Racist Bones in President Trump's Body

By M.P. Prabhakaran

"Your pen is your biggest enemy" is the kind of warning M. P. Prabhakaran says he used to receive from his friends every time he published a provocative social or political commentary. He published them in The East-West Inquirer, an online monthly, of which he is editor and publisher. He has cited the warning in the preface to this book. The pre

• Language: English
• Publisher: Go To Publish
• Release date: Aug 17, 2020
• ISBN: 9781647490522

Book preview

Preface

Your tongue is your biggest enemy. I have heard this warning from my friends on numerous occasions. My response to them has always been: Have I ever used it to spread falsehood knowingly? They would smile away my response. I would then add: If calling a spade a spade makes me an enemy, I have no problem with that.

My friends have said the same about my writings, too. Every time they read an article I published, which they feared could get me into trouble, they would say: Your pen is your biggest enemy. And then, pointing to the topic of the article, they would add: Why bother, if it doesn’t affect you in any way?

Why bother, if it doesn’t affect you in any way? I would throw the words back at them and then add: History is full of examples of the disastrous consequences of this attitude. The powers that be got away with the atrocious things they did mainly because good people refused to speak up against them. They refused to do it for the only reason that those things did not affect them.

I often stressed my point by reminding my friends of the immortal words of the Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller. Those words, when first published, had stirred the collective conscience of the world. The words, as translated by Bob Berkovitz, are:

When the Nazis arrested the Communists,

I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.

When they locked up the Social Democrats,

I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.

When they arrested the trade unionists,

I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.

When they arrested the Jews,

I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.

When they arrested me, there was no longer

anyone who could protest.

After patiently listening to those words, my friends would give a pat on my shoulder and change the topic. Such gestures reassured me that at least those whose friendships matter to me had not joined the enemy camp my tongue and pen created. I knew their warnings were well-intentioned. They have known first-hand how the fearless use of my tongue and pen hurt my career prospects.

To give just one example. I was still in the formative stage in journalism when I arrived in the U.S., from India, in 1975. A few months after my arrival, something happened back home, which stained independent India’s democratic history. Indira Gandhi, the then-prime minister, declared a State of Emergency in the country and brought it under her authoritarian rule. She suspended all civil liberties and imposed censorship on the media. Many of my journalist friends reluctantly submitted to censorship rules and continued in the profession. I could understand why they did it. To them, the alternative would be starvation. A handful of senior journalists, who defied censorship and criticized Emergency, were put in jail. These were the journalists I intensely admired and had adopted as my role models. I looked for ways to express my detest for what Mrs. Gandhi did.

I decided to use The Voice of India, a monthly publication I had just started, to campaign against Emergency. Though I started the monthly to make a living practicing my profession, it soon became an anti-Emergency publication. I paid a heavy price as a result.

The draconian measures Mrs. Gandhi introduced in India had struck terror among Indians living in the U.S., too. They didn’t want to see in their living rooms a publication carrying articles with screaming headlines like India will survive Indira and her dictatorship, To destroy Indira’s republic is Asoka Mehta’s mission etc. (The late Asoka Mehta was one of the opposition leaders imprisoned during the Emergency.) I also started getting phone calls threatening me with dire consequences. With steadily dwindling circulation and advertising revenue, The Voice of India died a slow and painful death.

An unfortunate outcome of all this was that finding a job in journalism became very, very difficult for me. Nobody wanted to hire a person whom they perceived as a radical. I got a taste of this wrong perception at my very first job interview after The Voice of India folded. One of the writing samples I had attached to my job application was an article I had recently published. Pointing to its title, Why He Gave Up Marx for Gandhi: The Story of an Indian Revolutionary, the interviewer asked me, Are you that revolutionary?

I had to explain to him that the article was about Jayaprakash Narayan, who fought side by side with Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and other political leaders, against the British, in India’s freedom struggle. Ironically, the last political movement this one-time close friend of Nehru’s successfully led in India was directed at Nehru’s daughter and the Emergency rule she imposed. I came out of the interview, saying to myself: This job is not for me. Disappointing job interviews like this reminded me that the possibility of my being branded a radical was what my friends had in mind when they warned me about my tongue and pen. I soon realized that if I am keen on staying in journalism, I had to launch my own ventures, like the one just folded. To keep the wolf from the door, I even did non-journalistic work.

The next journalistic venture I launched was South Asia Newsspecial, a feature syndicate. It was followed by The East-West Inquirer, an online monthly, published at www.eastwestinquirer.com.

The book I am presenting to you now is a compilation of articles that appeared in The East-West Inquirer over the past two decades. The contents of the book may give you the impression that my friends’ warnings have had no effect on me. I can’t help it. Speaking truth to power is something that comes to me naturally. If by doing it I am able to keep a critical voice alive against the wrongs done by those in power, I will have accomplished something. And that’s my primary goal in bringing out this book.

●

I want to thank my friend Haresh Advani, formerly of Economic & Political Weekly, published from Mumbai, India, for reading the entire manuscript and making some valuable suggestions.

1

Bush Plays Patriotism Card

to Get Democrats’ Support

for Iraq War

October 15, 2002

The right to dissent is a laudable feature of democracy. It is more so in a political system like that of the United States which discourages ideological pluralism. The U.S. has only two political parties that matter, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Both hold identical views on most everything.

The absence of ideological pluralism notwithstanding, the American political system has a reputation for being so vibrant. The main factor that accounts for that vibrancy is the fearlessness with which a few politicians persist in exercising their right to dissent from powers that be in the country and in their own party. They have to be fearless because, on matters they dissent, they often find themselves taking unpopular positions and pitted against a tyrannical majority. Their courage of conviction has been the envy of many, even of those who are opposed to them politically. Alas, they are fast becoming an endangered species, thanks to the relentless attack on their integrity by paleolithic conservatives (paleocons) and, sometimes, even by non-conservatives.

Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

If the issue is related to economy, these conservatives try to stifle the dissent by calling the dissenters liberals, which, unfortunately, has become a dirty word in America. If the issue involved is national security, the attackers take the low road of challenging the dissenters’ patriotism. One is reminded of what Dr. Samuel Johnson said about patriotism over two centuries ago. Patriotism, he said, is the last refuge of a scoundrel. These self-styled standard-bearers of patriotism should know that systematic stifling of dissent can lead to a one-party political system that will not be much different from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein which they deplore.

That brings us to the present debate on whether to invade Iraq to rid that country of weapons of mass destruction, which the George W. Bush administration says it has. Even President Bush stooped to the level of taking refuge in patriotism to silence his critics and turn the debate to his advantage. The Republican president accused Democrats who are opposed to the idea of going to war with Iraq of not being serious about the nation’s security. That was enough to do many Democrats in. Even those who had earlier taken a bold, principled position and argued on the inadvisability of launching a preemptive strike against Iraq, which was what the president was campaigning for, started looking for excuses to rally behind him. Columnist Frank Rich of The New York Times described the somersault in their position thus: They challenged the administration’s arrogant and factually disingenuous way of pursuing its goal, then beat a hasty retreat to sign on to whatever fig-leaf language they could get into the final resolution. Their performance, to say the least, was pathetic.

The underlying theme of the president’s campaign that led to the resolution was that the gravest threat to the nation’s security now comes from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Many around the world, though they detest Saddam Hussein, do not agree with the president’s contention. A lot of them even question the timing of his raising the issue. The world has been living with threats from Saddam Hussein for quite some time, they say. If there has been any new development that makes those threats more imminent now, the president has not produced any evidence of it. In the absence of such evidence, they have every right to question his intentions in raking up the issue just a few weeks before the congressional election.

Machiavellian Tactic

They argue that if the election is fought on the real issue confronting the country today, the electorate will overwhelmingly vote against the president’s Republican Party. The real issue is the shrinking economy and the people’s lack of confidence in the economic system itself. Some of the corporate crooks responsible for bringing the economic system to the brink of collapse happen to be the president’s buddies. There is no hope of getting the present trend reversed anytime soon. And the president has not come up with any concrete plan to reverse it. Hence his resort to the Machiavellian tactic of diverting people’s attention from the problems at home to the imaginary threats emanating from abroad.

Americans refuse to live in fear, President Bush repeatedly said during his campaign to win congressional authorization for use of force against Iraq. Unfortunately, the authorization has only added to that fear. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, they have been fearing more such attacks from the same group that was responsible for them. The group, of course, is Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. The passing of the resolution by Congress, on October 10, 2002, authorizing the president to use force against Iraq, has given them reason to fear attacks from one more group: Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.

All that matters to Saddam is his own survival, personal and political. He has proved to the world time and again that, if he perceives any threat to his survival, he would do just anything to eliminate that threat. The resolution, which the president bulldozed through Congress, has sent him a message that his days are numbered. Even if he had no plan to attack America before, he has reason to expeditiously put together one now. The attack from him could be to preempt the preemptive strike, which he fears President Bush is contemplating against him. Or it could be to avenge the strike if America launches it first. In either case, he won’t have any qualms about using the most lethal weapon he has in his arsenal. If he is sure that he is going down, he will not hesitate to take with him as many as he can.

Yes, to repeat what Bush said, Americans refuse to live in fear. But that is true only in normal circumstances. Having brought them to the brink of a catastrophe, he cannot expect them to live in anything other than utter fear.

Here is something the president can do to mitigate that fear and, if lucky, avoid the catastrophe: Stop the bravado and muscle flexing. Doesn’t he know the simple truth that one advantage of being a superpower is that it doesn’t have to keep rubbing in on others that it is a superpower. At the same time, it is worth bearing in mind that even a superpower is not invincible. If there is one lesson that the world learned from 9/11, it is this: It doesn’t take a superpower to humiliate a superpower. A bunch of disgruntled youths can do it, if they are given the wherewithal and fired up by fanaticism.

The president will be doing America and the rest of the world a big favor if he leaves the job of looking for and destroying weapons of mass destruction, which he says Saddam Hussein has in his arsenal, to the United Nations. If Saddam has such weapons, it should be the concern of the whole world. Let the world’s representative body address that concern.

Dialogue with Saddam

There is also a need to open a dialogue with Saddam, no matter how dangerous and despicable he is. He needs to be convinced that he has only two paths before him: the path of self-destruction and the path that will save his life, along with the lives of many Iraqis and Americans. He must be told that he would be allowed to take the latter path only if he abides by all the resolutions the U.N. Security Council passed in the wake of the 1991 war against his country.

Saddam can be expected to agree to this dialogue if he is given a modicum of recognition that any head of state deserves and if the dialogue is given the semblance of being one between two equals. The need here is of nuancing diplomacy. It can be achieved only if the U.S. steps aside for the time being and lets the U.N. play the role it is mandated to play.

Let the U.N. be represented by no less a person than its secretary general, Kofi Annan. I can also think of an American Saddam will grab the opportunity to have a dialogue with. His name is Jimmy Carter, the 39th U.S. President and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

In conclusion, here is my appeal to President Bush: Please pause and think about these options before you order the first strike. It is a question of saving thousands of lives, American as well as Iraqi.

2

Getting Rid of Saddam Hussein

Is the Undeclared Goal

of Gulf War II

December 31, 2002

The warmongers in the Bush administration may soon act out their threat to attack Iraq. Fifty thousand ground troops are being readied for dispatch to the Gulf region to join the 60,000 air force and navy personnel who are already there. The alarm the administration has raised gives one the impression that the missiles mounted with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are about to be launched by Saddam Hussein toward the shores of America. Apart from preempting such a launch, the impending war – call it Gulf War II – also has the hallowed goal of destroying all weapons of mass destruction the administration says Saddam has in his arsenal and of making the world safe from them. That, by the way, is only the declared goal of the war.

There is also an undeclared goal, a hidden agenda, which we don’t hear much about: destruction of Saddam Hussein himself. It is hidden in what is euphemistically presented to the public as regime change. As far as President George W. Bush is concerned, there is a filial aspect to this goal and, as such, it is very personal and more important than the declared goal. It must stay hidden because assassinating a foreign head of state is against American and international laws. It has to be accomplished in the course of fighting a war whose goal is couched in noble-sounding words. The goal of ridding a murderous dictator of the weapons of mass destruction he is said to be in possession of does sound noble. But while that goal can be achieved through diplomacy, war is the only means by which the undeclared goal of eliminating him can be achieved. Hence the insistence by the president on seeking a war solution, not a diplomatic solution, to the threat posed by WMD, which he says Saddam Hussein has. More about the filial aspect of the war in a little bit.

If Iraq is in possession