Sixth Course, Session Thirteen: John Howard

Australia has always had a hold on me, for reasons I still can't fully name. And for nearly all my adult life, the man in charge of Australia has been John Howard. Even though I mostly disagree with his politics, I've always had a soft spot for Howard because he is a fellow cricket nut. That is why I was excited to be part of a small group of students that got to chat with the former Prime Minister for a couple of hours.

Howard's childhood is a pointer to his personality and nature. His father was a gas station owner who fought in World War I. The household was conservative and politically conscious but largely adhered to a "hard-working small-business Protestant ethic". Thus, it's no surprise that the government he ran was "economically liberal and socially conservative - but liberal in the classical sense of free markets and little government intervention". (The notion of conservatism in Australia is of course different from the United States. Howard was able to introduce gun control because Australians lack the "entitlement mentality when it comes to owning guns" that Americans possess. He claims that it was this policy that reduced the high homicide rates in Australia).

photo credit: Wikipedia

The conversation was wide-ranging but serious, dealing with the EU (Howard can't fathom how nation states can give up soverignty to a larger entity), apologizing to the Aborigines (one generation cannot be held responsible for the sins of another), Fiji ("they seem to have fallen into a holding pattern of coups; the last one was even telegraphed in advance"), and Indonesia (needs to be commended for resisting "Islamic fascism").

But I couldn't resist introducing a lighter tone by asking about cricket. In some ways, just the fact that I get to ask a cricket question to Australia's second-longest serving Prime Minister was in itself the enjoyment. "It is sometimes said", I began, "that the second most important job in Australia, after the Prime Minister, is that of the captain of the Australian cricket team."

"Nah, mate, that's the most important job", Howard barked back at me as the Australians chuckled and the Americans looked bewildered. "It's certainly the most respected job", inserted an Australian student; I'm not sure whether that was a pointed jibe at Howard or not, but the former PM grinned in response.

"I know you are a serious cricket fan", I continued. "So, Mark Taylor or Steve Waugh, who was the better leader?" Now all the Australians cracked up for real. Howard paused for a moment and then chose the diplomatic route. "I can't choose between them, they both had their strengths. Taylor had flashes of tactical brilliance. Waugh was tenacious and really grew in his job. I know them both and they're very good men. I can't separate them."

The final question from the moderator was, of course, on what advice Howard had for the rest of us. He said three things: First, before you go into politics, do something else well. This will give you real world experience that is invaluable in the legislative process. Second, don't succumb to the cynicism about public service. It's the most rewarding thing you can do. And third, understand the debts you owe to the people who get you to where you are."

-------------------------------

Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee, Jaswant Singh, Pascal Lamy, General Abizaid, Ramachandra Guha, Ishmeal Beah & Samantha Power & Dominique Villepin, Sergio Fajardo, Mohammed Yunus, P. Chidambaram, Mikhail Gorbachev & Dr. Sakena Yacoobi

Sixth Course, Session Twelve: Mikhail Gorbachev & Dr. Sakena Yacoobi

Late last Fall, we were graced by contrasting lectures in different parts of the school on the same night. One by a world famous Nobel Laureate credited with ending the Cold War and the other by a humble largely unknown woman working tirelessly for the rights of children and women in one of the hardest places in the world. Funnily enough, it was the second lecture that was more moving and more inspiring.

My friend Ejaj Ahmad wrote the following email to me, and because he echoes everything I felt at these two events, I'm going to let him write this blog entry

----------------------------------------------

First of all, like everyone else at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS), I, too, was very excited when I heard that the legendary former premier of Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, was coming here to give a talk at the forum. I initially didn't win the lottery and had to work hard to secure a last-minute ticket to the event. I went there with high expections. After all, this is the man who brought the cold war to an end and played a critical role in shaping the history of the 20th century.

But to my disappointment, I found his narrative to be rather average with a few moments of eloquence here and there. Students at HKS attend these forums to draw inspiration from world leaders but I did not find his speech inspiring. He took us through the history of cold war era and provided useful insights into understanding the role of nuclear power then and its role in the world today. But where is the vision for tomorrow? Where is the fire? Perhaps he had the fire during the 1990s. Perhaps recyled stories and empty rhetoric of the cold war era don't resonate with people from our generation. Or perhaps my understanding of Soviet history isn't strong enough for a deeper appreciation of his legacy.

Photo credit: Ejaj Ahmad

I must confess, however, that he handled the questions very well. Here we saw more of the man behind the politician. Some of his stories were compelling and I was especially touched by his faith in the international legal framework to ensuring global order. He made two appropriate comments on terrorism and the role of US as a superpower. The first was in order to fight terrorism we need to address the root cause of terrorism which is poverty. Using military might against terrorism is only addressing the symptom and not the disease. His second comment was about the US not trying to dominate the world and expanding its military bases around the world. Rather, the US should maintain its leadership position by engaging other nations and creating a more participatory global political discourse.

In sharp contrast to the Gorbachev event, I was totally mesmerized by our other speaker of the evening. Dr Sakena Yacoobi is woman of character, upright and honest. She came to HKS to receive 2007 Gleitsman Leadership award. What I found most inspiring about her story was the tough choices she made in her life. She could have settled for the easy life in the US after her higher education but instead she chose the path less travelled and went to Afghanistan to give hope to poor women who had no one to give them hope.

But I want to emphasize something in the end. We all come to HKS to be future leaders and we attend these events to refine our own goals in life. I think I have learnt a powerful lesson from the two events tonight. There are two types of leaders in this world - leaders who are driven by their ego and leaders who are driven by their heart. While history bears testimony that both these types can be equally effective in leading change, I believe that leadership from the heart is the way forward for a fulfilling life. I don't by any means intend to look down upon Gorbachev's achievements but I personally could relate more to Dr. Yacoobi's story. The passion in her eyes and the fire in her voice was truly inspiring. She spoke from her heart and that gave her a different kind of credibility. It is what professors here call 'authentic leadership'. Sometimes it is easy for us to get caught up in this 'great man' theory and start thinking in terms of great deeds and great achievements.

We shouldn't just focus on great things in life. We should try to find greatness in small things and small actions just like Dr. Yacoobi did. You know a hundred years from now perhaps people will not talk about Sakena but I know for sure that her talk tonight has definitely inspired a few young women in the audience to take up the challenge and start working on pressing issues relating to women in poor countries. She leads by example. She has changed more than 350,000 lives in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the last ten years. And she still has the flame alive. That to me is the story of a great woman.

-------------------------------

Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee, Jaswant Singh, Pascal Lamy, General Abizaid, Ramachandra Guha, Ishmeal Beah & Samantha Power & Dominique Villepin, Sergio Fajardo, Mohammed Yunus, P. Chidambaram

Sixth Course, Session Eleven: P Chidambaram

India's current Finance Minister visited the Harvard Business School last week and delivered a boring recitation of India's economic woes and a list of problems the country needs to fix in order to grow even further. There was much criticism of systems - especially the education system - and few ideas of how to actually make anything better apart from getting the Communists to stop hindering economic growth. Same old stuff. Perhaps the only redeeming feature of his speech was the deep, well-thrown voice in which it was delivered, which despite leaning towards the monotonous still possessed a rich timbre that held an audience's attention.

He did redeem himself somewhat in the Q&A. When asked how to reconcile India's energy problems with environmental control, he responded in the punchy way that is typical of what some people call "the New India", aggressive, assertive, no longer willing to do as told for a few dollars of "aid". Paraphrased in non-energy lingo, it roughly translates to: "Don't expect us to be good when you're going to be bad." As the mostly Indian audience erupted in applause, what was lost is the question of whether this approach is the right policy or not.

Then came the almost obligatory question of how India is going to compete with China. Chidambaram replied in the same way that I've seen other Indian leaders reply: we're not competing with China; India and China are two entirely different beasts. But then he added something new: "However, if there's one thing I want us to learn from China, it's the single-minded purpose and ruthless efficiency with which they get things done. If they promise to have a road built in 90 days, it's ready in 75. We are nowhere close to this because of our politics and corruption. So we cannot compete with them on growth. However, there is the other side to democracy. I am more than willing to sacrifice a couple of percentage points of growth for the freedom to write and say and think just what I like."

This, sadly, was the high point in a mostly disappointing hour and a half.

-------------------------------
Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee, Jaswant Singh, Pascal Lamy, General Abizaid, Ramachandra Guha, Ishmeal Beah & Samantha Power & Dominique Villepin, Sergio Fajardo, Mohammed Yunus

Sixth Course, Session Ten: Mohammed Yunus

Often, superstar speakers can be frustrating because their high profile means they have to be carefully diplomatic, and hence they don't say anything interesting. Even then though, it's not what they say so much as how they say it that's important, because it gives us an insight into how they think, which to me is perhaps the most important takeaway of all. But every now and then, a celebrity is not just candid but also lets us into the workings of a fascinating mind, and these lectures tend to be the best. Yesterday, Mohammed Yunus gave one of the best talks I've seen yet at the Kennedy School Forum.

"I never thought I'd be a banker", he began. "I thought I would be a pilot or a captain or a policeman. So don't worry about what you are going to do. Do it as it comes." For those of us about to graduate and unsure what to do next, it's nice to have a Nobel Prize winner tell you not to worry about it.

Photo credit: Ejaj Ahmad

What later became the Grameen Bank was initially a loan of $27 given to a few Bangladeshi women during a famine, where Yunus realized that teaching economic theory was meaningless when people are dying all around you. The success of this tiny loan eventually inspired the creation of the Grameen Bank. "People thought I was an angel for giving them this loan", Yunus said. "So I thought, if I can be an angel for $27, I should do it a whole lot more."

After nearly thirty years of micro lending, Yunus claims that five years of successful borrowing from Grameen can get you out of poverty. "Poverty is not created by the poor", he stated. "It's imposed upon them by the institutions we have created, the systems and concepts we decided should govern society. But because it's an artificial imposition, it can be peeled off. That's why 64% of people can move out of poverty with their own effort, if you can just give them a little credit to get started."

One of the parties most guilty of this is the banking sector, because they make it so difficult for anyone to get credit, let alone the poor. "This sort of business is based on the theory that all everyone cares about is maximizing profit. So then they build a whole theory of our natures around this. So now everyone is busy fitting themselves to this theory, rather than have the theory fit us. But this is wrong because people are so much bigger than mere money-making machines."

This idea is what led Yunus to the concept of "the social business", where you recoup your investment but get no dividends after that apart from the satisfaction of helping people get out of poverty. Social business is so much better than charity dollars because no matter how well you use it, the charity dollar can only be spent once. But the social business dollar can be recycled endlessly to do good.

How exactly does the man widely known as the father of microfinance define the field he created, now that the field is evolving and spreading so many different ways? "I have a strict definition", he says. "Microcredit is small loans to the poorest people, usually women, without collateral or guarantee, for income generating purposes, at a reasonable interest rate."

When asked to compare Grameen Bank with some of the more profit-oriented approaches to microfinance, his answer was crisp and rather sharp. "The rate of interest should be the cost of the fund plus 10%. Upto 15% is ok but not ideal. Greater than 15% puts you in the territory of the moneylenders. And it is the moneylenders we have been fighting right through our existence."

When asked about whether microfinance actually helps the poorest of the poor (one of the leading criticisms about microfinance currently being bandied about), he described how Grameen Bank gives loans of upto $15 to beggars. Naturally, climbing out of poverty is a much slower process for the poorest. "It takes time. When my colleagues get impatient with how long the beggars take to become more secure, I tell them to be patient. After all, they are simply in the process of closing down their begging division and strengthening their sales division. Restructuring always takes time!", he ended with a smile that got the whole audience chuckling.

Photo credit: Ejaj Ahmad


He recounted an anecdote from the Nobel Prize ceremony to illustrate just how much the Bank is owned by the people. "When the Nobel committee told me that half the prize is going towards the bank, they asked me to bring one of the bank's owners to the ceremony as well. I told them that the bank has 7.5 million owners. Now, given that Norway only has 4.5 million people, this presented a bit of a problem. But eventually, we brought one representative. To see one illiterate Bangladeshi woman give a Nobel Prize acceptance speech in front of kings and queens, televised globally...well, that's just a beautiful thing."

So it is. It's also a beautiful thing to see someone use a combination of humility and a powerful vision to inspire an 800-strong crowd that has become jaded from watching a few too many uninspiring and dull heads of state.

-------------------------------

Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee, Jaswant Singh, Pascal Lamy, General Abizaid, Ramachandra Guha, Ishmeal Beah & Samantha Power & Dominique Villepin, Sergio Fajardo

Colombia's Beauty Mania: Vignettes from the Curve-lines

Colombia is extraordinarily proud of its women. Before I arrived, every person who had been here (and several who hadn't), whether male or female, would emit a quiet whistle and say "Colombia! Oh boy, the women there!" What's the best way to learn Spanish? According to more than a couple of friends, get a Colombian girlfriend and in no time you'll be fluent. While in Colombia, I get asked all the time, by expat friends, Colombian friends, colleagues, waiters, taxi drivers: "What do you think of our women?" It's almost routine when you make polite conversation with a new acquaintance: "What's your name? What brings you to Colombia? How do you like our women?" While travelling elsewhere in South America, other travellers often ask, "So, is it true about Colombian women being the most beautiful?"

Yet this lofty reputation comes at a price. Colombian women in a less demanding society such as the US often talk about the immense pressure placed on women to look beautiful in Colombia. When the mayor of Medellin spoke at my university in April, he mentioned that one of his policies has been to stop funding beauty pageants and replace them with talent shows, to encourage women to develop other aspects of their personalities. This is a radical shift because beauty pageants are a major feature of Colombia's cultural landscape. In her terrific book on recent Colombian history, More Terrible than Death, Robin Kirk writes that there appears to be little excuse to hold a beauty pageant. In other words, not only do you have Miss Colombia, but you also have everything from Miss Coffee to Miss Banana. And at these beauty pageants, the camera zooms in to extreme close-up on various parts of the female anatomy, where commentators discuss with brutal honesty how this crown-hopeful has too much cellulite or how that one's boob-job went awry. Like examining horses at a fair.

But why so many beauty pageants? Many believe they stem from the days when the drug cartels controlled Colombian society, and that it is the drug lords who not only funded the profusion of beauty pageants but also encouraged and facilitated the massive amounts of plastic surgery that take place in Colombia, particularly in the former cocaine capitals of Medellin and Cali. One friend, LC, after a trip to the Caribbean town of Cartagena, commented "On the beach, it seemed like the only real boobs were mine." Another friend, PR, remarked wryly, "Who would have thought there would be a direct line from little white powder to the elimination of ugliness?"

But plastic surgery doesn't extend only to what I had previously considered the usual places: breasts, lips, nose, face-lift etc. In Colombia, I discovered the existence of the butt-implant, a sight both equally silly and unmistakable when you see it. This might appear to contradict an assumption of plastic surgery: that you don't want people to know you had it. In Colombia, however, women wear their surgical enhancements with pride. Yet, surgery isn't all. I've also been astonished at the number of adults in Colombia who wear braces. At a party at the house of a US foreign service officer, I counted at least 25% of the adults wearing braces. And this isn't just limited to Colombians: it appears that expats are taking advantage of the omnipresence of braces in Colombia to get their own teeth improved, something I daresay they wouldn't risk doing back home.

There are, of course, other theories besides drug-power for why beauty is so much in fashion. A Colombian friend, AH, attributes it to the recent success of Colombia's economy, which has given a lot more people more money to spend on beautification. But the same hasn't happened in India or Korea or other recent locations of explosive economic growth. Another Colombian, EE, thinks that the weather has something to do with it because you see plastic surgery much more in the warmer climates of Medellin and Cali than in mountainous, chilly Bogota. "If you're going to wear less because of the heat, it may as well be worth showing off." But this too doesn't hold when compared to other hot parts of the world.

Surely there are many interconnecting reasons for the obsession with beauty here, but the one that makes most sense to me is the gender ratio. Colombia has many more women than men, largely due to the five-decade long civil conflict in the country, and hence, there is a lot more 'competition' for available men than in other parts of the world. This in turn means that women have to go to greater lengths to capture a man's attention. (A related common complaint amongst Colombian women is that there is almost no assumption of fidelity when it comes to Colombian men. My elderly Spanish professor once lamented that each man has, on average, seven girlfriends at a time. Even if this is a gross exaggeration, there is likely to be some fire underneath that smoke).

Personally, I don't believe that young Colombian women are more beautiful than young women in other parts of the world. What I have noticed, however, is that older Colombian women look better (and younger) than their counterparts anywhere else I've travelled. The number of women who look 18 when they are 35, or 25 when they are 50, is astounding. And everyone dresses to kill.

It can't be easy, however. To quote my friend SS "[I know a] Venezuelan who is absolutely stunning - I am not exaggerating, the woman is gorgeous, shapely, 5'10", slim, dirty blond. Even women can't stop staring at her when she's in the room. Her husband is Colombian and she's always talking about how she doesn't feel pretty enough, skinny enough, feminine enough, etc when she's in Colombia. And her mother-in-law is always pinching her, telling her to lose weight or clean herself up. And if you could only see her in person, you'd realize how absurd it is, she is near supermodel material. Scary what that kind of mentality does to a woman's self-esteem."

Sixth Course, Session Nine: Sergio Fajardo

I was always going to be spending this summer in Bogota; for more than a year now, the universe has seemed to be conspiring to make that happen. But if anyone could have provided the inspiration to spend some time in Colombia, it would be Sergio Fajardo, the current mayor of Medellin, whose address made even myself consider joining politics. And if you know me, you'll know that's quite an admission.

Fajardo shared his scarcely credible success story of transforming Medellin from "fear to hope", or from Colombia's violent drug capital to a much safer and more pleasant city. A politician with a Ph.D in Mathematics, he conducted his political campaign by walking the streets handing out leaflets with his platform, and then just talking to people to find out what they really want.

Unlike most of the high and mighty suits that pass through our gates, Fajardo came dressed in jeans, a sweater and a sports coat. And rather than standing behind a lectern, he came out in front of it and addressed us with dramatic hand gestures and a tangibly strong presence.

Photo credit: KSG

There are two big problems in Medellin, he began. Inequality and violence (in 1995, Medellin witnessed the most homicides worldwide). If you are going to change a culture of violence, you need to be patient but you also need to act quickly and clearly, with no room for dithering about your policies. Fajardo began to do so by demobilizing the paramilitary soldiers - Medellin alone had over 4000 of them. But demobilization only works if you follow it with reintegration into society. Unlike other government programs, Medellin began to reintegrate its paramilitaries on an individual basis, with a strong emphasis on psychological healing and recovery.

To reduce inequality, Fajardo employed a strategy that originally came out of the social enterprise field - entrepreneurship training, particularly for the lower socioeconomic classes. Participants would take an entrepreneurship course (80 hours long) and then the best ideas for a new venture would receive seed capital ranging from $250 - $2000. Although not everyone would get financial support, all the students "get the education needed to change their minds and make them equipped to succeed."

The twin drives to reduce inequality and violence have had mixed results, but certainly more successes than failures. And, says, Fajardo, "we get too obsessed with the failures. We also need to focus on and celebrate the successes."

Another major problem in Colombia today is the objectification of women. This has apparently led to huge problems with eating disorders and extremely prevalent use of plastic surgery in Medellin. Under Fajardo's tenure, no public money has been spent for beauty contests. "We are replacing beauty contests which are exploiting women to talent contests focusing on skills and minds", Fajardo explained earnestly to the female student who asked him the question. "We need to change the focus from female bodies to female minds."

Along the lines of Vaclav Havel, another intellectual-turned-politician, Fajardo spoke eloquently about the need for smart and educated people to enter politics and change its image back to a noble profession dedicated to serving one's people. His bumper-sticker advice for all of us: "Study a lot, then go into politics. Its the only way!"

Perhaps it is. Perhaps not. In any case, the political profession is certainly richer with Fajardo's presence. And I can't wait to get to Medellin and see this for myself.

--------------

Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee, Jaswant Singh, Pascal Lamy, General Abizaid, Ramachandra Guha, Ishmeal Beah & Samantha Power & Dominique Villepin

Sixth Course, Session Eight: Ishmael Beah, Samantha Power, Dominique Villepin

This semester - which, thankfully, ended last week - was rather more manic than the last one, which is why my blogging became even more infrequent than usual. But that's not to say the usual line-up of great speakers didn't come through our gates. Mostly because I'm too lazy to write full pieces, here are some soundbytes from some of the best talks in the last four months:


Ishmael Beah

Ishmael Beah's talk was expectedly filled with pathos, given his experiences and the astonishing journey he made from being a child soldier to a best-selling author. Much of what he said was remarkable, especially his bewilderment at how the question he is most asked on his book tour is "how many people did you kill?". However the line that most struck me was when he was discussing another child soldier's testimony before the UN General Assembly. Here is what he said:

"One of the UN delegates asked this child 'At what age are you old enough to be a soldier?' And the kid said '100 years'. And everyone laughed. But the kid then said 'Because by that age you are either dead or too old to fight.' And I realized the kid knew what he was talking about. Because, you see, in a war, it ultimately comes down to your life against someone else's life. And all the reasons and politics and ideologies disappear in that moment, and it's you against him. But when it comes to taking a life, no matter if you are 10 or 15 or 20 or 40 years old, the effect it has on you, either as victim or perpetrator, is the same. So the kid was right. There is no right age to be a soldier."


Samantha Power

Miscellaneous quotes from our resident Pulitzer-Prize winning expert on genocide:

"A very discernable trend today is how US power is on the decline. I don't mean our hard power as much as our political influence. Increasingly, people around the world are saying 'we like your values but we hate your foreign policy'. But this gets twisted domestically and presented to the American public as 'they hate our freedom, our children, our laughter'."

"Other countries are asserting themselves more today - China, Russia, India - but largely in mercantilist terms. There is still a major space for moral and strategic leadership, which someone like Barack Obama can nicely fill in. We need to do better at telling and living the 'values story', to really be the 'city on the hill' again."

"The problem with our foreign policy is that we base it entirely upon our security. Naturally, this doesn't go very far abroad. To really improve our security, we need to invest in the process abroad, in long-term development."


Dominique Villepin

The former Prime Minister of France was much more spirited and passionate in the Q&A session than in his actual speech, which mostly comprised the usual liberal fare about needing a new global order and the critical time we are in. He also shared a passionate defense of the ban on the death penalty. However, his best moment had nothing to do with direct politics. Instead, it was about what we can do to better prepare ourselves to be changemakers in the world ahead:

"The more you travel, the more you understand other people, other cultures, other ways of being. And thus the better you develop your personality, your creativity, your imagination, your values. And these are the barometers of success in the world today, much more so than a traditional academic education. It is critical to go through different experiences, to try different disciplines. Life is not about written material. If I see an 18-year-old who takes the risk to spend two years in China, I will say he will be more successful in life than the one who goes to a top-ranked university. So meet different people. Take risks. Life is good when you do that and these are things you won't learn in a university."

----------------

Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee, Jaswant Singh, Pascal Lamy, General Abizaid, Ramachandra Guha

The Right Turning

The essay below was commissioned by Outlook Traveller. They asked me for a piece on Graham Greene that reviewed 3-4 of his books, yet kept as focus the travel elements in Greene's work. However, since they haven't published it in over two years, I'm assuming they changed their mind. As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

---------------------------------------------

The Right Turning

A year before he passed, my father decided to re-read every Graham Greene book he owned. Recalling that decision several months later, with curiosity stirred, I picked up The Power and the Glory, the best of Greene’s oeuvre, according to Dad and many of Greene's other fans.

And I was transported into a world that I now recognize as quintessentially Graham Greene; a world where travel is central though often rather strange, where Catholicism is doubtingly heeded, where what you do matters more than who you are. And a world with some of the most haunting tales I’ve ever read.

Still, having read less than a third of Greene’s considerable output, I find myself gingerly embarking on this essay about an indisputable literary giant, albeit one whose motifs of violence and religion have made him, according to the Nobel Committee itself, too controversial to be awarded literature’s highest prize. But, as a pioneer of travel fiction, what does the master teach us about travelling?

A primary though perhaps obvious lesson is that travel can take several forms. The Power and the Glory is travel as adventure – the priest’s flight takes him through jungles, hills, rivers, plantations, and villages. Monsignor Quixote pays homage not just to Cervantes but also to that classic form of travel as recreation: the road trip. Travel can be an inner journey, such as the one Maurice takes in The End of the Affair to understand and accept Sarah’s departure and death. And in A Burnt-Out Case, when Querry journeys far away seeking solitude, he discovers the pitfalls awaiting one who undertakes travel as pilgrimage.

Another lesson is that there are universal aspects of humanity which surround and even perhaps engulf you no matter where you travel – be it the Mexican villages of The Power and the Glory, the Spanish countryside of Monsignor Quixote, the London suburbs of The End of the Affair or the Congolese jungles of A Burnt-Out Case. For Greene, one of these universal aspects was death; protagonists of all four books died either violently or prematurely. Another was religion. Greene’s own angst about Catholicism took shape in each of these books by juxtaposing the questioning believer against an atheistic doppelganger who inadvertently provides the believer with a mirror through which to examine and, eventually, retain their faith.

But if the same themes are everywhere, as Greene seems to say, then why travel at all? If the world now looks the same on the outside, with the increasing homogeneity of the ‘global village’, as well as on the inside, why not simply sit back in our comfortable armchairs and experience the world through the pages of this magazine?

Because, and this to me is Greene’s most profound statement on travel, your choices when you travel can irrevocably alter your life. The persecuted ‘whiskey priest’ of The Power and the Glory repeatedly turns back from the threshold of safety to help others in need, even, finally, at the cost of his own life. The amiable Monsignor Quixote chooses vitality by road-tripping with his Communist compañero even though it means his expulsion from the Church. Sarah begins The End of the Affair when she promises to leave Maurice if God ensures that he survives the bomb blast, a choice that destroys them both. And in A Burnt-Out Case, Querry attempts to snuffle his vocation and his fame in the anonymity of a remote leper colony, only to discover that he is too famous and too good at his job to escape either.

Old Robert Frost was spot on when he observed that it is the choice between two roads that makes all the difference. Greene expresses that sentiment through Dr. Colin in A Burnt-Out Case, who says, “Through trial and error, the amoeba did become the ape. There were bright starts and wrong turnings even then…I think of Christ as an amoeba who took the right turning.”

Like Christ, Greene’s characters often took turnings that destroyed them. Yet the process of turning, and the road they chose, also made them better than they ever thought they could be.

Sixth Course, Session Seven: Ramachandra Guha

Why does Ram Guha qualify for a 'sixth course' when recent big-wig visitors like Steven Colbert (entertaining but insubstantial) and John Negroponte (dull and insubstantial) do not?

Because Guha, as always, had polemical things of interest on his mind. He was here to speak about his latest book (reviewed here by Dilip) but most of the conversation revolved around the tension between being an activist or being an intellectual. I can't quite put together a coherent review of his talk so I'll instead list a series of soundbites that are either entertaining or worth thinking about and which (I think) together give a sense of what was said.

Note: Most of these are paraphrased.

1. I have moderate views, expressed in an extreme fashion. The older I get, the more moderate I become.

2. Students trained in America are much likelier to have the courage to take the interdisciplinary leaps required of environmental history.

3. Environmentalism is a modern phenmena produced by the Industrial Revolution and the nation state. To talk about Hinduism and ecology, or Christianity and ecology, is to speak in oxymorons.

4. Scholarship is full-time work, and so is activism. You can't really be an intellectual activist. Yet, there are too many who proclaim to be just that in [India]...All of us have beliefs, ideologies, orientations. You need distance for scholarship.

5. The major cities in India - Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Bangalore - are having a transformative impact on the world. In fact, the ecological imprint of Bangalore is felt 150 miles away.

6. The curent state of the Ganga and the Yamuna today is directly a repudation of the claim that Hindus are ecologists.

7. When Medha Patkar testified before the US Congress, the World Bank withdrew from the Narmada Dam project and the Indian government became even more determined to make sure the project succeeded. Because, you see, India is fundamentally not a Banana Republic. The World Bank can coerce a Colombia or a Sri Lanka but never India - there is just too much nationalist sentiment in India.

8. Subaltern studies died when it was incorporated into the American academy.

9. 95% of the problems in India are caused by Indians. Forget about the World Bank and the WTO. Anyone who says these institutions are causing farmer suicides in Vidarbha is spepaking utter nonsense. We have to look within for the answers. Because 95% of the solutions to India's problems must also come from Indians.


------------------
Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee, Jaswant Singh, Pascal Lamy, General Abizaid

Sixth Course, Session Six: General Abizaid

The "Mad Arab" came, saw and appeared to urgently need something to conquer. He wore his combat fatigues because, he said, after days of testifying before Congress, there was too much blood on his uniform.



He spoke well, with humour and vision, and tugged at the heartstrings with a lovely 'call to service' at the start of his address (which almost made me want to enlist in the US Army). He made an eloquent case that this is more a battle of perception than a military battle and that's where the US needs to win this war. He chilled my spine when he declared that in today's wars there are no civilians (not the vegetable vendor, not the Red Cross, not the most impartial newspaper). And he made a lot of international friends when he admitted publicly that the US could certainly be a lot humbler in the world.

But in the final analysis, what came through most is that the General, like everyone else, doesn't really have a clue about how to stop this thing his bosses started. Sure, he can analytically list the three biggest challenges of this era for global security (Israel-Palestine, Shi'ite extremism, Sunni extremism) and come up with a to-do list. But the 'how-to' question remained glaringly unanswered. I suppose it's possible that he does have the answer and isn't telling us. Yet something in his body language and words makes me think it's unlikely that even the Mad Arab knows something we don't.

--------------------
Photo credit: KSG

Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee, Jaswant Singh, Pascal Lamy.

Sixth Course, Session Five: Pascal Lamy

Addressing a full-capacity Forum audience, Pascal Lamy began by rambling on metaphysically about the etymology of governance (Latin, 'rudder') and current trends in global governance when a bearded man suddenly stood up and began yelling "WTO means death to farmers, WTO means death to fisher-folk, WTO means death to healthcare..."

He was ejected by Security. Lamy went on. A few minutes later, another man in a red bandanna stood up in a different part of the audience and excercised his lungs in much the same vein. He too was ejected.

But by now Lamy was startled. Perhaps he didn't quite expect protestors within the premises of the K-School. He gripped the podium with both hands, looked up at his audience, and said "Ok, let's get into it, then."

What followed was by some distance the best Forum lecture I've attended here so far. Lamy, in stereotypical French-accented English, was honest, admitting several things that are seriously wrong with the structure of the WTO but strongly holding to the fact that the organization is accountable, democratic, has robust dispute mechanisms, and is not solely concerned with the welfare of the rich and powerful.

Throughout his speech, he was interrupted by what was clearly an organized bunch of protestors, who knew fully well that anyone who yelled out would be thrown out, and began to receive scattered applause for their persistent interjections.

But Lamy too went doggedly on. Yes, he said, the basic premise of the WTO is that open markets are good because they facilitate the greatest efficiency of trade, but the WTO is also concerned with the environment, human rights and public values, all of which individual governments are free to prioritize over trade if they choose to. In fact, he even went so far as to say that trade restrictions in the future will increasingly be values-based.

Yes, he admitted, the biggest stumbling block today is agriculture, where the US (high subsidies, low tariffs), the EU (high subsidies, high tariffs) and India (high tariffs, low subsidies) are slugging it out while the rest of the world takes a "coffee break".

Yes, he agreed, there is a bias against developing countries in the rules of the game and unless those rules are changed, the WTO will remain stuck where it is. But, he insisted, the problem is with politics, not the process.

Still, as the questions became more and more pointed - not so many from undergrads, thank goodness - Lamy's practised veneer began to crack. The already eroding party-line evaporated into the cauldron of the Forum when he admitted that his hands were tied by the members of the WTO and that if we wanted to make things better, we need to go as far as fundamentally changing the Westphalia System of 1648.

Yes, he carried on, political decolonization happened fifty years ago but economic decolonization is only now starting to happen. What his member-constituents made of these admissions I have no idea but Lamy's own private views seemed reasonably clear: the WTO is not the devil but it is unequal and we need to change that.

The protestors were annoying and the questioners were impressive, but if together they combined to make the head of the WTO publicly admit the organization is fundamentally unequal, then everybody did their jobs.

---------------------
Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee, Jaswant Singh.

Sixth Course, Session Four: Jaswant Singh

Again, I'm left smiling at the irony that in India I'd almost never be in the same room as the leader of the BJP but here I get to sit across the table from him and eat lunch.

Jaswant Singh was here last month for a few brief weeks as a Fellow of something or the other - I forget what. During this time, a group of us (students, big-time professors and other assorted big-wig India watchers) had the opportunity to eat lunch with him. Unfortunately, everything that was said at that lunch is 'off the record' so I can't actually quote him. But, like most who have seen him speak, I was impressed by his breadth of scholarship, perspective and honesty. There is a little of the practised orator about him: he begins sentences softly, appearing to be deep in thought and slowly gathering his argument together but as he gets to the middle of his response, his voice picks up steam and he ends by looking straight at the person he is directing his answer to and finishing with a resounding take-that firmness.

He was especially candid about US Foreign Policy (in particular regarding Afghanistan, Iraq and de-nuclearization), once responding to a probing question asked by a retired General with what can only be described as a smackdown - even those of us who disagreed with the General felt sorry for him after that. Singh was more diplomatic about India but not overtly so, and of course scathing about the current government.

Frustrated though I am not to be able to write about all the interesting things he actually said, I feel I can end with this: the man has the bushiest eyebrows ever. I couldn't take my eyes off them in the beginning. He caught my gaze and smiled avuncularly at me as if to say "Yes my son, I have the greatest eyebrows in the world. You can stop staring now."

----------
Other 'Sixth Course' Sessions: Mohammed Khatami, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Pranab Mukherjee