Hindustan Times
The mark of a good Columnist
Do newspapers actually put two and two together? We pride ourselves on our ability to take seemingly unrelated events and to put them together so that readers can gain an insight.
But my sense is that most of us fail at this task. This was brought home to me to when I read Maureen Dowd in the New York Times (and nearly everywhere else - she is widely syndicated all over the world) recently. Dowd is, in my view at least, America’s top columnist: bright, witty, perceptive, unpompous, willing to call a spade a spade and always readable.
In the column I read, she took three unrelated stories and put them together. The worst was the news of Barrack Obama’s joke Nobel Peace Prize. The second was an interview granted by Vaclav Havel, the East European writer who later entered politics. And the third was Obama’s refusal to meet the Dalai Lama.
Of course, I knew about the Peace Prize. But I had not seen Havel’s interview to the International Herald Tribune. And while I had read that Obama would be the first US President to refuse to meet the Dalai Lama, I had not made any connections.
Dowd put it all together brilliantly in her column. Wasn’t it ironic that Obama who was given the Peace Prize refused to meet the Dalai Lama, a holy man who represents stateless people, only because he feared he might offend the Chinese?
Dowd quoted Havel whose claim to the Peace Prize is far greater than Obama’s as saying that this was a small moral compromise. But Havel added, once politicians went down this slippery slope, the compromises became bigger and bigger.
I have read loads of articles about Obama’s Peace Prize but not one of them brought the absurdity of the award home to me as clearly as Dowd’s piece did.
The Nobel Committee (appointed by the Norwegian Parliament) had suggested that Obama’s was an anticipatory prize because it hoped that he would usher in an era of peace.
But is it wise to anticipate such things from politician? First of all, Obama’s options are limited. He can reach out as much as he wants to the Muslim World but I doubt if he can achieve much in the way of progress in the Middle East or can rein in Israel. So it is hard to translate the rhetoric into reality.
(On a different note: that failure is New Delhi’s worst nightmare. Indian policy makers fear that having failed to resolve the Palestinian issue, Obama will turn to Kashmir and try and make a resolution of that issue his big gesture to the Muslim world. As our government is already so beholden to America it will find it different to resist pressure to make concessions on Kashmir).
Besides how should we expect heads of state to behave? Should they be statesmen searching for global peace and seeking to fight injustice? Or should they just concentrate on advancing the interests of their own people?
Obama’s snub to the Dalai Lama suggests that he prefers the latter course. His aides have put it about that in a couple of months or so, after he has met with the Chinese leadership, the President will sit down and have a chat with the Dalai Lama. At the moment, however, the White House is eager not to offend Beijing.
In terms of realpolitik, that approach makes sense. The Dalai Lama is not going to fade away. He will still be around two months later to have a cup of tea at the White House. Why time his visit so that it offends the Chinese who are financing America’s debt?
The problem with Obama’s snub to the Dalai Lama is not that he has acted against the interests of the people who elected him but that his actions do not seem consistent with the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.
No Peace Prize winner should snub the Dalai Lama, a man who believes in peace and non-violence and whose people have suffered for decades.
My first reaction - along with most other Indians, I suspect - to the news that Obama had got the Peace Prize was one of disbelief. I thought I even detected a note of political correctness or condescension in the decision. (”Oh Black man! We are so happy that you have got to the White House that we will give you a prize! Well done, boy”.)
But I never thought it through or realized what implications an anticipatory award would have for Obama’s presidency till I read Maureen Dowd’s column. Nor did I confront the central question of how there is a tension between a President’s duty to look after the interests of his own people and the obligations of a global peace-maker.
A good columnist is not just one who makes us angry or one who entertains us.
A good columnist should make us think.
(13 votes, average: 4.69 out of 5)
Loading ...Posted by Vir Sanghvi on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Filed under Media · Tagged america's top columnist, Dalai Lama, Maureen Dowd, New York Times, Obama's refusal, Peace Prize
Vir,
A thinking column from you. Good one! So far the only thing to Obama’s credit is beautiful orations, inspiring speeches. He has mastered that art. But I am still to see actions following his words. He likes to speak things which people want to hear.
When he came to power, He spoke how Wall Street cheated common Americans and that these high profile CEOs would not be allowed to walk off so easily. Common people cheered. Have we heard of any action against these CEOs? Either he was fooling people or he later realized that taking action against them was not easy in the world of capitalism.
And then comes the aid to Pakistan. We know that there are strings attached to it, that how the aid cannot be used to sponsor terrorism against the neighbors. India may still see more attacks perpetuating from Pak soil. Pakistani govt may just express helplessness that the govt was not party in it. Any evidence provided by us would not be acceptable to them. In essence, the strings would serve no purpose for us.
It is true that Obama is there to further interests of America. Every head of the state has such obligations. For the sake of global goodness, Obama is not going to take decisions that would hurt his fortunes in the next election. He is just another politician. But then why give him the Nobel Prize?
[Reply]
doesn’t peace prize lost its relevance when they gave it to “yaasir arafat!!!!!”
[Reply]
Isn’t it more constructive to think of it as anticipatory rather than as an idiot prize? And as a peace awardee under training one cannot accept overnight miracles of beatification.
In the longer perspective should he prove worhy of the award, the commitee would be vindicated. If not, the award would be devalued.
On the whole, as a gamble at worst the winning stakes outweigh the losing stakes.
Hence nothing to mourn or moan.
[Reply]
Maureen Dowd is well known for her right wing leanings. Her criticism stems not from an objective assessment, but from a school of thought which says “why should we, the Americans, the respresentatives of global goodness, bend to the Chinese, those repressive expidents of totaliarianism and curbing of freedoms”.
The fundamental question is, how on earth can you grant a prize of peace of the person at the helm of a power structure, which must, in accordance with its nature, try and retain and expand its power. To say Obama “must look after the interests of his people” is a little too kind. Whether or not their policies actually help the ordinary citizen, States, by their very nature, must retain or expand power and be directed by “strategic policy making”, meaning, assume that other States will act in the worst possible way, and devise your own strategies around that. All states do it. India does it. America, by virtue of being the most powerful state, does it all the more. Lets forget the goodie-goodie image, and recognise that Obama has emerged through a power structure, which systematically eliminates those who dont support it.
It is like giving the Nobel prize to an executioner.
[Reply]
It will be definitely interesting to watch nobel ‘peace’ prize winner obama leading ‘peaceful’ forces in a ‘peaceful’attack on Iran/N.Korea, most probably within the next few years..
[Reply]
Let’s hope the prize serves if not as a deterrent at least as a headache. Or as a world class joke. Sharam nam ki bhi koi cheez hoti hai!
[Reply]
Dear Vir Singhvi : No sycophancy at all . As and when I got a chance to read & comprehend your explicit & 24 karat views, explicating in a unique manner; I for one couldn’t help muttering ’super-duper’pen-master of the present genration,leading & reputed journalist :decidedly.Your analytical,threadbare & persuasive approach in unfolding the unknown ,rather lesser known,nitty-gritty camouflaged gubbins. The Nobel Peace Prize committee seemingly got caught into a mega-sized cobweb in pleasing the two major religions of the world ! Needs little elaboration. There could be more than one good reason for having awarded the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE,tothe first ever black president of the US,Mr BARRACK HUSAIN OBAMA !
[Reply]
Sir,
Since the title of your post is ” The mark of a good columnist”, i was quite surprised to find the journalist featured was Maureen Dowd. I used to be a regular reader of her column in NYT, in fact i even subscribed to her posts on Google reader. But week on week , apart form few sprinklings of brilliant pieces of writings and acute observations (a recent one on why women seem less happy even thought they are financially more in control than before)”, the regular columns were taken up in bashings..vitriolic outpourings against Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, George W Bush ( her favorite by far), Sarah Palin and the list continues. A columnist is expected to put forth her views, her perceptions and her take on events. But to make one’s column a tool for bashing around people you “just don’t like” is a disservice to its readers.Gail Collins does a far better job if we are comparing for the sake..even Davis Brooks.
One of the main reason you are one of my favorite columnists in India is because you have a highly objective way of looking at things. You present your point, but also leave the room open for us to formulate our thinking. Readers don’t like personal opinions and prejudices being thrust down our throats even if it is written in a witty manner.
[Reply]
Saurav Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
It’s surprising that you consider Vir to be an objective columnist. That’s because the punchline for Medium Term claims exactly otherwise……’delivers highly subjective judgments’!!!
Just an observation
[Reply]
Sonal Bhadoria Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Good observation.
Well, I just wrote what I felt. You read his columns and come out feeling that an argument was well analyzed from various perspectives. He does have his personal opinions, infact every columnist ought to have one..otherwise why would anyone want to read them. But you also have to highlight the “other” opinion.
Maybe the word objective was used in the wrong context by me.
[Reply]
Hi Vir,
Don’t let Americans touch Kashmir.They will destroy it.
It will also Internationalize the issue. What ever you say about Kashmir, it still not considered an Islamic issue by the wider Muslim world.It keeps our headaches down.
Best solution :- Attack POK & get it.
Second Best :-Make LOC an International Border. But what happens about Kashmiri Families which are separated by the border. We will again sell out Kashmiri people or should i say Indians for our gain.
What i get a felling reading & understanding about History of Kashmir is that there is lot of mistakes(You might say crimes) which our Gov. has done. But nobody has clean hands over there.
Also is important to reverse what happened in 1989.
[Reply]
Vir, therein lies an inherent tragedy of the Indian media. I’m sorry to say but beneath the veneer of a columnist, you often have a middleman with his finger on some pie or the other. Basically a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Frisk him and you would find gift vouchers, or even a party membership card, in his hip pocket!
How many columnists you have who have not been branded? And it’s not without reason that they have been branded. Peep into their soul and you you see them salivating for, say a Rajya Sabha berth, or some other freebies.
Call me cynic but I don’t expect them to call spade a spade. They would either try to convince that it’s a mere, innocuous fork or would froath in the mouth, wondering how could you miss the payloader.
[Reply]
I always fail to disappoint myself when I read you. I tried not to agree but I always fail.
I have never been impressed by same writer again and again, every time.
[Reply]