by the meltingpot: The 18th of June and the ceasefire mode.

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.

Monday, June 22, 2015

The 18th of June and the ceasefire mode.

At the very outset,I'm pleased to statethat this 15th June is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.It punctured the theory of the Divine Right of the king.In that sense,it's the harbinger of democracy,as we know it today.

But,in today's world,is democracy the legitimate target of attacks(just like the Taliban did today in Kabul)?

Specifically,in our case,would democracy solve the problem underlying 18th June?

Incidentally,on the 18th June 2015,the Hong Kong legislative body voted down the Chinese model of democratic election prescribed for Hong Kongers.In other words,they said that the Western-style democracy would prevail over the Chinese model in the long run.

Again,on the 18th June 2015,there was a bloody shooting inside the historic church in South Carolina,snuffing out nine innocent black lives.The shooting emphatically reminded us the wounds of the tight tussle between those people espousing the idea of federation and those of confederation.I'll be quick to clarify that confederation based on the idea of slavery is totally unacceptable.But the tussle between decentralisation(confederation) and centralisation(federation) is still relevant today.

I've no idea why the above two events happened on the same day which is the soul crushing one for us ie,the 18th of June.But every newspaper reader knows that they actually did happen on that day.Did they serve as the fodder for thought for us here in Manipur?

The 18th of June,for the Manipuris,essentially boils down to the intricacies of the hill-valley relationship.For many decades,we have a more or less working federal setup.But hill-valley problems remain as strong as ever.So,would a more de-centralized confederation system be the answer?

Together with this federal system,we have also electoral democracy rooted in both the societies of both the hill and the valley.But this also not solve our problem.

But one thing is beyond controversy.Hill-valley relationship of Manipur is as intricate and old as the polemics of federation vs confederation and Western-style democracy vs pro-poor syatem,like that of China.

I know it's laughable to even think of attempting to sketch a simple profile of hill-valley problem of Manipur in a single blog post.It's a soul-crushing probelm for Manipur.

But bloggers are a new breed of people!So,I would try it anyway!!

To my mind,hill-valley relationship of Manipur essentailly boils down to the game of 'fair competition and mutual respect' between the people of hill and valley.Any political system that enables the free play of this game would be suitable for us.

Putting our problem in the canvas of 'fair competition and mutual respect' game,this blogger,being born in the valley,would try to answer the crucial question: what had happened to the valley society which disables it to fully and truthfully engage in the game?

Whenever I ask this question,I perenially come to face to face with one single person--Poireiton.The trouble of Manipuri society has its genesis in the person of Poireiton.It's not about race--it does not matter whether he came from the East or the West.

What is of utmost importance now--in the context of the general development of social history of Manipur,Pireiton is the first challenge.

In the context of real-politic,he is anti-Pakhangba.

It's not from history book but I think it would not be any controversial to state that prior to 33 AD,the administration of State,being of homogenous and small population,was almost a flawless affair.This being so,Pakhangba decided to bestow some of the benefits of this flawless state administration model to the less fortunate folks(like Poireiton).

It may be taken as the first attempt to make the society heterogenous.As expected,Pakhangbe encountered problem at the very outset in the person of Poireiton.We know that Pakhangba might have tried to porttray himself as some kind of a divinity to bestow the fruits of the good state adminstration to numerous groups of people--Poireiton's group being just one of them.It's clear that it was smooth sailing with all other groups,except that of Poireiton's.

There is still a lot of controversy regarding what actaully transpired beween Pakhangba and Poireiton.

But two non-conttroversial facts stand out.

1) Pakhangba not only married Poireiton's sister but also installed her as the queen.This shows the immensity of the challenge posed by Poireiton to Pakahngba in particular and to the regning political system in general.This also points to the likely scenario that it was not the case of the outright subjugation of Poireiton.It is more of a case of uneasy ceasefire.

2) This point seems to be further consolidated by the second fact that Poireiton and his group came with comparably sophisticated culture,as shown by the cullinary surprises experienced by Pakhangba and his ruling class(as is evident in the transcription of Poireiton's name in some forms of rice which are still considered to be delicacies).The clash of two comparably sophisticated culture points to the existence of an uneasy ceasefire.

Seen in this light,we are still living with the longest ever ongoing ceasefire in human history.No neighbouring community(be it of hill or whatever)would ever respect a society which has been under a choking ceasefire for a such a long time.In other words,we still cannot command the respects of the neighbouring communities for this reason.

The first and foremost condition which we need to meet so as to tackle the problems like that of the 18th June is quite simple--walking out of the choking and debilitating ceasefire.

We need to quickly walk out this of ceasefire mode.

by the meltingpot

Now Reading!

Now at 2nd place

This is the 3rd