by the meltingpot: The 9th of December

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.

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

The 9th of December

Today is the 9th of December.

There were protest events in two district headquarters of Manipur.They were protesting the passing of the three bills by the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

The last post of this blog mentioned that the said three bills adequately represent the will of the people of Manipur.If there are protests against the bills by some sections of the people of Manipur,how can we say that the bills adequately represent the will of the people?

This is difficult question for the present generation of the people to answer.In all fairness,it would be accepted by all that the question is best answered by the people of this society who are several generations away down the line.

But the present generation have no choice but to negotiate hard choices confronting the society.In doing so,they have to be constantly guided by this difficult question.

Are we making choices which are dictated by the will of the people of this society?

How are we going to know that we are representing the will of the people?

I'm fairly certain that these are the questions that are foremost in the mind of the leaders of various constituents within Manipur who are currently trying to make the hard choices facing the society.Each leader in their own way assume that he/she represents the will of the people.

But the folks in our society are witnessing several leading constituents taking visibly divergent paths in trying to make the difficult choices for the society,that too,while their leaders assuming that they are representing the will of the people.

Noting that we are in a pretty difficult position,let's try to address to the question from another perspective.

Can the three bills be counted as representing the will of the people while still facing some protest from some section of the society?

Fortunately for us we have Nepal to serve as our sounding board.

The recent Comstituent Assembly of Nepal was boycotted by the Madhesis,the people of Indian origin of the country(who form nearly 50% of the whole population of Nepal).Despite that,the business of the Assembly was pushed forward and the brand-new Constitution is,presently,in force in Nepal.

Should we say the brand-new Constitution of Nepal do not adequately represent the will of the people of that country?

Are we equating the hillmen of Manipur with the Madhesis of Nepal? Is there any legitimate ground for doing so?

If we try to answer these new questions,we would be surely faced with endless polemics.There is no good in traversing along that path.But the one thing which would be universally acceptable is the statement that the hillmen of Manipur have already got a law(in the form of their tribal customary law,which, any other State laws,on purpose,do not supercede) which forbids the purchase of lands in hills by non-hillmen.The existing law pretty much solve the problem arising out of influx of migrants.

This must be reason why the hillmen did not participate in the agitations for enacting the three bills,which,it must be noted,aim to stem the tide the influx of migrants in the state.

Viewed from this perspective,it would be completely unreasonable for the hillmen to say now that they form no part in the agitation and hence,they have nothing to do with the three bills.

While still trying to deal with the subtle question mentioned above,we should also not forget the fact that there were protests against the three bills on the 9th of Dec because they wanted them to serve as a response to the ultimatum--the ultimatum by the leaders spearheading the agitations for the three bills(my last post).

As a way of reinforcing this response they have just wrapped up the Heart of Asia conference in Islamabad.The Heart of Asia conference is a Turkish initiative,which,incidentally,is holding the torch of the war by shooting down the Russian fighter jet.

Not to be outdone,Russia also fired the first missile from a submarine towards Syria.

Now,on the 9th of Dec,I'm reading this newsreport from Burma.They are attacking the Shans,which,here,in our society,is also known as the Pongs.Like the Russians do with their missile from submarine,they are attacking the Pongs for no military objective.Instead,they are emphasizing the significance of the 9th of Dec.

The age old general perception of the Pongs is that they are less trustworthy.Reading this together with the protest events of the 9th Dec,it's legitimate to raise this question--would the Pongs go with the hillmen to de-legitimize the three bills?

Would they do that?

by the meltingpot

Now Reading!

Now at 2nd place

This is the 3rd