by the meltingpot: Will there be physical threat?

Now Reading!

Indeed, what is at work in the recent return of realism is the revenge of geography in the most old-fashioned sense. In the 18th and 19th centuries, before the arrival of political science as an academic specialty, geography was an honored, if not always formalized, discipline in which politics, culture, and economics were often conceived of in reference to the relief map. Thus, in the Victorian and Edwardian eras, mountains and the men who grow out of them were the first order of reality; ideas, however uplifting, were only the second.
And yet, to embrace geography is not to accept it as an implacable force against which humankind is powerless. Rather, it serves to qualify human freedom and choice with a modest acceptance of fate. This is all the more important today, because rather than eliminating the relevance of geography, globalization is reinforcing it. Mass communications and economic integration are weakening many states, exposing a Hobbesian world of small, fractious regions. Within them, local, ethnic, and religious sources of identity are reasserting themselves, and because they are anchored to specific terrains, they are best explained by reference to geography. Like the faults that determine earthquakes, the political future will be defined by conflict and instability with a similar geographic logic. The upheaval spawned by the ongoing economic crisis is increasing the relevance of geography even further, by weakening social orders and other creations of humankind, leaving the natural frontiers of the globe as the only restraint.
So we, too, need to return to the map, and particularly to what I call the “shatter zones” of Eurasia. We need to reclaim those thinkers who knew the landscape best. And we need to update their theories for the revenge of geography in our time.
Here is the link for the whole write up.

Now at 2nd place

My view is that relations between countries in the coming decades are most likely to reflect their cultural commitments, their cultural ties and antagonism with other countries rather than other factors. Quite obviously, power will continue to play a central role in global politics, as it always does. But usually there is something else behind conflicts. In the 18th century in Europe, the issues to a large extent involved questions of monarchy versus the emerging republican movements, first in America and then in France. In the 19th century, it involved states identifying themselves through nationalism. In the 20th century, ideology came to the fore, largely, but not exclusively, as a result of the Russian Revolution. We had fascism, communism and liberal democracy competing with each other. Well, that’s pretty much over. Liberal democracy has come to be accepted, in theory at least, around the world, if not always in practice. So the question really is what will be the central focus of global politics in the coming decades? My argument remains that cultural identities, antagonisms and affiliations will not only play a role, but play a major role in relations between states. The full interview is here.

This is the 3rd

Every citizen in the City of Richardson will be able to access 756 Kbps of internet connectivity for free, from anywhere in the city. They will be able to access the internet from their homes, schools, restaurants and parks using standard wi-fi connections which are now installed on almost every notebook computer. That is almost as fast as many so-called high speed broadband connections that one pays dearly for today, and several times faster than the various hotspots at your local coffee shops. And I should note that the tax-payers of the City of Richardson are not paying one penny for this, and in fact are going to see additional revenues as a benefit. ... At the beginning of this letter, I suggested that this would be one of the fastest worldwide rollouts of a technology ever seen. It was just 20 years ago that the first cellular systems were being built. The rollout for mesh wireless systems is going to make that look slow. There are several reasons I make this assertion. But they all center on the facts that installing mesh systems will be cheaper and easier than any previous system and the economics in both the developed and especially the developing world will be so radically compelling. Throw in the fact the any astute politician will want to be at the front of this parade (They will all want to say, "I was the man who helped bring free internet to everyone!") and the groundwork is laid for rapid deployment. In Richardson and elsewhere, MeshLinx is offering the basic infrastructure for free. This avoids all the time consuming, political budget battles in the cities. When a service is offered for free, much of the mandated competitive process is eliminated. Next is the low cost of installation of the system. As noted above, Richardson is a city of roughly 100,000 people living in 27.4 square miles. It will "only" cost about $2,000,000 today to lay the wireless blanket I mentioned above. It will cost a great deal less in the future, as MeshLinx is building the pods at a pace of 100 a month today. The maximum output of the US pilot assembly line is 500 a month. When the demand exceeds this (and it will in a very short time) discussions have been held to move volume production to China. Of course, the world will need tens of millions of pods. The cost for a pod will be a fraction of today's cost, with that installation number for a city like Richardson soon being half (or less) the cost of today. What does that $1 or 2 million get you? The infrastructure to be an internet connection, telephone, security, entertainment provider and a whole lot more company. As noted, it will get cheaper as the number of pods being made each month rises, thus lowering their costs dramatically. This technology does have scale. The cost of physically putting up a pod is not a large part of the equation, as you simply need to run a power line, attach a few bolts to a mount on the side of a building or light pole and then off to the next point. Think about the 40,000 homes and businesses in Richardson. If and (hopefully) over time when 10% decide to pay $50 a month for 10-20 Mbps high speed internet access you could see a revenue of $2.5 million a year just from internet access. Now add in all the other income possibilities (phone, entertainment, security and don't forget advertising revenue on the free service!). Think about your town or country. What would service like this be worth? If you are a small city that does not have high speed connections available, how many businesses that could bring jobs do not come your way because they need reliable communications for their work and their employees? If you are in a developing country, where internet access is difficult and expensive, it will open whole new vistas. Couple that with the various programs which want to give cheap laptops to kids in poor countries, and you could see significant social progress in a generation. Here is the link.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Will there be physical threat?

It’s now fashionable in Imphal to talk by using terms like non-state or state actors. Like, is it the handiwork of a non-state actor to explode the grenade in the ISKCON temple?

In our particular case, we have seen that the state actors had already issued a stern warning to Mr Babloo Loitongbam. Then, within a few weeks time, non-state actors came out with strong warning to him. See yesterday’s post.

Why should I repeat it tonight also?

Because, I find it imperative to add another strand to the still developing drama.

We have to go a little farther down the line. It was on the 3rd of this month. I talked about this conference organized by MAPI Council. The theme of the conference was—‘ Manipur in the aftermath of the ISKCON bomb blast: A retrospection’. Here is the full post.

Mr Babloo Loitongbam was the last speaker virtually wrapping up the speeches by all the resource persons. He talked about how was in Hyderabad when the bomb blast occurred. Though he was far out his State (or may be, because of that) he did not fail notice how the Home Ministry in New Delhi responded, within hours of the blast, by raising an accusing finger to one particular rebel group of Manipur. He commented that it was the most unusual response of the otherwise very protocol-savvy but bureaucratic-driven Ministry of Home Affairs, particularly the speed with which it reacted to this particular bomb blast.

Then he paused, shrugged his shoulders and blurted out—‘ Talking like may mean trouble for me when I go out of this conference hall’.

This, he repeated several times during the course of his speech and during question and answer sessions. The images of his body language keep still coming in flashes in my minds.

Will he be subjected to physical threat? This question keeps nagging me all through out the day. I tried to dismiss the notion as too preposterous, as being too enveloped in paranoia.

But his body language on that conference day refuses to go away from me.

So, call me paranoid, conspiracy-driven or anything for that matter but I would like to it on record that we must keep prodding for any lead that will show the likelihood of bringing physical damage to out human rights activists. We must be extra alert at around the time when they may start to infer their warnings have no perceptible effects on their activities. I mean, when they are likely to feel that they fail to kow tow the human rights activists.

Here, we must also remember that we are living in a society where there are devils who can throw grenade in a crowd of children and elderly and devils who have the resources to go al the way to the obscure Chin State in Burma and to wage battle with the standing army there to settle political score here.

So, anything is possible.

I only wish that writing like this would bring everybody to senses and it won’t come to that pass.

by the meltingpot

Now Reading!

Now at 2nd place

This is the 3rd