The time was April, 1861. The nation , which was founded less than a century ago by her founders with the dream of becoming “a shining city upon the hill” and whose constitution talked about ensuring “liberty , equality and pursuit of happiness” for all its citizens , was going through a turning point in history. It was the day of reckoning. The nation had seen her own citizens bitterly divided amongst themselves fighting over an issue which threatened to destroy everything that the founders of the nation had hoped for.
This was the story of the American civil war in 1861. The issue that bitterly divided the two sides was slavery. There were deep conflicts of interests present underneath the issue of slavery between the belligerents i.e. the Northern and the Southern American states.
The North was dependent upon industries henceforth what it wanted was cheap labor for its factories and mills whereas the south which was proud of its cotton and sugar firms wanted its slaves for maintaining all those firms.
There was another major difference between the two sides; the south saw slaves as properties which can be used as pleased by their masters whereas the north saw the slaves as potential source of cheap labors. The north wanted to free the slaves from South by abolishing slavery and put them into the factories of the Northern states as cheap labors. The North also viewed the slave-labor dependent south as backward and hostile to its interests. The South considered their holding of slaves as god-given right and they were ready to fight and even secede from the American Union in order to hold onto their rights.
What is interesting here is that both the Southern as well as Northern states did choose their leaders through popular elections and thus both could be considered as democracies. Thus the civil war could be considered as “a war between the two democracies.”
So we can deduce that American civil war happened because two different sections of America had business interests which were deeply in conflict with each other
Now let us turn our clocks back to America of April, 2011. We can see the country is going through an economic recession period. For understandable business reasons the American business community has preferred to bring in chip labor forces from outside the United States. This means that the business community in the United States have become the greatest proponents of business improvement measures like immigration and outsourcing. The resident nationalist American groups who feel their jobs and lifestyles are being threatened with the arrival of people whom they consider represent an alien culture are up in arms against it. The Nationalist American groups oppose immigration since they feel not only their jobs but their very identities are under thereat from what they consider “alien lifestyles.”
Some of the recent political events like the Tea party movement as well as the recent legislations passed by American states of Arizona and Georgia for greater profiling of potential immigrants indicate that there is growing divide between the American business communities and the nationalist communities.
So what we can understand that the current socio-political situation in America is not too dissimilar to that of events leading up to 1861. Just replace the word “slavery” with the word “immigration” and you will understand that they situation is not too dissimilar to that of the month of august, 150 years ago. What we lack is a catalyst like John Brown’s raids in Virginia or the event in Fort Sumter which may act as a spark that may produce a completely unforeseen chain of events.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Thoughts on the 150-th anniversary of the American Civil War
12-th April is one of the most momentous days in human history. This was the day when guns and canons roared for the first time in what is known to posterity as the American civil war. This year is the 150-th anniversary of that epoch shattering event.
It is a common knowledge that the issue of slavery was the most important issue behind the civil war. However a closer look at the events both leading up to as well as following the war suggests that slavery was just the immediate symbol of more deep causes within the American system at the time.
The American northern states had become industrially developed and dependent upon industries at the time of civil war whereas the American southern states were dependent upon agriculture and more precisely on the crop of cotton. Both the industrial north and the feudal south needed cheap labor for their industries. It was only given that both would ultimately confront for the cheapest source of labor i.e. the slaves. The north needed the slaves as cheap labor for its industries henceforth it had a direct interest in the abolition of slavery in south and direct movement of those slaves to north. The Puritan work ethic prevalent in north which favored self-sufficiency and hard work generally did not consider the slave labor-dependent southerners in very good light.
The southern feudal lords needed the slaves badly for laboring in their cotton and sugar firms and hence forth it was commonplace that they would fight tooth and nail against any movement from north to abolish the slavery.
African-Americans are highlighted as the most important cause behind the civil war yet we often fail to understand that the plight of the African-Americans did not cease to exist as we think after the end of the civil war itself. Not all the northern leaders including the president Abraham Lincoln had believed in the racial equality between the blacks and whites. He had the following to say in the governorial debate for the state of Kentucky in 1858:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
(Source: http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/docs/fourthdebate.html)
In fact the African-Americans were not emancipated in the north directly at the beginning of the war or some months thereafter. They also did not get voting rights after the civil war as or any times soon afterwards. In fact it seems to me that African-Americans remained the most inconsequential in the American polity even well after the end of the war.
I believe the biggest underlying cause of the war was the conflict between two competing ideologies. The North which had a superior society thanks to Industrialization and the idea of free movement of labor had to come to a conflict against the feudal south which believed in its god-given superiority of whites over blacks.
We will be naive to think that the conflict between those two above mentioned ideologies in America ended with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee at 1865. Now days in America the main issues are immigration and other similar things like outsourcing which are directly derived from the idea of free movement of labor and capital. The opponents to the issues of immigration and outsourcing tend to be protectionists of their own identities of a white Anglo-Saxon America where a certain section of population controls all the opportunites over others. I will not be surprised if the growing chasm between the supporters and opponents of free movement of labor results in the same as it did in 1861 in future.
It is a common knowledge that the issue of slavery was the most important issue behind the civil war. However a closer look at the events both leading up to as well as following the war suggests that slavery was just the immediate symbol of more deep causes within the American system at the time.
The American northern states had become industrially developed and dependent upon industries at the time of civil war whereas the American southern states were dependent upon agriculture and more precisely on the crop of cotton. Both the industrial north and the feudal south needed cheap labor for their industries. It was only given that both would ultimately confront for the cheapest source of labor i.e. the slaves. The north needed the slaves as cheap labor for its industries henceforth it had a direct interest in the abolition of slavery in south and direct movement of those slaves to north. The Puritan work ethic prevalent in north which favored self-sufficiency and hard work generally did not consider the slave labor-dependent southerners in very good light.
The southern feudal lords needed the slaves badly for laboring in their cotton and sugar firms and hence forth it was commonplace that they would fight tooth and nail against any movement from north to abolish the slavery.
African-Americans are highlighted as the most important cause behind the civil war yet we often fail to understand that the plight of the African-Americans did not cease to exist as we think after the end of the civil war itself. Not all the northern leaders including the president Abraham Lincoln had believed in the racial equality between the blacks and whites. He had the following to say in the governorial debate for the state of Kentucky in 1858:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
(Source: http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/docs/fourthdebate.html)
In fact the African-Americans were not emancipated in the north directly at the beginning of the war or some months thereafter. They also did not get voting rights after the civil war as or any times soon afterwards. In fact it seems to me that African-Americans remained the most inconsequential in the American polity even well after the end of the war.
I believe the biggest underlying cause of the war was the conflict between two competing ideologies. The North which had a superior society thanks to Industrialization and the idea of free movement of labor had to come to a conflict against the feudal south which believed in its god-given superiority of whites over blacks.
We will be naive to think that the conflict between those two above mentioned ideologies in America ended with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee at 1865. Now days in America the main issues are immigration and other similar things like outsourcing which are directly derived from the idea of free movement of labor and capital. The opponents to the issues of immigration and outsourcing tend to be protectionists of their own identities of a white Anglo-Saxon America where a certain section of population controls all the opportunites over others. I will not be surprised if the growing chasm between the supporters and opponents of free movement of labor results in the same as it did in 1861 in future.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The coming war in West Asia
Among all the noises rising out from the current upheavals in Western Asia, one noise is quite clear. Israel, the strongest military power in the region, is not feeling comfortable with the possibility of the political changes in the region. Israel made clear its disapproval of the toppling of the pro-Israel and staunchly pro-Western dictator Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Israel is also concerned about the possible up and coming unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state by the Palestinian authority. Israel has also made clear its disapproval of the ongoing reconciliation talks between the Fatah-led government in the West Bank and the Hamas-led government in Gaza ; these talks are aimed at sorting out all possible differences between the two competing Palestinian factions and creating an unified Palestinian polity before the possible unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.
After its victory in the six-day war, Israel’s main concerns have been to prevent the rise of any potential military challenger in West Asia as well as consolidating the military gains it made in that war. Israel was also helped by its “special relationship” with the United States. Throughout the cold war, it projected itself as “the only democracy in a region of autocrats and tyrants”. The peace deals Israel made with two of its neighbors i.e. Egypt and Jordan helped Israel to maintain its dominance over the region. Israel built settlements on the land it captured during the six-day war to create a Jewish majority i.e. “facts on the ground”. The gulf wars in 1991 and 2003 helped Israel in removing Iraq as a possible long-term military challenger. Since 9/11, Israel benefited immensely by presenting itself as the last outpost of Western civilization in the ongoing “War on terror”.
The ongoing popular movements in West Asia have presented unique problems for Israel.
Israeli fears of possible democratic political dispensations in post-revolution Arab nations: There are fears in Israel that the post-Mubarak government in Egypt would not toe the Israeli line on important matters regarding Israeli economic blockade on Gaza or Israeli isolation of the Hamas-led government in Gaza. Israel also fears that the peace agreement signed between Egypt and Israel which allowed Israel to concentrate upon its opponents in the North may not hold. Israel’s fears regarding Egypt are based upon the notion that any democratic government would have to consider popular opinion in its decision making and the popular opinion about Israel in Egypt as well as in the rest of the Arab world is not positive.
An end to the Israeli argument of being the “only democracy in Western Asia”: Israel is also fearful that if Arab nations go on to become successful democracies, its own position as “the only democracy in the middle east” will come to an end. The Americans and other Western countries have often claimed about spreading democratic values in West Asia as their main foreign policy objective. So if the current popular movements in West Asia do go on to produce stable, representatively democratic states in the West Asian region American policy objectives will be met. Thereby Israel’s importance in the eyes of its backers in the Western world would certainly go down. There have been voices in the American intelligentsia like Steven Walt and John Mersheimer who have been calling the United States to reduce its overwhelming support of Israel. Those voices would only get louder once more Arab nations become successful representative democracies.
An end to Israeli argument of not having any Palestinian partner to negotiate: Israeli strategy Vis a Vis the Palestinians since the six-day war have been to consolidate its hold on the Arab territories that it seized on that war. In this regard it has always sought to create and sustain a Palestinian leadership which would sufficiently co-operate with it in that regard. Sufficient co-operation with Israel extends to cracking down on any movement opposed to Israeli policies in the area. Without any doubt this can not said to be popular among the Palestinian populace. This is the main reason why Israel is apprehensive about any thaw in the relationship between the Fatah and Hamas-led governments in the Palestinian territories. Unlike the Fatah-led Palestinian authority in West Bank which has been willing to collaborate with Israel on some security matters, the Hamas-led Gazan government is staunchly opposed to Israeli policies in the territories. Any unified Palestinian leadership would also mean that Israel will not have any one willing to collaborate with Israel on Israeli policies inside the Israeli-occupied territories. On another note the more divided the Palestinians are, the easier it is for the Israelis to make the argument that they do not have any fixed partner for peace negotiations. A unified Palestinian side would put an end to that position also.
Veteran Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has emphasized that the only way Israel can have peace is to ensure that Palestinians feel no hope for repealing their plight under Israeli influence and are forced to beg to Israel for sustenance. All Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians since the six-day war in 1967 have to be seen in this context. But of late Israel feels its position Vis a Vis the Palestinians is not gaining anything. The Palestinians either in Israel proper or in the occupied territories has not yet given up fighting for their rights despite being in wrong end of Israeli policies for last 40 years. The world is not as favorable to Israeli designs as it used to be in the past as we can see a growing worldwide campaign to boycott Israel alike the one against apartheid South Africa. Now in this background Israel feels that it is slowly losing the support and goodwill it needs to remain an admired and respected nation in the comity of nations.
Israel since its inception has believed in imposing its views on what it considers its enemies. It is only a matter of time in the current background that it will be willing to use its only card left to play with: i.e. overwhelming military power. Israel did not achieve all its military goals in the past two military ventures i.e. in Lebanon 2006 and Gaza in 2009. So Israel will be willing to use its military power to emphasize to its allies and foes that it is still the overwhelming military power in the region and is willing to use that power to impose its will on what it considers enemies. Israel believes that this would also send a message to its weary American allies to look again at Israel with more seriousness.
It is difficult to predict which time and against which opponents Israel will get involved into a war but one thing is clear, when Israel will be involved in the war it will use overwhelming force for a quick victory. Israel will fight for a quick victory since it is not possible for Israel to fight a prolonged war considering the hostile international public opinion it will generate against Israel. That Israel may look to military options for imposing its will on those which it considers its enemies is supported by veteran Foreign affairs expert Spengler (David P Goldman) in this column. In this column the veteran expert clearly mentions the case from an Israeli perspective on a military venture. History also suggests that Israel will resort to military option to impose its will on those who it considers as its enemies when it considers itself under pressure as it did in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006 and Gaza in 2009.
From a regional and global viewpoint, this coming war by Israel would be nothing short of a disaster as it would destroy any hopes of peace in the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as weakening the moderate elements in the current democratic movements in the Arab world in favor of more extremist elements. This war will also sully Israel’s reputation a great deal and very few will be prepared to trust it as a responsible and trustable player in International affairs.
The Arab states are too divided between themselves or militarily weak to prevent and deter any Israeli military ventures. The only regional power which can deter any Israeli military design is Turkey. Since the beginning of the current uprisings, Turkey has played the role of mediator and negotiator to bring peace and order in the turbulent West Asian region. It is the only military power which has the power to deter any possible Israeli military ventures. Apart from Turkey, the BRIC countries also have the financial and political clout to deter any such unwarranted move by Israel. In my view Turkey in collaboration with the BRIC countries should convince the United States to dissuade its Israeli allies not to make any hasty move that may directly make the current volatile situations in the West Asian region absolutely out of control.
After its victory in the six-day war, Israel’s main concerns have been to prevent the rise of any potential military challenger in West Asia as well as consolidating the military gains it made in that war. Israel was also helped by its “special relationship” with the United States. Throughout the cold war, it projected itself as “the only democracy in a region of autocrats and tyrants”. The peace deals Israel made with two of its neighbors i.e. Egypt and Jordan helped Israel to maintain its dominance over the region. Israel built settlements on the land it captured during the six-day war to create a Jewish majority i.e. “facts on the ground”. The gulf wars in 1991 and 2003 helped Israel in removing Iraq as a possible long-term military challenger. Since 9/11, Israel benefited immensely by presenting itself as the last outpost of Western civilization in the ongoing “War on terror”.
The ongoing popular movements in West Asia have presented unique problems for Israel.
Israeli fears of possible democratic political dispensations in post-revolution Arab nations: There are fears in Israel that the post-Mubarak government in Egypt would not toe the Israeli line on important matters regarding Israeli economic blockade on Gaza or Israeli isolation of the Hamas-led government in Gaza. Israel also fears that the peace agreement signed between Egypt and Israel which allowed Israel to concentrate upon its opponents in the North may not hold. Israel’s fears regarding Egypt are based upon the notion that any democratic government would have to consider popular opinion in its decision making and the popular opinion about Israel in Egypt as well as in the rest of the Arab world is not positive.
An end to the Israeli argument of being the “only democracy in Western Asia”: Israel is also fearful that if Arab nations go on to become successful democracies, its own position as “the only democracy in the middle east” will come to an end. The Americans and other Western countries have often claimed about spreading democratic values in West Asia as their main foreign policy objective. So if the current popular movements in West Asia do go on to produce stable, representatively democratic states in the West Asian region American policy objectives will be met. Thereby Israel’s importance in the eyes of its backers in the Western world would certainly go down. There have been voices in the American intelligentsia like Steven Walt and John Mersheimer who have been calling the United States to reduce its overwhelming support of Israel. Those voices would only get louder once more Arab nations become successful representative democracies.
An end to Israeli argument of not having any Palestinian partner to negotiate: Israeli strategy Vis a Vis the Palestinians since the six-day war have been to consolidate its hold on the Arab territories that it seized on that war. In this regard it has always sought to create and sustain a Palestinian leadership which would sufficiently co-operate with it in that regard. Sufficient co-operation with Israel extends to cracking down on any movement opposed to Israeli policies in the area. Without any doubt this can not said to be popular among the Palestinian populace. This is the main reason why Israel is apprehensive about any thaw in the relationship between the Fatah and Hamas-led governments in the Palestinian territories. Unlike the Fatah-led Palestinian authority in West Bank which has been willing to collaborate with Israel on some security matters, the Hamas-led Gazan government is staunchly opposed to Israeli policies in the territories. Any unified Palestinian leadership would also mean that Israel will not have any one willing to collaborate with Israel on Israeli policies inside the Israeli-occupied territories. On another note the more divided the Palestinians are, the easier it is for the Israelis to make the argument that they do not have any fixed partner for peace negotiations. A unified Palestinian side would put an end to that position also.
Veteran Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has emphasized that the only way Israel can have peace is to ensure that Palestinians feel no hope for repealing their plight under Israeli influence and are forced to beg to Israel for sustenance. All Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians since the six-day war in 1967 have to be seen in this context. But of late Israel feels its position Vis a Vis the Palestinians is not gaining anything. The Palestinians either in Israel proper or in the occupied territories has not yet given up fighting for their rights despite being in wrong end of Israeli policies for last 40 years. The world is not as favorable to Israeli designs as it used to be in the past as we can see a growing worldwide campaign to boycott Israel alike the one against apartheid South Africa. Now in this background Israel feels that it is slowly losing the support and goodwill it needs to remain an admired and respected nation in the comity of nations.
Israel since its inception has believed in imposing its views on what it considers its enemies. It is only a matter of time in the current background that it will be willing to use its only card left to play with: i.e. overwhelming military power. Israel did not achieve all its military goals in the past two military ventures i.e. in Lebanon 2006 and Gaza in 2009. So Israel will be willing to use its military power to emphasize to its allies and foes that it is still the overwhelming military power in the region and is willing to use that power to impose its will on what it considers enemies. Israel believes that this would also send a message to its weary American allies to look again at Israel with more seriousness.
It is difficult to predict which time and against which opponents Israel will get involved into a war but one thing is clear, when Israel will be involved in the war it will use overwhelming force for a quick victory. Israel will fight for a quick victory since it is not possible for Israel to fight a prolonged war considering the hostile international public opinion it will generate against Israel. That Israel may look to military options for imposing its will on those which it considers its enemies is supported by veteran Foreign affairs expert Spengler (David P Goldman) in this column. In this column the veteran expert clearly mentions the case from an Israeli perspective on a military venture. History also suggests that Israel will resort to military option to impose its will on those who it considers as its enemies when it considers itself under pressure as it did in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006 and Gaza in 2009.
From a regional and global viewpoint, this coming war by Israel would be nothing short of a disaster as it would destroy any hopes of peace in the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as weakening the moderate elements in the current democratic movements in the Arab world in favor of more extremist elements. This war will also sully Israel’s reputation a great deal and very few will be prepared to trust it as a responsible and trustable player in International affairs.
The Arab states are too divided between themselves or militarily weak to prevent and deter any Israeli military ventures. The only regional power which can deter any Israeli military design is Turkey. Since the beginning of the current uprisings, Turkey has played the role of mediator and negotiator to bring peace and order in the turbulent West Asian region. It is the only military power which has the power to deter any possible Israeli military ventures. Apart from Turkey, the BRIC countries also have the financial and political clout to deter any such unwarranted move by Israel. In my view Turkey in collaboration with the BRIC countries should convince the United States to dissuade its Israeli allies not to make any hasty move that may directly make the current volatile situations in the West Asian region absolutely out of control.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Let us share our World Cup triumph with our neighbors
The recent World cup cricket victory of our Indian team has presented us with a great opportunity to channelize our feeling of jubilation and ecstasy into strengthening our sometimes hot sometimes cool relationships with our neighbors.
The three of our neighbors who participated in this World Cup i.e. Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh share similar socio-political as well as economic issues that we ourselves face. Our vanquished opponents in the knock out stages i.e. Pakistan and Sri Lanka both face serious political and economic challenges. I believe we should like a true brother share our glories with them at this critical juncture of their nations’ respective histories.
Distinguished Foreign affairs expert Dr. Sreeram Chaulia mentions in this article that the world cup triumph signifies a new renaissance of the hopes of millions of downtrodden masses of India who look to cricket not as a sport but as a medium for upward mobility.
Like us the populations of our neighbors also share the same aspirations and face the same challenges (probably more difficult challenges in places in north-Western Pakistan in particular) that we do. So if we reach out to them at this critical juncture when we feel we are at the top of the World this will definitely strengthen our position in the hearts and minds of these people.
Here are some of the initiatives I believe we should take to achieve the same. The all-powerful Board of control for Cricket in India (BCCI) alongside the government of India should donate US$1 million (these can be derived from the huge revenues that we have been able to generate thanks to our successful organization of the World cup) to the calamity-hit peoples of Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Both these two countries have been going through massive socio-political upheavals in the recent years so donating this amount would show our goodwill towards the real people who are suffering from all these problems.
Next, we could offer to play charity cricket matches in venues like Colombo (with Sri Lanka) and Dubai (with Pakistan), the revenues from the charity matches should be donated for the education of thousands of orphan children in places like the calamity-hit Khyber Pakhtoonkhwah province of Pakistan (previously known as North Western Frontier provinces) or civil war hit regions in Eastern Sri Lanka.
We could also invite the T-20 champion teams from our neighbors to participate in our IPL tournament and henceforth make it as a SPL (Sub-continent Premier League). This would also allow our neighbors to participate in the bonanza called IPL which would undoubtedly help them to achieve their much needed finances.
The strife-torn children in these troubled areas do not have much bright prospects in their futures except the dark alleys of poverty, illiteracy and extremism. With this initiative we can think about giving these needy children some better options like education and career. If these children decide to take up cricket bats and pens instead of guns; I believe it will be our societies whose security will have better prospects in the long term.
Cricket as Dr. Chaulia mentions has helped lower middle class youths like MS Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar to become the icons of our nation. This game is not only a pass time for our youth but a medium to reach newer heights in life that none of our previous generations could ever have imagined. I believe this is the future we should offer to the populations of our neighbors also. The World Cup triumph has given us the best possible opportunity in decades to project ourselves as the real leaders in the region. This is an opportunity we should not let pass by us.
The real leader is not the one who only exalts in his triumph but is the one who is ready to share the spoils with the rest.
The three of our neighbors who participated in this World Cup i.e. Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh share similar socio-political as well as economic issues that we ourselves face. Our vanquished opponents in the knock out stages i.e. Pakistan and Sri Lanka both face serious political and economic challenges. I believe we should like a true brother share our glories with them at this critical juncture of their nations’ respective histories.
Distinguished Foreign affairs expert Dr. Sreeram Chaulia mentions in this article that the world cup triumph signifies a new renaissance of the hopes of millions of downtrodden masses of India who look to cricket not as a sport but as a medium for upward mobility.
Like us the populations of our neighbors also share the same aspirations and face the same challenges (probably more difficult challenges in places in north-Western Pakistan in particular) that we do. So if we reach out to them at this critical juncture when we feel we are at the top of the World this will definitely strengthen our position in the hearts and minds of these people.
Here are some of the initiatives I believe we should take to achieve the same. The all-powerful Board of control for Cricket in India (BCCI) alongside the government of India should donate US$1 million (these can be derived from the huge revenues that we have been able to generate thanks to our successful organization of the World cup) to the calamity-hit peoples of Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Both these two countries have been going through massive socio-political upheavals in the recent years so donating this amount would show our goodwill towards the real people who are suffering from all these problems.
Next, we could offer to play charity cricket matches in venues like Colombo (with Sri Lanka) and Dubai (with Pakistan), the revenues from the charity matches should be donated for the education of thousands of orphan children in places like the calamity-hit Khyber Pakhtoonkhwah province of Pakistan (previously known as North Western Frontier provinces) or civil war hit regions in Eastern Sri Lanka.
We could also invite the T-20 champion teams from our neighbors to participate in our IPL tournament and henceforth make it as a SPL (Sub-continent Premier League). This would also allow our neighbors to participate in the bonanza called IPL which would undoubtedly help them to achieve their much needed finances.
The strife-torn children in these troubled areas do not have much bright prospects in their futures except the dark alleys of poverty, illiteracy and extremism. With this initiative we can think about giving these needy children some better options like education and career. If these children decide to take up cricket bats and pens instead of guns; I believe it will be our societies whose security will have better prospects in the long term.
Cricket as Dr. Chaulia mentions has helped lower middle class youths like MS Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar to become the icons of our nation. This game is not only a pass time for our youth but a medium to reach newer heights in life that none of our previous generations could ever have imagined. I believe this is the future we should offer to the populations of our neighbors also. The World Cup triumph has given us the best possible opportunity in decades to project ourselves as the real leaders in the region. This is an opportunity we should not let pass by us.
The real leader is not the one who only exalts in his triumph but is the one who is ready to share the spoils with the rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)