Terrorist attack Mumbai...again!

Islamic and Maoist terrorists thrive on two things: fear and publicity. The first gains them influence and respect, the other, recruits for their cause, whatever that may be.

With secularists blanketing the air waves and print media with "Hindu terror," the real terrorists probably felt terribly sidelined and ignored. Deprived of the crucial oxygen of publicity that they thrive on and not one to take the insouciance of the secular media lying down, this might be their way to seize some momentum.

It certainly doesn't bode well for the denizens of our metros. Perhaps moving to Bengal or Kerala might be helpful.

Left narrative remains the same

No matter where you travel, the leftist narrative remains the same. Bret Stephens in WSJ (No Excuses' for Liberals):

This liberal narrative of its own near-misses, bad luck and tragic interventions of fate is supplemented by a parallel liberal tale of unbridled conservative malevolence......As for conservative electoral successes, these are explained almost entirely as a function of political dirty tricks (cf. "October Surprise") jingoism (Star Wars, Grenada et al.) and racism ("Southern strategy"). "The legacy of slavery, America's original sin, is the reason we're the only advanced economy that doesn't guarantee health care to our citizens," writes Nobel laureate Paul Krugman in "The Conscience of a Liberal." Who knew that a straight line connects the ideas of Jefferson Davis and Milton Friedman?

Replace secular with liberal, a "third-world" country for US and you get an idential tale. But, in India, the seculars have had something better than excuses. 

They deflect! If it's not cricket, it is "Hindu terrorism." Seculars are never wrong. Even when they are wrong they manage to sound right about getting it wrong. 

Rightly said

For Arab(and Indian left) epiphany:

The family name, Emanuel, is a tribute to Rahm's uncle, Emanuel Auerbach, who died in 1933 fighting the Arabs in Jerusalem. "Obviously [Rahm] will influence the president to be pro-Israel," his father toldHa'aretz last week. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

Further:

One can imagine that any cautious optimism from the jihadists--who seem almost singularly concerned with Israel--will soon turn to frustration. In their view, the Emanuel appointment will likely signify that the Jews have won yet another American election.

Too bad for the amen corner of jihadists. What would Saba Naqvi Bhaumik do when she holds her column in the mirror and discovers that her new BFF's chief of staff is the son of a "Zionist terrorist?" Swallow her own words? For the anti-Semitic secularists in self-congratulatory mode, who were just getting done gloating over having rid of the "neocons"--yes, including that sockpuppet Vinod Mehta-- Rahm Emmanuel's appointment must be a nightmare come true.

Btw, godspeed Rahm!

Ask not!

Indian seculars are, as always, busy making predictable conclusions. Toutlook webpage is brimming with Obamamania. Our 'secular' journos will give Keith Olbermann a run for money when it comes to I heart Obama. It's a different matter that the seculars discovered Obama much later than America and the world had been there. They were drooling at Hillary's feet in the meantime. Besides, Keith Olberman is intelligent. There's a virtual stampede to claim ownership of Obama's victory, in India mind you. But when you are trounced on every electoral predictions over past few yrs. and perform worst than avians(parrots must have a higher success rate) with your forecasts, getting it right for once, even if on "global cues," is bound to cheer you up.

In keeping with 'secular' media's finest vainglorious traditions, not only are they claiming Obama's victory as their own, but also talking down to Indians at the same. The prescriptions and diagnoses vary anywhere between 'I told you so and I'm telling you so' to a more blatanly insulting one: You're bigots.

In that vein, one Mr Dipankar Gupta also has the temerity to suggest that the majority needs to' introspect' as to how they treat minorities. He has it completely backwards! (Surprisingly, he asks how "we" treat minorities. We who? Since he is a secular, for a moment I thought he's talking about the kidgloves treatment received by the minorities, only to be disappointed :)

If there's someone who needs "introspection," now moreso than ever, it is the minorities, for Obama won not by bellowing about minority grievances-- which has been raised to an art form these days--but by addressing more mainstream issues. Issues that concern the majority. He is the president-elect today because he is not a clone of Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton, and has politely given short shrift to the radical, divisive agendas of the left. There's enough of liberal agenda in his policies, but it is invariably couched in a more mainstream appeal.

Here's what the minorities, especially in India, need to learn from this American election: Ask not what the majority can do for you, ask what you can do for the majority.

When the concerns coalesce, acceptance will follow.

Response to dosabandit's comment

Dosabandit's comment. I hope Obama's election ignites the debate over affirmative action. It's overdue.

However, my point wasn't about minority or a female getting elected (you're right, US is quite behind on this count); it is something more fundamental, hence admirable. The Democrats brought a radical change in their hierarchy by moving from the grassroots and unseating a dynasty. While conventional wisdom types and 'secular' Indians were running after Hillary, Democratic Party loyalists went canvassing from door to door, promoting Obama. There were people knocking my door for Obama when no one would give him a whit of a chance. But here we are, with 'President' label ahead of Obama's name. All talk of democracy cannot bring about such a change in pretty much any democracy the world over. Look at BJP. Narendra Modi should be its party president today, but who do we have? As for getting someone whose last name is not Gandhi on Congress presidency, you might as well bet on man landing on Mars some day. 

Rediff asks the wrong question

Rediff employee Mark Schneeberger raises a question: Will Bobby Jindal be Republicans saviour?

The answer is obvious: no. I'm surprised the columnist is even raising this question. Anyone who's followed this election should readily notice the severe rebuke of Christian fundamentalism. Sarah Palin was the icon for this crowd. And she probably cost McCain the election, just next to economy.  Even hardcore Republicans are voicing their discontent about the overreliance on Christian fundamentalists, euphemistically called "social conservatives." Recruiting the evangelical Christians has been one disaster for the Republican party. Jindal is not evangelical in that he's not Protestant, else he's every bit their Catholic counterpart. Once his school essays are publicized he is bound to become laughingstock of civil society. And consequently stamped unacceptable.

Indians, in US, should ask themselves if they want to support someone who refuses something as basic a matter of science as evolution? Should such an anti-modernist represent them anywhere in any capacity? Should such an anti-modernist ever become President of any country? I hope not.

Change they've been waiting for

How much of a "Change" Barack Obama really brings remains to be seen, but if there is some silver lining to this election it is that the Christian fundamentalists received their long deserved comeuppance. What the Republican strategists started with as a clever way to shore up their bottom line has become an all-consuming behemoth that has eaten into it. 

As for President-elect Obama, I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up disappointing his hardcore leftist backers most. America's business is running their worldwide empire, and that requires being pragmatism, something not afforded to the media and university types. Obama's planned spending is definitely going to bloat the deficit, and will probably prolong the recession. Protectionism in America will mean the opportunistic, swooning secular desis who jumped boat from Hillary onto Obama's might be in for severe heartache.  

Racism and Black grievances are not going to be solved overnight either. That an individual with no support system in place scaled the democratic system all the way to White House however speaks highly of American democracy. It's an admirable quality which any meaningful democracy should want to imitate.