The 20th century, characterized by perhaps the greatest blood-letting in human history, has shaped our reality in ways we do not understand. It was period defined by what Matthew White calls the Hemoclysm, a blood convulsion, bookended by atrocities in the Congo. Our last century was not about freedom, love and optimism: It was shaped by the willful killing by people from almost every faith and nationality of some 180 million other human beings in the world. This megadeath era constituted the hellish endgame of 18th and 19th century agendas. The Cold War was never an argument about war versus peace but about their paradoxical co-existence.

Our understanding of the Hemoclysm finds initial expression not in journalism, nor in social scientific analyses, nor in the writing of history—but in art and popular culture. In 2000, New York Times writer Shaila Dewan asked whether horror films filter the horrors of history. She found that they do. Just as those who had witnessed the carnage of the Vietnam War returned to make the slasher flicks of the 1970s, those who remained at home portrayed the increasingly post-Modern domestic mindset in Catholic-themed horror films. Subsequent decades saw the two lines of experience—of military personnel who have participated in war during the Pax Americana and of civilians whose lives have become relativistic, solipsistic and counter-intuitive—merge together in a fusion of gore and the occult.

A good example of this fusion is the ’80s classic horror film, Hellraiser, based on a 1986 novella, “The Hellbound Heart,” by British horror writer Clive Barker; the remake was due out October 2009, until the release date got pushed forward two years because of development problems. The film’s memorable invitation, “What’s your pleasure Sir?” only superficially refers to modern primitive sadomasochism. Really, the line reminds us that recent history is still being digested and strained through the popular imagination.

The core symbol of the Hellraiser mythology is the “Lament Configuration,” a demonic Rubik’s cube created by the fictional engineer Philip LeMarchand in 1784. Basically, the story is Faustian: the box symbolizes the Enlightenment on the verge of Revolution; monarchy on the verge of republic; and rationality on the verge of maddened Romantic subjectivity. What the box actually represents is revealed by merchants who peddle copies of the film prop as a novelty. One of these, the Pyramid Gallery in New York, continually blurs fact and fiction. The gallery itself appears in Hellraiser 3 (1992). Now closed (was it ever really open?), it continues to operate through its website, which presents LeMarchand as a “real” historical figure and sells “replicas” of his “designs.” The main horror that this Pandora’s box opens is the paradox of post-Postmodernism. During the current Technological Revolution, certainty and uncertainty violently and relentlessly co-exist without any hope of resolution.

The back story of Pinhead, the central antagonist in the Hellraiser series, is a symbolic snapshot of 20th century history. He was originally a British army captain whose soul was destroyed by World War I. Deadened by the extremes of war, he pushes further and further into the realms of violent experience to regain some feeling—or even lost empathy—until he becomes a monster, then a demon, driven by the credo, “there are no limits.” This torturously back-ended morality is another suggestion from Barker that we all now occupy two worlds—the hell of war and the rot of peace. One brings the horror of beheadings, raped refugees and white phosphorus to our home computers. The other brings the infinite vanity of personal branding to the online global marketplace: for some, self-promotion is the new badge of conspicuous consumption.

Those who are trying to find ironic stability by referring to a revived Cold War model of contending East-West or left-right opposites find that we all straddle a more catastrophic fault line: a fault line of perception. Even as it gets harder psychologically to reconcile global security and global capitalism, that reconciliation becomes indispensable. The only bridging factor between liberty and decadence is arguably the fact that everyone experiences more and more, and feels less and less.

The announcement of Elinor Ostrom as a co-winner, along with Berkeley economist Oliver Williamson, of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics came both as a surprise and a breath of fresh air. None of the participants of Harvard University’s (informal) annual betting pool for the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics staked their claim on Ostrom.

This is not all that surprising. Ostrom is a political scientist and not an economist. Thankfully, Swedes had the foresight to yet again balk convention by awarding the prestigious award to a non-economist. Ostrom is also the first woman to win since the founding of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1969.

While highly regarded among political scientists and policy scholars, the Indiana University professor is not widely known in the economics profession. In fact, Paul Krugman, last year’s Nobel Prize winner in Economics, confessed that he was not familiar with Ostrom’s work in his comments on The New York Times’ Economix blog. Economist Paul Romer—one of the favorites of this year’s Harvard betting pool— speculates that the widespread ignorance is due to the fact that mainstream economics consists of “economic imperialists who can’t tell the difference between assuming and understanding.”

Indeed, Ostrom is a scholar who has sought to understand rather than assume human behavior. She is most famous for her research on natural and public resources management, as laid out in the 1990 book Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Ostrom’s key insight is that there are a variety of institutions to solve problems of resource allocation and depletion. Neither the government nor the market may be the best allocator of public resources, particularly when governments are seen as illegitimate, or their rules cannot be enforced. Corporations may also not do better when their objectives depart from those of local communities who have managed natural resources for decades or centuries.

To understand how individuals and communities—particularly in developing countries—manage forests, lakes, groundwater basins and fisheries and resolve conflicts, Ostrom goes out into the field and performs case studies of human and ecological behavior. Moreover, Ostrom conducts satellite analyses of resource levels to measure amounts of degradation. When she returns from her fieldwork she conducts behavioral experiments to see if random subjects replicate her findings in the field.

What Ostrom has learned from her extensive field and experimental work is that under certain conditions, when communities are given the right to self-organize they can democratically govern themselves based on trust, reciprocity, shared norms and mutual monitoring to preserve the environment without the intervention of governments, the parceling of private property or the creation of markets.

Ostrom is indeed a breath of fresh air in a profession where rules of the game and institutions are assumed rather than understood. The hope is that the unconventional induction of Ostrom by the Nobel committee will send a clear message to the economics profession that it is time to become more realistic about the economy and human behavior at large. How fitting that the reality check begins with a woman.

Lily Hsueh holds an M.Sc. in Economics from the University College London. She is currently pursuing her PhD focusing on environmental economics, public policy, and political economy at the University of Washington.

Congrats to the people of Rio de Janeiro on their city’s winning bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. It’s exciting and just plain fair that the Games will finally come to South America. Chicago will get over it. So will Oprah Winfrey, who still wields the power to send the entire population of Chicago to the Brazilian metropolis to witness it all in style. I thought that going to Copenhagen was a waste of President Obama’s time because it was very clear to me that Chicago did not have much of a chance. Still, Obama was just following in the footsteps of the other world leaders lobbying for their cities. The whole episode has been blown out of all sense of reasonable proportion in the U.S. media. It’s kind of hilarious in a pathetic way, especially since I am guessing that most Americans don’t really care where the Games are held. I am sure that the happiest people on Earth will do an excellent job and throw an even more spectacular party. I also predict that United States’ superpower status will be safely intact through the next few Olympics Games–wherever they may be held. Now, here are my Olympics video pics:

1) Brazil’s promotional video makes me want to go there. It also makes me want to lose 10 pounds, learn to play the guitar and not run away terrified from an oncoming volleyball.

2) Jon Stewart dissects the political fallout of Obama’s Copenhagen trip in “Copen Hatin’.”

3) If you’re from Chicago and still bitter, take comfort in watching Stephen Colbert and George Wendt trash talk Tokyo, Madrid and Rio.

By Cordelia Rizzo

I remember meeting Mexican politician and human rights activist
Gilberto Rincón Gallardo seven years ago and hearing his story about his incarceration in the mythical Lecumberri prison. He was charged with throwing stones and “quickly running away from the cops” during one of the 1968 student-police confrontations. Gallardo, the first head of the CONAPRED (National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination), was a short man, with a limp. His arms were undersized, with one of them being something of a vestigial structure. He spent three years in jail on that occasion.

Gallardo told the story with great humor, for the true story tells
itself:The Mexican justice system frequently picks on those who
are the least able to defend themselves, launching its attacks without
considering the most basic rules of common sense. When judicial officials incarcerated Gallardo, they did not even have the decency to give a plausible justification for the arrest.

Jacinta Francisco, on the other hand, is an Otomí woman. By human
rights standards she is vulnerable in two fronts: She is a woman and
she is a member of an indigenous community. Three years ago, Francisco-–who sold fresh beverages at the local tianguis (street market)–was accused along other two indigenous women of kidnapping six police federal agents in Querétaro. While today she is bilingual, three years ago Jacinta could only speak her
native Otomí and Ñha-ñhu and was pressured to review and sign many documents written in Spanish. Additional irregularities in the investigation have since been exposed and the national media has consistently demanded her release in the past few months. However, the most basic question was never asked when Jacinta was first convicted: How could she have handled herself the kidnapping of six trained criminal investigators?

Jacinta was aided by Mexican NGOs that work closely with indigenous
people and lawyers from the Miguel Agustín Pro Center handled her
case. She was released this September after spending three years in
prison. More often than not Jesuit priests who live in the communities show a deeper understanding of the indigenous situation than government and judicial officials, and this is especially true with regards to the disadvantages they face when they encounter the judicial system.

In Mexico, those who are part of this system are frequently oblivious
to the rights of the minorities and lack substantive knowledge of
their circumstances. I have witnessed this ignorance first-hand and seen the complications that arise when an indigenous person faces the Mexican judicial system. Still, what amazes me the most is the fact that those who fabricated the case against Jacinta, as well as the ones who jailed Rincón Gallardo, acted without any constraint or fear that a critical mind could easily see through the ridiculous manner in which they assigned guilt and robbed innocent people of their freedom.

Cordelia Rizzo holds an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Leuven. She currently works at Nuevo León’s human rights commission promoting minority rights.

By Geraldine Forbes and Usha Thakkar

Dr. Neera Desai [Neeraben] one of the pioneers of Women’s Studies in India, died on June 25, 2009 after a long struggle with cancer. Neeraben, born Neera Druv in Ahmedabad in 1924, lived most of her life in Bombay/ Mumbai where she founded India’s first Research Centre for Women’s Studies, called the Research Unit for Women’s Studies, at S.N.D.T. Women’s University in 1974. As the founder director of the Research Centre, she played a major role in designing and guiding research projects on women, linking academic Women’s Studies with women’s real-life issues, and introducing Women’s Studies to the curriculum. Trained as a Sociologist, she was also a pioneer in pushing her discipline to include women and gender in the analysis. Her first published work, Woman in Modern India (1957), belongs to history rather than Sociology and earned her a place in Gender and History’s series on “foremothers”: women who had written women’s history before the 1970s. In Woman in Modern India, the first analytical history of Indian women, Neera Desai called the new Indian republic’s constitution a ‘great proclamation,’ but added a cautionary note. The rights promised, she wrote, ‘could be actualized only by a very stern, active, ceaseless and conscious struggle guided by a very clear and comprehensive perspective.’ Published in 1957, this monograph was Neeraben’s M.A. thesis and marked the starting point of her long career in Sociology, History, and Women’s Studies in which she lived according to her own prescription for attaining women’s rights.

Brought up and educated in Bombay/Mumbai, Neeraben acknowledged the role of her dynamic mother, Anasuya, for encouraging her to look beyond the home, and of her liberal father, Bhadraji Baldevji Dhruv, for taking a keen interest in her education and the development of her character. The Fellowship School, a co-educational institution begun by Theosophists and influenced by Annie Besant, initiated her into nationalist ideas, while her neighborhood exposed her to political issues and communal tension. Her awareness of women’s issues, she recounted, began in childhood.

Neeraben joined the University of Bombay/Mumbai’s Elphinstone College in 1942, but left the university after Gandhi’s Quit India Resolution on August 9. This event changed her life and she continued to take a keen interest in politics throughout her life. She met Akshaya Ramanlal Desai, a brilliant sociologist with a keen interest in Marxism and the politics of the oppressed, at a political meeting. They wed in 1947, the year Neeraben completed her BA in History and Economics. In 1957, Neeraben gave birth to Mihir, now a human rights activist and lawyer, and Director of the India Centre for Human Rights and Law.

Neeraben began her career at S.N.D.T. Women’s University in 1954 as a lecturer in Sociology shortly after the University Grants Commission had recognized S.N.D.T. as a university. Teaching Sociology to women students–many of whom were already married and from traditional households–Neeraben noticed her discipline’s silence about their issues. She began to read and teach about women’s issues, attend conferences, and debate topics associated with women’s rights. In 1968-69, she spent nine months in the USA as a Fulbright Scholar. Back in India, she returned to teaching and writing, and in 1972 was appointed to the Social Task Force of the Committee on the Status of Women in India. Two years later, she established the Research Unit for Women’s Studies. This and the other programs developed by the founders of Women’s Studies in India were significantly different from Women’s Studies programs in the USA and Europe. Committed to change beyond the university, they wanted to influence political decisions and change the lives of women. For Neeraben, this began a life dedicated to building institutions: the Research Unit at SNDT Women’s University, the Indian Association of Women’s Studies, and programs for rural development in Udwada, Gujarat.

In the years that followed, Neeraben’s time was consumed with developing the Research Unit’s collection, writing grant proposals, and overseeing projects. However, she still found time for research and writing. In addition to writing gender-sensitive curricula, Neeraben wrote essays on the family, feminist pedagogy and Women’s Studies, and articles and a book on Gujarati history. Moving between four languages in her daily life, Neeraben wrote in two: English and Gujarati and was always aware of how little of feminist writing was available to non-English speakers. She pushed to have key works, e.g., Towards Equality: Report of the Committee on the Status of Women in India, translated into regional languages. Later, she took this project a giant step further and collaborated with Usha Thakkar on Stri Abhyas Shreni, a series of basic Women’s Studies texts in Gujarati. In 1988, Neeraben became a Trustee of SPARROW [Sound and Picture Archives for Research on Women], an organization that she inspired and helped found. Her last major research project, on key figures in the development of the women’s movement in Western India, was begun in the 1980s but was consistently pushed aside by other commitments. Neeraben returned to it in her retirement and Feminism as Experience: Thoughts and Narratives was published by SPARROW in 2006.

Neeraben was a good friend and an inspiration to many people. We loved her optimism, an optimism that persisted through the dark days of riots, pogroms, and even 11/26. When she reflected on women’s position, she admitted the forces against gender equality were formidable. However, as a feminist, she believed in change and was inspired to keep working for change.

Her passion for secularism and human rights, and involvement in women’s movement were remarkable. So was her passion for detective stories; Agatha Christie was her favorite and she loved to watch the DVD of Murder She Wrote.

Joys of daily life are abundant, and Neeraben knew about this treasure. She liked good vegetarian food and could produce her own ‘healthy’ version of popular Gujarati delicacies. She was always a gracious hostess. She was particular about the saris she wore and ensured that the one she wore was right for the occasion. She loved flowers, a little garland of mogra was enough to make her happy. She would take it lovingly in her hands and put it neatly on her hair. Now all that remains with us is the fragrance of her memorable life.

*****
Geraldine Forbes is a Distinguished Teaching Professor of History at the State University of New York Oswego, where she teaches South Asian and Women’s history. She wrote Women in Modern India (1996) for the New Cambridge History of India, numerous articles on Indian women, and has edited the memoirs of Manmohini Zutshi Sahgal, Shudha Mazumdar, and Haimabati Sen. She can be reached at  geraldine.forbes at oswego.edu.

Usha Thakkar, former Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at SNDT Women’s University, Mumbai, is now Honorary Director of the Institute of Research on Gandhian Thought and Rural Development, Manibhavan Gandhi Sangrahalaya, Mumbai. She writes on women and politics in India. She can be reached at  ushathakkar at yahoo.com.

Women and Foreign Policy would like to thank H-Asia for kindly permitting to share this obituary with our readers.

Moment Magazine, where I am the senior editor, just launched the first in a multi-part series on Israel’s Arab citizens. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most covered conflicts in the world. But there is little media attention given to Israel’s one million Arab citizens, in spite of disturbing calls on the far Israeli right to have them subjected to “loyalty oaths” and even expulsion. Many believe that the future of the Israeli democracy depends on how the government will handle not only the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the equal treatment of its Arab minority. In the first story for the series, Dina Kraft, who has covered Israel for The New York Times and the Associated Press, talks to three women–a grandmother, mother and daughter–about what it means to be both Arab and Israeli. It’s a truly fascinating story. Here’s a glimpse:

It’s been almost three years since Shams Kalboni renamed herself. She grew up with the modern Hebrew name Revital, which means “quenched thirst.” It was given to her by her Arab parents in the hope it would pave her way to an easier life in Israeli society.

And as Shams walks past blossoming purple bougainvillea plants, up the stairs and onto the veranda of her grandmother’s house in Jaffa, calls of “Revital” and “Revi” still greet her as she is embraced by aunts and cousins.

But to the outside world she is Shams, Arabic for “sun.” Her new name is her way of announcing to the world, and particularly Jewish Israelis, that she is not one of them. Instead she is, as she says, a “Palestinian Israeli.”

Read the rest of the story here as well as Moment’s introduction to the series. I would love to hear your feedback and suggestions for future stories in the series. You can e-mail me directly at  nonnka at gmail.com. Thanks!

It is no secret that Mexico lags well behind European, North American and other Latin American countries in regards to women’s participation in government. Though Mexican women have been legally entitled to vote and stand for election since 1953, there is still a wide gap in terms of their equal representation in the three branches of government. As recently summarized by Patricia Galeano–president of the Women’s Federation at the National University, UNAM–in 32 Mexican states there are only 2 women governors, only 2 women in the federal government’s cabinet and by 2007 only 19 of the country’s 2435 municipalities were headed by women.

Mexican political parties have attempted to address this issue by implementing affirmative action policies in candidate selection. However, these have far from made a real difference. Women often end up competing for hard to or impossible to win districts. In legislative campaigns, women frequently take the understudy-like “alternate deputy” candidacies (diputado suplente). The measures allow political parties to fulfill gender quotas without risking upsetting the male dominance of elected positions.

This incoming legislature introduced yet another “creative” mechanism that has outraged those advocating equality. Though they registered as candidates, campaigned and were elected by Mexican voters last July, 8 congresswomen promptly gave notice of their resignation in the first session held at the Chamber of Deputies. They did it so that the alternate deputies who ran with them, all male, could assume their positions.

Though this has been criticized by the media and by other congresswomen, the fact still remains that political parties are allowing discriminatory practices and that women party members are accepting them. Affirmative action has clearly shown its limits in promoting a more balanced representation of the genders in government. Unless a real educational effort is made so that Mexican citizens are convinced and supportive of the equality of rights of men and women, no amount of quotas will be enough to stop those currently willing to bypass the rules and keep things as they are.

There are administrations that have been undermined as a result of disasters, but others have emerged from crises more powerful than before. The difference lies in how disasters and crises are handled. Taiwan is predisposed to earthquakes and storms and is experienced in handling the typhoon season that hits the island at this time every year. While Taiwan’s government should be accustomed to dealing with such adversity, the devastation brought about by Typhoon Morakot has caught the island off guard. Morakot caused the country’s worst flooding in 50 years, bringing over 2.5 meters of rain in just three days. It brought more than half the average annual rainfall in many places in Taiwan, two-thirds in the worst affected areas. The death toll has now reached 118 with over 500 still missing, 400 of which are from Hsiaolin village in southern Taiwan who are believed to be buried under a 20-30 meter deep avalanche of mud.

On the political front, President Ma Ying-jeou of the Republic of China and his cabinet are blamed for not doing enough, being too slow to realize the magnitude of the emergency and for the slow rescue and relief processes. Having been hit by the typhoon since 8th of August, some survivors said that their villages have not had any food dropped off by helicopters. Upon reviewing the rescue efforts thus far, experts on emergency rescue and relief criticized the lack of proper gear, equipment and technology for the rescue missions. Already, four rescuers’ lives have been claimed, including a volunteer who was properly trained and had 16 years of rescue experience.

Serious questions directed at the present administration and its capacity to govern have been raised. Why didn’t the central and local governments give the people sufficient warning? Why weren’t people evacuated in time? Local officials explain that, under Taiwan’s present legal system, local governments can only urge residents to abandon their homes if a disaster is foreseen. Even then, villagers of Hsiaolin said they did not receive such warning or instructions to evacuate.

The fact that the government had trouble realizing the magnitude of the problem and coordinating an appropriate response was blatantly revealed when President Ma and his cabinet refused U.S. aid, only to quickly reverse themselves. When the U.S. offered assistance on August 12th, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman Henry Chen indicated that Taiwan would not request foreign assistance because the island was capable of handling the disaster relief work on its own. On the same day, President Ma, his cabinet and the legislative speaker stated that there was no need to declare a state of emergency. Ma argued that the newly ratified Disaster Prevention and Relief Act incorporated many of the elements of the state of emergency. Ma’s cabinet also stated that there was enough money for rescue and relief. However, on the following day, the same government began requesting donations, foreign aid and considered updating the Disaster Prevention and Relief Act to incorporate guidelines for compulsory evacuation. By August 14th, the emergency operation chief was replaced. What’s also remarkable is Taiwan’s refusal of specific technical assistance from the neighboring People’s Republic of China, which offered help since the 10th of August. Shouldn’t humanitarian efforts be a priority over political considerations in times of emergency? Rather, Taiwan asked the U.S. and Japan to send giant cargo helicopters that can carry large earth diggers and other machinery into remote mountain areas to help re-open roads.

Other related policy issues concern riverine and land management. Why were people allowed to build, farm on and enjoy unrestricted use of dangerous hillside lands? This leads us to question the effectiveness of existing disaster prevention mechanisms and the quality of existing infrastructure. Why weren’t sufficient equipment and facilities for times of emergency available?

These questions hit deep into the heart of Taiwanese politics, raising further questions about possible corruption and officials’ neglect of their duties. Why did southern Taiwan flood even though billions had been spent by the government on flood prevention? Despite the fact that the administration of ex-President Chen Shui-bian had earmarked US$2.5 billion to prevent flooding—a budget was later increased to US$5 billion—low-lying areas in southern Taiwan were swamped during Typhoon Morakot. Did the contractors collude with officials during the construction of these projects?

Another deep-rooted problem of Taiwanese politics revealed by the disaster is the relations between northern and southern Taiwan. The areas affected by Morakot are remote farmlands inhabited by Taiwan’s indigenous people, Austronesians, related in language and heritage to indigenous people in the South Pacific and parts of south-east Asia. These inhabitants have long felt neglected by the government, which they claim has allotted more funding and resources to the north inhabited mainly by those who moved from mainland China to Taiwan after the Chinese civil war in 1949. Indigenous people are also some of the poorest in Taiwan, with shorter life expectancy and higher unemployment than the national average. Many of the working-age people had gone to the cities to find work, leaving behind mostly elderly people and young children.

The test of the current administration’s governing capacity will continue long after the day Morakot hit Taiwan. The Transportation Ministry estimates that repairs in the worst affected areas will likely take up to three years to complete. Morakot has caused at least US$225 million in agricultural damages alone, with nearly 30,000 houses still without power and 750,000 homes without water. If infrastructural damages are included, the total amount of damages could reach US$910 million. Reconstruction is expected to cost some US$3.65 billion. As a democracy based on the rule of law, the current government under the Kuomintang political party must be accountable to the people by ensuring a high level of transparency when investigating the causes of such extensive casualties. Already, President Ma has taken the crucial first step in taking full responsibility for the delays of the rescue efforts and for not having done enough. To correct its mistakes, the government must move on to re-evaluate and assess policies and laws related to flood prevention, especially those associated with land and industry development, criteria for infrastructure construction and city planning. More importantly, the government must handle the reconstruction of the destroyed villages effectively and resettle the survivors quickly.

Barbara Gonzalez

I am reading Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in a Comparative Perspective by Steven Levitsky, who is currently is associate professor of government and social studies at Harvard University. Drawing from the literature on party change, Levitsky argues that loosely structured party organizations have a better chance of surviving environmental challenges than their more rigid counterparts.

I am currently balancing excessive (and obsessive) dwelling on political party theory with The Enchantress of Florence by Salman Rushdie of which I have been yet to read beyond the introduction of an exciting main character which calls himself the “Mogor dell’ Amore.” A couple of weeks ago I finished the much hyped Petite Anglaise by Catherine Sanderson which is now promised as next year’s birthday present to the friend who recommended the blog on which the book is based upon. Though entertaining, Petite Anglaise reminded me of Julia Roberts’s analogy in My Best Friend’s Wedding: a common jello trying to pass as a sophisticated crème brûlée.

Jessica Hun

Governing China: From Revolution to Reform by Kenneth Lieberthal is one of those indispensable books for those who study or who are interested in the nature of the Chinese political system. I read the first edition when it came out in 1995 and found it extremely useful and easy to understand despite the intricacies of the Chinese political apparatus and decision-making processes. Lieberthal, an experienced China scholar, provides a systematic approach toward an understanding of the complex governing organizations of China from its imperial past, through the 20th-century revolutions, both Nationalist and Communist, until the current regime. Unlike many other China experts, Lieberthal doesn’t make any predictions. Through a close look at the largest bureaucratic structures including modern China’s power elite, their propaganda and coercive systems, the actual allocations of power in front and behind the organizational facade, the author illuminates the difficult issues and challenges facing contemporary China. China will remain authoritarian in the foreseeable future, he believes, even as it makes enormous economic advances.

This text has now been thoroughly revised and updated in its second edition to include discussions of:
• The consumer revolution that has brought China’s major urban areas to the forefront of the developed world and created a new middle class;
• An expanding private sector that has become the major generator of new employment in the overall economy as the state sector has shed jobs;
• The increase in foreign direct investment which has set China on track to becoming the manufacturing centre of the world;
• An enormous population migration from rural to urban areas and from the interior to the coast that is becoming one of the most massive movements of people in human history, and its significant impact on the environment;
• The unprecedented integration into the international economic system as China has joined virtually every major multilateral regime;
• The reactions of the top and the bottom of the political system to these recent developments and the continuing struggles between the government’s large bureaucratic structures and sporadic popular political movements.

Nonna Gorilovskaya

U.S. media coverage of India can sometimes leave the impression that the country is just a long string of modern cities filled with well-mannered young people who speak good English, take away American jobs and spend their disposable income drinking “cappuccino grandes” in “extra large grande” cups at Barista cafés. The White Tiger, winner of the 2008 Man Booker Prize, by the former Time Magazine South Asia correspondent Aravind Adiga shows the other India. The protagonist, Balram, calls it “The Darkness.” Balram considers himself a success story—a village boy turned Delhi chauffeur turned Bangalore entrepreneur. He is one of the few fortunate who has managed to escape the cycle of poverty, obligation and humiliation in rural India. He does it thanks to brains, cunning—and murder.

Adiga’s book is shows how entrenched severe poverty is in vast parts of India and just how powerless the poor are at a time when celebratory conversions about India’s rise leave them out.

There’s quite a bit of dark humor, and Adiga’s writing style is bare and matter-of-fact. “I appreciated that he did not go on for three pages about the mango tree,” as one of the girls in my book club puts it. I must admit that I happen to like deeply descriptive books and look forward to getting the visual elements when the film comes out, but I understand why this one wasn’t. A bigger problem for me was the lack of development of the characters, which left a lot of questions and made it difficult to identify with Balram or anyone else. Finally, the book also left me quite depressed about human nature. In the world according to Balram, the only way a poor man can become an autonomous individual in India is to completely disregard any semblance of morality, which is a luxury that can be partially reintegrated later, after making it.

The secretary of state finally gets a platter of her own at ITC Maurya’s Bukhara restaurant in New Delhi. The Hillary Platter–urgh malai kabab, seekh kabab, paneer tikka, tandoori aloo, sikandari raan, dal bukhara, tandoori jinga, mixed raita, naan, rasmalai and kulfi–joins the Presidential Platter and the Chelsea Platter.

At the town hall meeting at the University of Delhi, Clinton was asked a very good question: “Did you ever, ever feel that because you’re a woman, you’ve been denied the highest and the most prestigious post in the United States?” Unfortunately–and diplomatically–she proceeded not to answer it.

Sounds like The Times of India wanted Clinton to show more flesh: “The 61-year-old US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has returned to her conservative Illinois roots with her trademark colourful pantsuits that she is sporting in India—a far cry from the show of cleavage in the US Senate in July 2007 where her black top with a low neckline created a virtual flutter.” That’s right, a flutter!

“People watching a Bollywood movie in some other part of Asia think everybody in India is beautiful and they have dramatic lives and happy endings. And if you were to watch American TV and our movies you’d think that we don’t wear clothes and we spend all our time fighting with each other,” Clinton insisted. Is she trying to say that it’s not true and kill the film and tourism industries during a recession!