the fortunes of itself and its neighbors through interconnecting the electric grids. I know I say that as if I’m not a Westerner, but at least I’ve been living, reading, and talking to people here for the last four months. I’m starting to see how I probably was and still am seen by the locals. Anyway, 50% of India’s people are without electricity and that equally applies to many of its neighbors who all sit on a prominent list of hardship, if not failure. We’re talking Pakistan (what democracy?), Bangladesh (floods), Nepal (Maoist revolutionaries), Sri Lanka (perpetual civil war), Bhutan (struggling to replace monarchy), and Myanmar (military junta). So, they wouldn’t be getting a lot from these countries, but rather having to give, something they already are unable to do for themselves. Second, if you happened to catch the pro-democracy Buddhist crackdown in Myanmar/Burma, you might’ve noticed that the two largest and closest powers to the situation really had little to say on the topic. Why? China props up Myanmar’s junta in return for electricity from its many dams that China has built for its own benefit only. India said nothing to protect its hopes of obtaining more natural gas from the junta as well. Both are energy issues, both relate to interdependence (and one directly to a “grid”), but both are the justification for looking the other way on outrageous acts! Would it be even worse if India, too, received electricity as well? Who knows?

My point is that these are issues that on the surface don’t appear. Just convincing India that it has a reason to care about Pakistan is a large step, but to provide it with a dear resource? I’ll save the relationship of India and Pakistan for another day, but I’m not all together sure that many Indians don’t relish in the fact that they’re the only regional country without MAJOR debilitating issues, but just a lot of problems that they’re able to sweep under the rug with talks of becoming a superpower. (Notice I didn’t say a lot of little problems – India has a lot of problems that I refuse to ignore/belittle)

In conclusion, electrical grid interdependence seems wholly unlikely on a large scale, but rather possible for smaller localities such as regions in the Himalayas or remote tribal areas near Pakistan or Myanmar. Here, the positives will outweigh any potential drawbacks, and the scale of the projects will slip under the national reactionary radar. But beyond that, I don’t buy into it being the secret to regional peace and stability. I’m sure it couldn’t hurt, but proposing it as a bit of a godsend is more or less naive. The speaker seemed to suggest that electricity equals development, which has its merits if you consider that no corporation truly wants to invest in a country where stable electricity is not an option. However, I believe corporations more so want to invest where they can rely on good and solid governance with sound property rights that will protect their investments. Thus, this brings us back to the above refutation of the Democratic Peace Theory that I espouse. You don’t necessarily require democracy for “peace,” but rather a stable country where at least the limited subsistence of citizens can be acquired. The question then becomes – can that type of society exist without prior development? And if not, where is that development supposed to come from then? And to that, I have no reasonable answer… at least yet.