Cop Out

Barack Obama should not be allowed to go to Copenhagen. The last time he went there, Chicago came last in the voting for hosting the 2016 Olympics, even though it was one of the two favourites. This time, he was responsible for the failure of a critical summit that held the future of human life in the balance.

Is it because the rest of the world doesn't like him a lot? No, he's one of the most popular US Presidents of all time. And it's not because he goes around invading countries whenever he's bored. I think it's mostly because his mantra of inspiring hope, with dollops of human interest stories, which works wonders in the US, seems to fade with the lack of substance in his global efforts. Not at a time when the world is facing down the barrel of the disastrous consequences of global warming.

In all fairness, Obama came to the doomed conference with his hands tied. His energy bill hasn't been passed by the Senate, which means that he doesn't know to what extent he can commit to curbing emissions. Less than a year before a congressional elections the Democrats are expected to fare badly in, he was in no position to be make major concessions. The weak House version of the bill promises a 17% reduction in emissions by 2020 on 2005 levels, which is a paltry 4% down from 1990 levels. Obama's solution, a cynical ploy at making Copenhagen a non-binding feel good "first step", didn't go down too well, and he ended up alienating not just the rest of the world, but also votes on the left in his own country.

So what happens now? Obama will be hoping to extract some mileage from the imminent passage of his healthcare bill to maybe take a stand on climate change. But it seems unlikely in a mid-term year. Also, the intertwined nature of the economies of the US and China, the two greatest emittors of greenhouse gases in the world, makes it in neither's interest for the other to be limited by forced emission cuts. China is the US' factory and bank, while the US is China's primary market, which means that it's the two of them against the world. India is unlikely to do anything unless the Chinese do more. And the rest of the world is pissed off at the US, China, Brazil, India and South Africa for privately reaching a deal without them, compromising the very identity of the conference.

Copenhagen started out as a summit that would save the world. Somehow, it degenerated into a free for all, and finally ended as a face-saving first step at combatting climate change. Of course, this ignores the previous steps taken in 1992 in Kyoto, a good treaty that has been implicitly been allowed to die. The summit's sent a message that the people who are in a position to do something about climate change, and are primarily responsible for global warming in the first place, are unwilling to do anything about it.

The world is doomed, and our leaders are taking up fiddling. Time to get our affairs in order.

The Red Menace

I love the name 'Operation Green Hunt'. It says all the right things, gets the urban news-watching population tingling, and gives the impression that the government is finally doing something about the Red vermin terrorising the hapless people in villages centuries behind us. Add to that a suitably gruesome murder of a cop, and heartless media coverage of his son's grief, and you have a nation fully behind your operation. Get the news channels to set appropriately worded polls that give 90-10 splits in your favour, and you can undermine the efforts of the last signs of dissent. Mr. Chidambaram is a very smart man.

Naxalism in India is finally making news again for reasons other than the latest death toll. Talking heads appear again on TV, competing with each other to break decibel levels. Although our apathetic generation cares more about the Champions League T20, the rest of the nation is sufficiently riled to generate enough TRPs. Facing the brunt of the media's - and therefore, the people's - anger are not the Naxalites themselves, but human rights activists, who - horror of horrors - don't support a state offensive against its own people. They are accused of a lack of patriotism, callousness and sympathy for the Naxalites. Idealogues like Swapan Dasgupta, and our beloved Home Minister line up to ask them, where were you when people like Francis Induvar were brutally beheaded? They ignore the fact, and have ignored for a long time, that these activists have frequently condemned the violence of the Naxalites. Can you blame them for ignoring all those press releases? The average PUCL statement is dull and dreary, and always fixates on things like custodial killings and torture; how can it compare in newsworthiness [sic] to calling Mmbai Bombay in a B-Grade film?

The activists' stand is clear: they condemn violence on both sides, they condemn government apathy to the plight of the people who live in these godforsaken places. They have never shied away from condemning the latest Maoist beheading, even in the heady days of Lalgadh. But at the same time, they oppose the idea of a state-funded private militia like the Salwa Judum terrorising people, or the idea of a state that facilitates torture of its own, even innocent, citizens. They were active in fighting the incarceration of Dr. Binayak Sen, arrested for giving a damn: a fight that, for the most part, received a handful of column inches on Page 7 of a few newspapers.

Chidambaram attacks their stance by saying that they were putting a gang of murderous criminals and the government of this nation on par. While a section of society often mistakes one for the other, it's true, the two aren't equal. The state, if anything, has a greater responsibility to abide by the rules. After all, it is supposed to be the legitimate power in the conflict, the good guys. If they resort to inhuman acts of torture and murder to fight murderers, they lose their moral legitimacy, as well as make it the duty of every conscientious citizen of this nation to stand up against them.

Human rights activists are also accused of romanticising the Maoists. These accusations are a huge compliment to their oratory and written skills: it is very difficult to romanticise the beheading of Francis Induwar. Most activists do not support the Naxalites - those who do are well within their right - and criticise their heinous crimes. But the legitimate grievances of the tribals and oppressed cannot be denied. The pathetic state of development in these areas feeds a resentment against the state, and is responsible for the support the Naxalites enjoy. The example of Punjab has shown that it is impossible for an insurgency to survive without the support of the local populace, and for a movement to last forty years, it needs more than just adequate terror. Whatever be their methods, the Naxalites command respect for living and working with the people in the heartland.

The best way to fight Naxalites is not through jingoistic crackdowns with catchy names, but through the elimination of their support from the people. This can only be done through addressing the grievances of the people, and developing the jungles. This includes an end to land grabbing, providing access to water, healthcare and all the entitlements of the people that the state has denied them. It includes an end to exploitation and a humane police force. Unlike your average jihadi, the Naxalites are not fighting to take away your freedoms, but secure a viable future for the poorest of the poor. The best way to defeat them is to give the people what they want.