The world focused on the Northern areas of Pakistan to capture or kill the al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives. But the harsh reality is that even if these operatives are eliminated, there are other outfits in the rest of the southern part of Pakistan that have the same aims, will and training as that of al-Qaeda or Taliban.

After 2001 Pakistanis were spoon fed the propaganda that the violence in Pakistan is due to America’s presence in Afghanistan. As a result, many hate the U.S. intervention and see Islamists as the defenders of Pakistani sovereignty. Those who support the Islamists for their religious beliefs are relatively few in number, but they are better organized. The arrests of extremists depends on the willingness of Pakistan’s secret agencies and/or the influence of the Saudi government.

The dual policy of keeping the U.S. happy while supporting the terrorist outfits was charted out by the then-President of Pakistan Gen. Pervez Musharraf. He half-heartedly banned some 23 organizations but failed — deliberately — to bring their sponsors to justice.

The story of Southern part of Pakistan is much scarier than the Northern part. Just as the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached, those “banned” outfits were on the rise, exploiting the anti-Americanism in the country and misusing the name of religion.

Jaish-e-Muhammad, the group blamed for an attack on the Indian parliament, is the second largest jihadi group in Southern Punjab. It carries out regular public gatherings and has strong influence in the U.K., Europe, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and even in the U.S. Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi was their financial patron-in-chief at one point. Another major financer is Saudi Arabia.

JeM changed its name a few times because of the “ban.” It went from Khudam-al-Islam to Al Rehmat Trust International to Usman Trust. Currently it is operating under the banner of Al Shafi Islamic Medical. Its publications were never out of print.

The failed Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, spent much of his time at a JeM madrassa in Karachi. He was transported to the North later by Laskhar-e-Jhangvi for further training.

LeJ’s parent organization — Sipah Sahaba Pakistan — changed its name from Millat-e-Islamia to International Quran Movement to Ehle Sunnat wa Jamaat. Its propaganda organ publications were available to the masses outside mosques and various market places.

The LeJ formed and operated its new wing, also known as Lashkar e Jhangvi al Almi (LeJ International). With its headquarters in Pakistan, it covers Europe and the U.K. The LeJ is organized into small cells of around eight cadres each, who operate independently of the others.

LeJ leader Malik Ishaq told an Urdu newspaper about his involvement in the killings of 102 people. He was allowed a stipend and provided a mobile phone in jail. Ishaq was released this year after the courts found no evidence against him.

Gen. Musharraf’s government carried out just one operation against the Islamic fundamentalists, under pressure from the Chinese government, when he ordered the Red Mosque Siege. Pakistani intelligence officials said they found letters from Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to the leaders of the mosque, directing them to conduct an armed revolt. One of the leaders was released by the courts later.

The LeJ, JeM and Harkat ul Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) formed a common front called Lashkar-e-Umer with countrywide branches for close cooperation and pooled resources. These groups still support each other in one form or another.

The Karachi-based Al Rasheed Trust, was “banned” and listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department on September 22, 2001. The group is still operating and its chief was one of the few who had direct access to bin Laden.

Similarly, another group, the Falah-e-Isnaniyat Foundation (FIF) is linked with Lashkar and Jamat-al-Dawa and protected by the security establishment. These groups are also supported and funded by the Saudis.

The freehand operations of these groups have radicalized Pakistani society. Anti-Americanism spreads while Arabization has taken hold.

There are more and more mosques in each city, many run by such outfits. In some places three separate mosques of different sects are built next to each other. The sermons delivered there go unchecked and ultimately fuel the hatred and twisted ideology of dividing Muslims and bringing ‘sharia’ of their liking to the world. Public Billboards promoting jihad and hatred of America are everywhere cloaked as appeals for “charity.”

Pakistan’s internal crises include a deep cynicism that has seeped into every nook and cranny of everyday life. Politically, the army continues to run the popular narrative. Socially, if liberals talk about rapprochement with India, they’re accused of being controlled by RAW, the C.I.A. or the Zionists — or all three. The radical view that it’s acceptable to kill Shi’a, Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians and destroy their places of worship is widespread.

Because of this chaos, ordinary Pakistanis who want to travel, work and study abroad are finding it harder to do so. In the eyes of many immigration officials around the world, to be Pakistani is synonymous with being a criminal.

It’s been said many times that 9/11 changed the world. After the attacks, Afghanistan and Pakistan felt the heat.

Ten years later, the diseases that had been contained in Pakistan metastasize more rapidly than ever. Pakistan’s militants, all of them, are a threat to international peace. If the West’s strategy for combating radicalism continues on its present parochial course, the world will feel the heat.

Does Holder care that Obama continues to by-pass Congress with his numerous Executive Orders, skirting US law? Nah. Does he care that Labor Secretary Solis declares that the US will extend all the same labor rights and benefits to illegal immigrants that citizens enjoy? Nuh uh. Does he think it is the least bit suspicious that the head of the AFL/CIO, Richard Trumka, has made, on average, a visit to the White House every 16 days, or that Trumka talks to the White House EVERY DAY, which might imply an extraordinary influence on policy? Yawn. Nope.

So what DOES Holder and the DOJ see as critical? Upholding India’s law – even though India did not ask them to do so.

Huh?

Yes, the DOJ is going after Gibson Guitars for using a particular type of wood from India for their fret boards that the DOJ claims violates INDIA’S laws. WTH? Are you kidding me?? The answer would be no – this is not a joke. The DOJ has raided Gibson Guitars. I am just shaking my head in disbelief. I saw something about this while on vacation, and thought it must have been the (virgin) Pina Coladas by the pool, but no – it is real. The US DOJ is going after them for what they perceive as Gibson violating another country’s laws :

Juszkiewiz said the government suggested that the company’s use of unfinished wood from India is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because of the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. The Holder Justice Department raided at least two Gibson manufacturing plants this week forcing hundreds of workers off their jobs. Juszkiewiz says the company lost a million dollars this week.

Finally, Henry Juszkiewicz told Dana, “The Obama Justice Department wants us to just shut our doors and go away.” He says he will continue to fight for the Gibson company and its workers.

To say that the CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, is hot under the collar about this is both an understatement, and understandable:

“What it does is it shuts down production because we use that as raw material. If they take our raw material we can’t produce the product. So it’s been extremely disruptive beyond the value content,” said Juszkiewicz, according to a story from Nashville’s NewsChannel 5 WTVF-TV.

According to a press release from Gibson, the heart of the issue comes down to the Department of Justice’s interpretation of a law in India.

Federal agencies have “suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.),” the Gibson press release said.

This is not Gibson’s first brush with federal agents. In 2009, agents seized guitars and ebony fingerboard blanks from Madagascar, according to the Gibson press release and other stories.

Holy cow. Are they KIDDING with this? Really? This is where we are? Holding companies to account for laws in OTHER countries, which it appears they are not violating anyway? It is disturbing to the extreme that the same agency that gave us “Fast and Furious” is going after a guitar maker for wood legally imported from another country based on its interpretation of the other country’s laws.

This is insanity. The DOJ is failing across the board to ensure compliance in this country on a host of laws, but they are raiding a small manufacturing company that is in compliance with US laws? Wow. I tell you, 2012 cannot come soon enough for me. No telling how much more damage Obama and his Administration will do to the country in the time remaining to his destructive stint in the White House, but good grief, this is just beyond the pale. What’s next, going after any number of companies because they might not support The One with their donations (better watch out, Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz – you could be next), or because their companies are not unionized? Holder claims this is not political in nature. And I think he is full of crap.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Obama realized the CEO of Gibson Guitars will be in attendance at his big Jobs speech tonight (which sounds like it will be more of the same o’, same o’ from him – I expected nothing less). Yep, Henry Juszkiewicz will be the guest of Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), sitting there looking at Obama while he blathers on. Rich, ain’t it?

Something is seriously, seriously wrong at the DOJ when they start trying to impose the laws of other countries on a select company, select because its CEO belongs to the wrong party, it would seem. Hmm. This reminds me of something. What could it be? Oh, yes – now I remember. Revenge. And that has no place in our government.

No serious attempt has been made to analyse this phenomenon even though the transformation of Pakistani society over the last three decades pints to this trend.

This new breed of Taliban supporter is overwhelmingly comprised of the upper-middle class that sprang up out of the villages or suburban areas thanks to the enormous flow of American cash that washed through the region after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and later the U.S. invasion.

The corruption in foreign aid distribution, the secret funds for Afghan Mujahideen and the generous bounties to kill or capture extremists sent the price of real estate sky-rocketing in Pakistan, making the farmers living around big cities rich. Flush with cash, the newly-rich farming class left rural life behind and moved to cities.

This is a major transformation in Pakistani society. Usually population shifts of this magnitude happen over an extended period of time. In Pakistan, it happened over two to three decades, drastically changing a social order that had been in place for almost two thousand years.

Around 322 b.c. a Mauryan ruler, Chandragupta Maurya and his successors expanded his power westwards across central and western India, enforcing principles of governance and laying down rules of administration, including tax collection, maintaining the army, completing irrigational projects, enforcing law and order, devising rates of taxation, and reviving the way of life in the cities and villages. Villages became so self-contained that travel became unnecessary.

The great Mauryan Empire ended in 185 b.c., but the system the King Ashoka put in place remained in place and for the most part untouched, even by the British rulers. Village life remained unchanged until the advent of new technologies. The introduction of mechanized farming and harvesting eased the arduousness of farm work and led to an increase in productivity. But on the other hand it rendered a big chunk of the society unemployed. The void created by idleness was filled with religion. New classes emerged, new rites were formed.

A similar phenomenon was occurring in India, but was countered by the development of industry. Residents of rural areas in search of jobs moved to cities, worked in factories and united under labor unions, forming a new working class fighting for equal rights and better opportunities. In Pakistan, however, attempts to build industry were interrupted time and again by dramatic swings from martial law to democracy and back again. Unstable governance rivalries among industrial barons also slowed or disrupted the building of an industrial worker class.

The segment of the new city dwellers brought with them the customs of village life, including myths, superstitions and family structure. The new urbanites were also largely uneducated and taken aback by the bustle of city life and the ways of residents whose worldview was shaped by modern conveniences. The overwhelming majority of these new city residents have become part of the new middle and/or upper middle class trying to fit into a Westernized lifestyle but with poor results. It is this segment of the population that wants to drink alcohol and travel while at the same time supporting the Taliban as holy warriors. They do not want to let go of their old world values and virtues. They form the base of support for politicians like former cricket legend Imran Khan, whose confrontational attitude towards the West boosts their sense of patriotism.

These new urbanites would fall into one of two extreme categories. If the family had strong but backwards religious beliefs, they spent their money building a mosque or supporting religious organizations – their own way of thanking the Almighty for their unexpected good fortune. If the family had cut its ties with such religious dogmas they choose instead to engage in conspicuous consumption — purchasing high-priced houses, acquiring personal booze collections unmatched in most bars in the West, importing expensive cars and moving money to foreign banks. More important is what they didn’t do with their new found wealth: Reinvest the money into the local financial system.

The way out of this alarming state of affairs for Pakistan is to reform the education system that matches to the needs for the modern industrial era coupled with the formation and development of an industrial and manufacturing sector.

The vast majority of foreign aid provided by the international community is still being targeted at state security agencies, as is a disproportionately large percentage of the country’s budget. The Saudi government discovered long ago that paying to mould the minds of the youth in Pakistan was an excellent investment. The results – the rise of totalitarian Islam, contempt for democracy, romanticizing violent Islamist movements, and sectarian violence – are all too evident. It’s time for the West to become a counterbalance and seriously support civilian governments instead of relying on military dictators to further their agendas. The West should also keep on pressing the civilian administration for good governance if they want Pakistan free of extremists.

Basically, a foreign national has been killed by another foreign army. What does Pakistan have to do with this, then? Nothing and everything. And this nothing yet everything has placed Pakistan between a rock and a hard place.

If Pakistan admits that it helped US forces kill bin Laden it fears a backlash from the different militant organizations with in its boundaries, and if it denies any such cooperation then it will be labeled a supporter of Al Qaeda.

For this reason Pakistan – which is defined as the Pakistan Army and the agencies, including the infamous ISI – stayed silent. So silent that it’s scary. It’s the silence before the storm. This storm is not necessarily directed at the US, the CIA, Afghanistan or India. The tempest could be directed at foreign militants. Remaining silent was a wise approach and the best strategy so far for Pakistan. Be aware of that silence. The pendulum could swing either way. The forces that actually control Pakistan — and I’m not referring to politicians — could back any horse at this point. Or spread the wager across the board. Only time will tell.

The US media has been hammering Pakistan day and night. The media should consider Pakistan’s tight spot here. The US needs help, not just rooting terrorist networks out of Pakistan but in Afghanistan as well. It’s not easy for a country to sustain repeated bombardments, knowing that it depends on the country doing the bombing for large quantities of foreign aid. Already, a number of politicians and the Pakistani media are defining the bin Laden raid as another example of infringement of sovereignty and using bin Laden’s death to goad the US to pull out of Afghanistan. Rock, meet hard place. If only the US media understood that.

Then there have been conflicting reports coming out of various US departments. But the fact is that the raid could not have succeeded without the ISI’s help. Clearly bin Laden’s time was up. Given the ISI’s deserved reputation for treachery and intrigues, wouldn’t there have been a strong and deep bunker under that mansion to hide bin Laden? Or a maze of tunnels to help him and his family escape? Bin Laden was trapped, with the local support on the ground.

Obama said last night that he got confirmed reports of bin Laden’s location last week. I looked out for events that happened last week. President Obama was busy dealing with Trump’s nonsense, while the Pentagon was hosting ISI chief General Pasha. Coincidence? I don’t think so. There must have been a deal, a tit for tat.

Pakistan’s religious quarters have already started to question then authenticity of the killing. Above all, they have started asking US to wrap up their “war” and leave the region. Which again the US or NATO cannot afford to do. Not yet at least. The US has to deal with Afghanistan, Karzai, the Taliban, the Quetta shura…and the list goes on.

So let’s not get carried away here. The war is not over yet. Bin Laden killing has improved Obama’s approval ratings, but bin Laden’s death has hardly put a dent on al Qaeda. Keeping in mind that Al Qaeda’s's real ideological inspiration is al-Zuwahiri, who’s still very much alive. And probably on the ISI’s watch list too.

While Obama is be-bopping about (getting out of Dodge after the Mid-term Election), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been on her own trip. First, she went to New Zealand, where the Prime Minister referred to her as “President Clinton.” Secretary of State Clinton also made a visit to Papua, New Guinea, a ‘filip” for that country. In Cambodia, she was in the midst of a group hug of young women who were human trafficking victims.

And Secretary Clinton visited Australia, where she discussed a number of important issues, highlighting the US-Australia alliance over China. But the highlight has to be this interview with comedians Hamish and Andy:

That is the Hillary we know and love, the Hillary we so needed to take the reins of this country, especially in these difficult times.

Unbelievably, Chris Matthews who shoved Obama down our throats on MSNBC(O), and constantly belittled and demeaned Hillary Clinton throughout the primaries said this about her appearance with Hamish and Andy: “Had you seen this Hillary Clinton in 2008, she might be president.” Spare me, Mr. Matthews. You, personally, did so much to tarnish Hillary Clinton during the primaries that even Media Matters came after you for it. WE knew this is who we would get, but you and your network were hellbent on pushing Obama on us despite his thin resume. Just freakin’ spare me already.

Instead, we got Obama (thanks, Chris), much to the dismay of many of us, including SC State Senator, Robert Ford. Turns out, back in 2007, State Senator Ford, an African American, took some heat for his prophetic (as it turns out) statement that if Obama was elected, he would pull down the entire Democratic Party. Huh. Well, whaddya know. He was right, as the Mid-Terms have made abundantly clear.

And no, Obama, it isn’t your “failure to communicate“:

Um, no, it was your policies.

But Mr. Ford is not done with his projections, no sirree, as this Post and Courier article indicates:

[snip] Ford, a Charleston Democrat, said U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, should step out of a leadership role next year, or the whole party will go down in defeat. Ford said the same goes for U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

Clyburn and Pelosi have offered themselves for leadership positions in next year’s Congress, when the Democrats fall back to the minority party. Clyburn will run for House minority whip and Pelosi will run for the role as minority leader.

“If they elect Nancy Pelosi or Jim Clyburn to leadership, the Democratic Party will be taken off life support,” Ford said. “That will be the end of the Democratic Party. They’re bad news right now.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley. Tell us how you really feel, Senator Ford! Well, you know, he was right once about Obama, and my bet is he’ll be right again should Pelosi and Clyburn prevail (Clyburn is now in a race with Steny Hoyer as the two battle for the Minority whip position).

Should it come to be that for Pelosi and Clyburn to keep leadership positions does take down the Democratic Party as Senator Ford fears, then Secretary Clinton may feel free to embrace other opportunities. Like a move to Australia, for instance. Hey, if she gets wind that the people of Australia would appreciate and welcome her leadership, she just might take them up on it.

And if that happens, I’m outta here. Australia, here I come, to the land of koala bears, kangaroos, and didgeridoos. Hey, I’m all set. Check it out: “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi!” Here, we can all practice together:

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know – the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed – she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong – as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

f you don’t have time to watch the video, click on it anyway, and the transcript is available underneath it.

I have company from out of state, so this will be brief. Suffice it to say, for someone Obama claimed to be a Foreign Policy lightweight, she sure makes him out to be a liar, doesn’t she?

Admit it – her cracking up laughing made you smile, didn’t it? Sure did me…And then the way she engaged with External Affairs Minister Krishna afterward, so warm and engaging. He seemed to be pretty happy, too.

Interesting about the whole nuclear power issue, isn’t it? About us building nuclear power plants in India? I’d love to hear your thoughts on that, especially if you read THIS article in Newsweek, or THIS one from US News. So, what do you think?

Gotta go run pick up my favorite cousin, who is also one of my favorite people (you know, blood family who is also chosen family), at the airport. But you know I’ll check in later…

The two pincers putting the squeeze on Pakistan are 1) its mainstream majority population, and 2) its extremist, fundamentalist minority that is now getting armed to the teeth and swept up by the Taliban. In between is the Pakistani Army, which has no experience in counterinsurgency operations and is using conventional warfare to fight the well-armed Taliban, blowing up entire towns and dwellings, which has caused a massive refugee crisis — the largest of its kind since Rwanda — and for which Pakistan made NO advance preparations.

Here are some illuminating videos I’ve found that I’d like to share with you because they taught me so much. Included in the first two are Hillary Clinton’s statements.

From WorldFocus.org, an excellent backgrounder on the Swat Valley crisis, with these explanations to set up the video:

United Nations figures show that over 1.45 million people have been displaced by ongoing violence in Pakistan since May 2.

The immense strain of this humanitarian crisis is challenging the Pakistani government as it tries to avoid internal dissent against the consequences of its anti-Taliban military campaign.

The U.S. has pledged more than $100 million dollars in emergency assistance for Pakistan.

Ahmad Kamal, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United Nations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the situation in the refugee camps and how the military campaign is going.

From Hillary Clinton’s statement, posted at the State Department’s Web site:

Humanitarian Aid to Pakistan

[...]

Americans can use technology to help, as well. Using your cell phones, Americans can text the word “swat” — to the number 20222 and make a $5 contribution that will help the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees provide tents, clothing, food, and medicine to hundreds of thousands of affected people. And before I came over here, we did that in the State Department. So we are making some of the first donations to this fund.

President Obama and I hope that individuals who have fled the conflict will be able to return home quickly, safely, and on a voluntary basis. Some have already gone back to their communities. And as they do, the United States stands ready to help Pakistan’s government support displaced persons as they rebuild their lives.

But as long as this crisis persists, our assistance will continue. We face a common threat, a common challenge, and now a common task. And we know that the work ahead is difficult, but we have seen an enormous amount of support and determination out of the Pakistani government, military, and people in the last weeks to tackle the extremist challenge. And we’re confident that with respect to the humanitarian challenge the people of Pakistan and their government, as well as the international community, can come together and forge not only the assistance that is needed, but stronger bonds for the years ahead. …

These two CNN videos are CRITICAL to view. The first gives you great background information on what’s going on in Pakistan, and the second discusses the disturbing developments in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal:

Crisis in Pakistan 2:25
CNN’s Ivan Watson reports on the first pictures from the battles between Pakistan’s army and the Taliban.

Is Pakistan adding nukes? 1:57
CNN’s Chris Lawrence looks at satellite photos that indicate Pakistan is building a nuclear reactor.

UPDATE: “Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says“

[...]

During a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, veered from the budget proposal under debate to ask Admiral Mullen about public reports “that Pakistan is, at the moment, increasing its nuclear program — that it may be actually adding on to weapons systems and warheads. Do you have any evidence of that?”

It was then that Admiral Mullen responded with his one-word confirmation. Mr. Webb said Pakistan’s decision was a matter of “enormous concern,” and he added, “Do we have any type of control factors that would be built in, in terms of where future American money would be going, as it addresses what I just asked about?”

Similar concerns about seeking guarantees that American military assistance to Pakistan would be focused on battling insurgents also were expressed by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee chairman.
“Unless Pakistan’s leaders commit, in deeds and words, their country’s armed forces and security personnel to eliminating the threat from militant extremists, and unless they make it clear that they are doing so, for the sake of their own future, then no amount of assistance will be effective,” Mr. Levin said.

[...]

::::::

From John Batchelor’s blog. Every Sunday, hear Larry Johnson on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show, aired on KFI-AM.

O P E N   T H R E A D   T O O

John Batchelor’s show begins at 10 p.m. ET. Then, at 10:30 p.m. ET, DON’T MISS LARRY JOHNSON TONIGHT on the Batchelor show, via KFI 640 AM.

Check out the full slate of guests and topics tonight. John Batchelor’s KFI show begins at 7:00 p.m., so tune in early. Here are the topics and fellow guests during Larry’s appearance:

If this is your first time listening, you’ll want to visit the site early in case you need to download an easily installed program to hear the show.

GO HERE to view the full line-up of guests and topics tonight on KFI, from beginning to the program’s conclusion.

Yesterday, I wrote of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the US. Today, it is India:

What courage, what strength, these women demonstrated. May their success be far and wide.

Speaking of courage and strength, here is a broader retrospective of Women Leaders in our history who helped get us where we are:

Here is one of my favorite athletes in one of my favorite sports (soccer), a woman who made history, Julie Foudy, in celebration of Women’s History Month:

Oh, and yes, Hillary should have been in the video of Women Leaders. So this one is for her, and for all of us:

[Writer's note: Part I is my commentary on the movie, Slumdog Millionaire and Part II is about the inspiring story of the real slums in Dharavi, Mumbai.]

PART I — A Commentary

I find the word Slumdog highly objectionable. Whom are we calling Slumdogs? Who are we to call them that? How do they feel being called that? [Referring to someone as a dog is also offensive in Indian culture.]

Yet the movie Slumdog Millionaire has the slick title and the awards to go with it.

This genre of movies makes Indian audience (and perhaps others) uncomfortable raising many different emotions: in some helplessness, embarrassment, denial, and acceptance of ills of poverty; in others anger, humiliation, and even irritation at the privacy invading curiosity of Westerners peeking into their debased existence as if it is some two-headed monster that they have to watch, pity, and recoil at the same time.

I have to admit that I don’t understand the fascination of Western filmmakers (especially British dudes) to insert themselves into this mix. May be they think they are doing social service.

At the end of the day, a pragmatic reaction to all the hoopla is to conclude that it is only a movie and that certain things, good or bad, are done with artistic license. The good news is that the music and the artists got their well deserved recognition. Bollywood music with its elaborate choreography in the recent days is a visual as well as aural feast when it is done well (if you are doubly curious about this point, you can check these videos from other movies: here and here).

Here is the song from Slumdog Millionaire that won an Oscar for the music director, A. R. Rahman:

A Western director went and filmed the movie authentically in the Mumbai slums; the rest of the world was treated to the real and unadulterated truth about the ugliness of poverty and the hell on earth reality. Like I said before maybe some of them think they are doing social service. Some of the little children in the movie were also authentic; they came from those very slums. They didn’t even have to act; they just had to be themselves. They were paraded in all finery on the red carpet at the Oscars. What will happen to them tomorrow? Do they go back to the same slums they came from? How generous of the director to set up education funds for those kids after making millions of dollars exploiting their life story and circumstances. Is that fair or enough? These children are not like extras in other movies. The incongruity between the station in life of the filmmakers with these children (and their families) is too vast. Some of the children themselves do not have the full opportunity to exploit their current windfall like their western counterparts. I worry what will happen to them next. There is a reason why some things are not to be trifled with. I have a message to that director — If you can’t find a complete solution to their quality of life (and their parents will have a say in it now that they are also involved), you have no right to fool around with their heads.

After watching this video, I fervently hope these kids do well in life and the adults in their life now do right by them. Oh, that little Rubina is so cute (and looks so vulnerable — Indian papers say that her biological mother has surfaced from nowhere in the last couple of days and vying for her against her step-mother). Can I adopt her?

A Bonus Video on the inspiration for the book on which the movie is based:

The movie Slumdog Millionaire was made from the original book entitled Q and A written by Vikas Swarup, an Indian diplomat/writer. It is noted that the Hole in the Wall project was an inspiration to writing the story Q and A and I can see how. This is a project from 1999 (still running) which envisioned putting a computer in slums and rural areas to study how the children would use that resource. The unique vision for this project came from the project founder and education specialist Dr. Sugata Mitra. The world would be a better place with more people like Dr. Mitra than people like Danny Boyle.

CNN News video on both the movie and the Hole in the Wall project:

More on Hole in the Wall project from a 2002 PBS Frontline/World story:

Several years ago, a computer scientist, Dr. Sugata Mitra, had an idea. What would happen if he could provide poor children with free, unlimited access to computers and the Internet? Mitra launched what came to be known as the hole in the wall experiment.

The first Hole in the Wall computer kiosk went online on January 26, 1999, in the slum of Kalkaji in New Delhi. Today, there are 52 such kiosks connecting kids to the Internet around the country. By the end of 2003, Dr. Mitra and his team at the Centre for Research in Cognitive Systems hope to have 108 Hole in the Wall computer kiosk clusters operating in 22 different sites across India. Funding for the Hole in the Wall experiment comes in part from the Indian government, the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation.

A Bonus Read: Is the Slumdog version the real India?

[snip]Writers and filmmakers came from far away to capture the real India — poor people and scabby dogs sharing space in hot dustbowls. Now, thanks to Aravind Adiga, Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy and David Miliband, it’s being argued that the real India is back in focus. Is it?

The truth is the real India never really went away — in real life or fiction. In the ’50s and ’60s, the best, most popular Bollywood stories were told by Raj Kapoor, who often played the underdog. He was a Chaplinesque tramp living on a footpath and trying to make both ends meet in the big, bad city. The trend continued into the ’70s and ’80s when angry young men — born in gutters and raised on the sidewalks — fought pitched battles with the men who ran the system. [snip]

With such a rich collection of stories about the real India already with us, why do we credit the new kids on the block with its creation?

Narendra Jadhav, vice-chancellor of Pune University and author of the Dalit family story Outcaste: A Memoir, says, “I don’t think Adiga and Boyle have shown the real India. There is a silent revolution happening in India, with millions of people who have lived on the margins for centuries, now experiencing positive changes in their life. Adiga’s The White Tiger and Slumdog Millionaire show the bad side of this change. That’s also a reality but it’s not the real India.” Jadhav’s multilayered saga traces the awakening of Dalits over three generations. No story about the real India could be more real than this.

The [Jadav's] book, translated into 17 languages, has been a bestseller in many European countries. It has sold 200,000 copies just in South Korea. “It’s a story of triumph but it’s not a rags-to-riches story. It’s a story of courage and hard work. My father never went to school but I went to the US to do my PhD,” says Jadhav, formerly chief economist of the RBI. “It’s a book with universal appeal.”

Dr. Jadhav’s inspiring life journey of overcoming obstacles as a Dalit (lower caste) in a democratic society riddled with contradictions of its caste system is not sexy enough to win an Oscar but reveals the most important social progress happening in India now.

PART II — Dharavi Story

Those of you who saw the movie may have recognized the resourcefulness of the young man to pull himself out of the wretched circumstances that bound him to a different destiny. There are many such real life examples of resourcefulness and hard work in the slums of Mumbai, one in particular called Dharavi. I see nobility in these people who have helped themselves. It is a fairytale that won’t win an Oscar but puts food on the table for a family, a shanty roof over one’s head, and meager sanitation for some, and for the lucky few, even a way out of their slums. But many self righteous ignoramuses with their cliched notions of slums and poverty demand that we all have to accept the slum dwellers’ wretched existence for what it really is, no sugarcoating slum dwellers’ suffering. What these privileged few don’t understand or are unaware of are the modest successes brought about by those same slum dwellers in their quest for a better life. Dharavi is one such hopeful story.

Now from the movie version of a Mumbai slum to a real life story of the slum Dharavi in Mumbai.

The Foreign Policy site did a photo essay recently about the slum dwellers of Mumbai (there is also a more detailed article in The Guardian). Some facts about Dharavi from the photo essay:

Up their alley: About half of Mumbai’s 16 million residents live in informal settlements known as slums, the largest of which is Dharavi. Between 600,000 and 1 million people call Dharavi home, but for many, it is also their place of business, the site of approximately 15,000 cottage-industry factories powered by an unflagging entrepreneurial spirit. “You in the West so easily see the slum as a negative concept. … But Dharavi has also been mirroring India’s economic revival,” one Dharavi advocate told The Guardian.

Trash to treasure: Dharavi may look like a junkyard, but there’s no such thing as junk here. The community is a superhub of recycling, employing more than 250,000 people who make their living reincarnating others’ refuse. Eighty percent of Mumbai’s plastic gets reborn in the slum. As seen here on Feb. 3, workers meticulously sort everything from bottles and lids to ballpoint pens and broken toys. The plastic is ground into tiny flakes that are reprocessed into new products.

Carrying on: Dharavi is famous for its potters’ colony, called Kumbharwada. [snip] Other products manufactured in Dharavi’s cottage industries include soap and leather. One leather worker was so successful that he exported 25,000 belts to Wal-Mart in the United States; he has since moved up and out of Dharavi. Although low by Western standards, wages are much more than can be earned in rural India, a fact that attracts migrants. All told, annual economic output in Dharavi is anywhere from $650 million to $1 billion.

Can-do spirit: Another product that is recycled is metal cans that once contained cooking oil. Workers, similar to those shown here in Dharavi on Feb. 3, hammer dents out of the cans, bathe them in water, and polish them for a second life. One can-recycling entrepreneur told The Guardian at his “corporate headquarters”: “We process over 400 of these [cans] a day. … We clean them up and sell them back to the oil companies and direct to local consumers.” Other recycled products include cardboard and paint chips, which are pounded into a powder that can be reconstituted into paint.

As the reporter from The Guardian said [getting beyond the squalor and the depravity of the surroundings] “If you have the patience to look closer, you will find here one of the most inspiring economic models in Asia. Dharavi may be one of the world’s largest slums, but it is by far its most prosperous – a thriving business centre propelled by thousands of micro-entrepreneurs who have created an invaluable industry – turning around the discarded waste of Mumbai’s 19 million citizens. A new estimate by economists of the output of the slum is as impressive as it seems improbable: £700m a year.”

How did Dharavi come to be? from the Time:

As Bombay[Mumbai] grew and industrialized, Dharavi became a “human dumping ground” for dispossessed workers and penniless migrants arriving to seek their fortune in India’s commercial capital, says longtime resident Ram Bhaukorde, 69. “Anyone too poor for Bombay proper could find a home and a living here,” says Bhaukorde. Today, Dharavi has a population of between 600,000 and a million—the figures are rough because the area was officially an illegal settlement until 2004 and the authorities have yet to quantify it—and it’s the largest contiguous slum in the world.

Yet in recent years prosperity has been trickling down to Dharavi’s residents, many of whom are no longer rib-counting poor. Today, there’s 24-hour electricity and running water—albeit for just an hour a day. In a research study published in 2002, C.K. Prahalad and Allen Hammond reported that 85% of households own a TV, 75% a pressure cooker and a mixer, 56% a gas stove, and 21% a telephone. Locals estimate that 70% of Dharavi’s buildings are now used for commercial purposes, such as banks and restaurants. Dharavi is home to some of the city’s best leatherworkers, as well as textile and furniture factories, potteries and bakeries. Moreover, as Bombay has expanded, what was once malarial swamp on the edge of the city now occupies prime real estate right at its center. Sayyed says a standard two-room, 21-square-meter apartment now sells for more than $11,000, up from $7,000 two years ago and $1,500 a decade ago.

“We did this,” declares Bhaukorde, gesturing at Dharavi’s bustling main drag. “No government, no rich people, no charity. Just poor people, working hard.”

From the LA Times:

Many residents bristle when they hear such terms [as when a developer called it a black hole]. They dislike the word “slum,” which they feel conjures up an image of misery and torpor.

Squalor and wretchedness definitely exist. Rats scuttle along the gutters. Women wring out the day’s wash in open drains while their children play cricket between heaps of rotting garbage. In some parts of Dharavi, several families share a single tap, and even more families share a single toilet — or simply do their business in open areas. Stray dogs add to the stench.

But there are no idle hands here. Dharavi is a hive of activity, a marvel of entrepreneurial spirit and hard work that, in its own way, is as much a reflection of the new India and its go-go economy as the glass offices of the business park across the way.

[snip]

Khan, the cardboard-box recycler, languished as a farmer in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, before landing here eight years ago looking for something better. He is constantly hustling, a go-getter attitude that enabled him to buy his own workshop in 2006. The property has nearly doubled in value since, he said. Khan, 40, oversees seven employees, all recruits from his home village. As his own boss, he is able to go home for lunch with his wife and five children every day. In a good month on the farm, Khan earned 6,000 rupees (about $140). Here, monthly revenue can be 50 times that. “Why would I go back?” he asked rhetorically as he relaxed for a few minutes on a stack of collapsed boxes.

In Mumbai real estate is scarce, even a middle class family could at best afford a one bed room apartment. That being the reality, Dharavi sits on a huge swath of prime real estate. Developers, government officials salivate at the thought of demolishing the slum and building high rise office buildings and apartments. In one plan, Dharavi residents are even offered to be housed elsewhere in 225 sq ft apartments. But as the LA Times article notes:

But many who live here take fierce pride in a community that they and their families built, for some over several generations, with little help from the state. They refuse to be uprooted without a fight.

“This is like my country now,” said Ramakant Rai, a grizzled electrician who has lived in Dharavi for 35 years, most of them in a shack built right up against a massive water pipe laid down during the British Raj. “I say to the government, let us stay here and we’ll build our own houses.”

[snip]

In 3 1/2 decades of living in Dharavi, he[Rai] has heard politicians and officials talk big before about reclaiming and rehabilitating this place. Those politicians and officials are gone now. Dharavi — with all its failings and problems, its chaos and unruliness — remains.

Dharavi is perhaps not even the bottom of the barrel. Life in general in a country like India holds many challenges. Rural life and farming depend on the Monsoon. Migrant workers from rural areas rush to the big cities in search of jobs. Poverty extends through multitudes of layers to varying degrees and as quality of life is improved for one layer, another surfaces in its place. There are good and bad politicians. Corruption is a way of life for some when they are in a hurry to elevate their current economic status. Government can only do so much when you have a billion people to feed and provide shelter. Let us not forget that India is a democracy unlike China which can institute a one child policy and quickly reduce its population growth. Who can complain about human greed or corruption from what we have seen here in this country recently? I can easily see these politicians here being equally corrupt if I transplant them there. We just have a more sophisticated veneer here.

As hapless observers we can lament all we want from our cozy, comfortable surroundings about how bad, ugly, wretched it is for those slum dwellers. We can demand others to do the same, insisting that there is no nobility in poverty. All that is a given and does not interest me at an intellectual level. I am looking for solutions. I am looking for a ray of hope, a silver lining somewhere. I see that in Dharavi residents. At no point, can we assume that they lack pride and self-respect, and work ethic and ingenuity. Acknowledging and lauding their efforts to get out of their meager existence with or without the help of others is the least we can do. There are no slumdogs here. There are only human beings trying to survive and even lead honorable lives. We have to uphold their dignity in the way we talk about them, in the way we acknowledge their existence.

Looking to the future, my wish is for the government and the developers to honor what Dharavi residents have built over the years by providing support for their “entrepreneurial” spirit. May be the Oscar winning director Danny Boyle could help them out with some of his millions.

Setting aside sarcasm about Danny Boyle and the rest, Dharavi represents a challenge as well as promise and potential for urban development. The challenge is that these are illegal settlements, squatters who don’t own the land they live on. The promise is that they have built a successful and economically viable community albeit without infrastructure on the same land. So the question now is how this community should be transformed into a legitimate township. Developers, local and central government, and advocates for Dharavi are struggling over these issues. The proposals from developers to give Dharavi residents free apartments in high-rise buildings have not been received well. Prakash Apte, an Urban development expert says this about Dharavi redevelopment plans and efforts [see here for article]:

Case studies all over the world have documented the inappropriateness of high-rise resettlement projects in poor areas. The social and economic networks which the poor rely on for subsistence can hardly be sustained in high-rise structures. These high rise projects are not appropriate for home-based economic activities, which play a major role in Dharavi.

The least that can be done in this redevelopment plan is to refurbish the work places of the existing industries within the residential areas and remodel this project by providing low-rise high-density row housing for existing families engaged in home based occupations. This way, each house will have a ground floor and an additional story , as well as a terrace and a courtyard which can be used for these home-based business activities.

Unfortunately, the formulation of Dharavi Redevelopment Plan as a profit-maximizing real-estate tool leaves no room for exploring such sustainable and economically viable low-rise, high-density approaches. It exposes the DRP as a weak cover-up for a land grab of the worst kind.

Disagreements about how to end injustice, and specific injustices, are as old as injustice itself. Whether one is considering the injustices of colonialism, racist domination, oppression of women…in each and every one of these areas, those who can agree in broad general principle have often found themselves disagreeing over specifics, including some major ones. To make common cause does not magically bring about harmony.

When Gandhi fought to escape the injustices of British rule, he was opposed by people who resisted his ideas about throwing over caste distinctions. When Mandela picked up arms to fight apartheid, many withdrew their support from his movement. When King sought to expand his conception of civil rights to include equal access to economic opportunities, former and potential allies turned against him.

None of these examples of fights for justice achieved perfect justice, no more than the Civil War achieved a perfect Union. But I do believe that the U.S. Civil War achieved a more perfect union. Likewise, I believe the India of today is a far more equitable place than the India of one hundred years ago, that the South Africa of today, like the U.S. of today, has achieved within the past fifty years enormous strides toward racial justice.

My own dream is that within my lifetime, I see the progress toward the good of justice for women that Gandhi, Mandela, and King got to see the toward the goods of justice they pursued in their lifetimes. They managed to see results in their pursuits even though each had to learn when to resist pressures from people who genuinely shared their vision and when to resist the lure of becoming subservient to those who offered only short term funding and enrichment rather than truly shared commitment.

Now, even as I write this, millions of men and women are freshly galvanized to make it a reality that all the world comes to see women’s rights as human rights, to see woman as just as much the paradigm representative of humanity as man, and therefore to see a woman’s rights as indistinguishable from any human’s rights. With all that energy comes passion and motivation. But with it comes too friction and infighting. With it too comes the willingness by some to give up the chance to speak truth to power, in order perhaps, to gain power, but nevertheless at the sacrifice of a chance to speak without fear of offending.

I believe that at the end of every day, and at the start of every morning, a person needs to be able to reflect upon herself or himself, and address these questions to herself or himself: if I am fighting for justice, am I making choices that do not compromise my integrity? What can I tolerate in allies even if I cannot join wholeheartedly in every step they take? Can I broaden my toleration without selling out my convictions?

Especially in the fight against the subjugation of women, men and women must ask themselves these questions, because one of the hardest obstacles to achieving progress toward the good of justice for women is the tendency toward infighting on the one hand and selling out on the other. Fighters for the empowerment of women tend to care about all sorts of injustice and obviously have some very basic differences, including differences in sex, race, and class. These differences can lead to fissures and cracks that can render the fight for justice for women, for justice for people, very tough going. But the common interest in justice for all must be used to resist the fissures and to repair them, when possible. What cannot be repaired is selling out. Certainly, one person’s “sell-out” may be another person’s “reasonable compromise”. Personally, I believe in the necessity to question one’s own choices in such matters very closely, because it is very tempting to see oneself as the reasonable compromiser, the unifier, the one who moves beyond “unnecessary” partisanship rather than to recognize in oneself the more natural tendency in human nature toward selling out.

For my own part, I prefer to err on the side of sticking to my convictions rather than losing them in a process of mollification and conciliation. If enough other people join me in those convictions, then they and I will not have to mollify and appease: we will ultimately have coming to us those who would now have us coming to them. We will be numerous enough and bonded together strongly enough in the fight for women’s rights – the fight for human rights – to the point where will we have the upper hand, both ethically and tactically.

For my own part, I would rather take ten million baby steps toward the good without losing my footing in conscience than take a great leap and risk losing my moral compass. I will march with as wide a cohort as I can – even when we disagree on some things – in the name of reaching my goals. But I will not join ranks with those who are able to take heady leaps that gain them a seat at the local powerbroker’s table or a grant of some of that powerbroker’s money at the price of their integrity.

If ten million or twenty million or fifty-one million people choose to baby step along with me and I with them, we will, together, make the same rate of progress as those who choose to go it more or less alone. In the fight to beat misogyny and sexism, in the fight to achieve proper representation and empowerment for women, I expect great changes. I demand great changes. I will work toward great changes. But I know the greatest shifts toward justice take years to accomplish. To stick it out, every step forward must be appreciated and celebrated (e.g. Senator Clinton’s name placed in nomination even at the admitted charade of a free and open Democratic Party convention) and every step backward must be condemned and resisted (e.g. the retention of a speechwriter for the President of the United States of America who participates in boorish, distasteful and sexist party shenanigans.) Time is on the side of those who fight for justice, so long as those who fight for justice do so with patience and tenacity, and resist the parallel temptations toward selling out or excessive infighting.