by ARUP K. CHATTERJEE

Writing in the Times Literary Supplement in October 1921, English poet and critic Thomas Stearns Eliot remembered John Donne thus: “Tennyson and Browning are poets, and they think, but they do not feel their thought as immediately as the odour of a rose. A thought to Donne was an experience; it modified his sensibility.”

Eliot’s assessment of Donne was true of some others too whom Samuel Johnson had in the eighteenth century called the the-extinct “race” of metaphysical poets. Not incidentally, however, the crown of thinking-as-experience is also befitting for Indian poet, lyricist, author, and filmmaker, the Sahitya, Oscar and Jnanpith awardee, Sampooran Singh Kalra, better known by his takhallus (pen name), ‘Gulzar‘.

Renowned Indian poet and novelist Padma Sachdev once called Gulzar saab the Pablo Neruda of Urdu poetry. But it would be as precise to call him the John Donne of ‘Indian popular culture’. And I use this composite phrase instead of ‘Hindi cinema’ or ‘Bollywood’ because a bulk of Gulzar saab’s unexplored philosophical insights far exceed his filmography, poetry, and writings. What is often missed in his language and poetics are his metaphors from quantum mechanics. 

A ‘Phenomenological’ Poet

Born in 1934 in Deena, now in the Jhelum district of present-day Pakistan, Gulzar saab’s early life and his harrowing journey to India before the Partition of 1947 – memories that found lauded expressions in Shyam Benegal’s 1994 classic, Mammo – would make for a fertile backdrop for many a biographer. But not many may pay attention to the cosmic and quantum-like figures of speech that decorate his perceptions of reality. “NASA is my favourite website,” Gulzar once acknowledged. “The universe with its abstract nature attracts me. The abstract element in my poetry comes from there.”

Had Gulzar saab’s modesty allowed him, instead of calling his poetry “abstract,” he might have called it “phenomenological”. The word ‘phenomenology’ means the study of experience, along with studying the nuances ‘qualia’, that is, the way fundamental units of reality are experienced. Gulzar saab’s poetry often represents reality in minuscule slices. “Qatra qatra milti hai” (“droplets and droplets appear to us”; Ijaazat, 1987), or “jale qatra qatra, gale qatra qatra” (“the kindling of slivers, the melting of slivers”; Saathiya, 2002). 

In certain other cases-as in “main chaand nigal gayi, daiyya re” (“I swallowed the moon, my gosh!”; Omkara, 2006)-Gulzar saab appears to swap the microscopic reality for the cosmic, where swallowing the moon signifies the quest of a mythical oscillatory body, or, in worldly terms, a lover in heat who swallowed the moon to soothe herself.  However, his deeper aesthetic sense resurfaces in moon-related metaphors elsewhere, as in “dhaage tod laao chandni se noor ke” (“pluck slivers of moonlight from the cosmic ray”; Jhoom Barabar Jhoom, 2007). The metaphor reminds one of that famous ‘double slit’ science experiment, where photons split to reveal wave-particle duality. Gulzar saab’s words are nowhere ‘abstract’. In a liminal way, they escort the listener into a scientific world.

NDTV for more

by MIHAEL T. KLARE

Wherever he travels globally, President Biden has sought to project the United States as the rejuvenated leader of a broad coalition of democratic nations seeking to defend the “rules-based international order” against encroachments by hostile autocratic powers, especially China, Russia, and North Korea. “We established NATO, the greatest military alliance in the history of the world,” he told veterans of D-Day while at Normandy, France on June 6th. “Today… NATO is more united than ever and even more prepared to keep the peace, deter aggression, defend freedom all around the world.”

In other venues, Biden has repeatedly highlighted Washington’s efforts to incorporate the “Global South” — the developing nations of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East — into just such a broad-based U.S.-led coalition. At the recent G7 summit of leading Western powers in southern Italy, for example, he backed measures supposedly designed to engage those countries “in a spirit of equitable and strategic partnership.”

But all of his soaring rhetoric on the subject scarcely conceals an inescapable reality: the United States is more isolated internationally than at any time since the Cold War ended in 1991. It has also increasingly come to rely on a tight-knit group of allies, all of whom are primarily English-speaking and are part of the Anglo-Saxon colonial diaspora. Rarely mentioned in the Western media, the Anglo-Saxonization of American foreign and military policy has become a distinctive — and provocative — feature of the Biden presidency.

America’s Growing Isolation

To get some appreciation for Washington’s isolation in international affairs, just consider the wider world’s reaction to the administration’s stance on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Joe Biden sought to portray the conflict there as a heroic struggle between the forces of democracy and the brutal fist of autocracy. But while he was generally successful in rallying the NATO powers behind Kyiv — persuading them to provide arms and training to the beleaguered Ukrainian forces, while reducing their economic links with Russia — he largely failed to win over the Global South or enlist its support in boycotting Russian oil and natural gas.

Despite what should have been a foreboding lesson, Biden returned to the same universalist rhetoric in 2023 (and this year as well) to rally global support for Israel in its drive to extinguish Hamas after that group’s devastating October 7th rampage. But for most non-European leaders, his attempt to portray support for Israel as a noble response proved wholly untenable once that country launched its full-scale invasion of Gaza and the slaughter of Palestinian civilians commenced. For many of them, Biden’s words seemed like sheer hypocrisy given Israel’s history of violating U.N. resolutions concerning the legal rights of Palestinians in the West Bank and its indiscriminate destruction of homes, hospitals, mosques, schools, and aid centers in Gaza. In response to Washington’s continued support for Israel, many leaders of the Global South have voted against the United States on Gaza-related measures at the U.N. or, in the case of South Africa, have brought suit against Israel at the World Court for perceived violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In the face of such adversity, the White House has worked tirelessly to bolster its existing alliances, while trying to establish new ones wherever possible. Pity poor Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who has made seemingly endless trips to Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East trying to drum up support for Washington’s positions — with consistently meager results.

Here, then, is the reality of this anything but all-American moment: as a global power, the United States possesses a diminishing number of close, reliable allies – most of which are members of NATO, or countries that rely on the United States for nuclear protection (Japan and South Korea), or are primarily English-speaking (Australia and New Zealand). And when you come right down to it, the only countries the U.S. really trusts are the “Five Eyes.”

For Their Eyes Only

The “Five Eyes” (FVEY) is an elite club of five English-speaking countries — Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States — that have agreed to cooperate in intelligence matters and share top-secret information. They all became parties to what was at first the bilateral UKUSA Agreement, a 1946 treaty for secret cooperation between the two countries in what’s called “signals intelligence” — data collected by electronic means, including by tapping phone lines or listening in on satellite communications. (The agreement was later amended to include the other three nations.) Almost all of the Five Eyes’ activities are conducted in secret, and its existence was not even disclosed until 2010. You might say that it constitutes the most secretive, powerful club of nations on the planet.

Tom Dispatch for more

by JENNIFER DASAL

Art’s role in American intelligence history features in the new book ‘ArtCurious: Stories of the Unexpected, Slightly Odd, and Strangely Wonderful in Art History’—read an excerpt here.

When the US government established the CIA in 1947, it included a division known as the Propaganda Assets Inventory, a branch of psychological warfare intended to boost pro-American messaging during the Cold War. In the following excerpt from the new book ArtCurious: Stories of the Unexpected, Slightly Odd, and Strangely Wonderful in Art History, author Jennifer Dasal explores how the intelligence agency curated exhibitions of abstract art to wage its ideological war. 

The secrecy with which the CIA pursued Abstract Expressionism was not only integral to successfully fooling the Soviet Union but also to keeping any associated artists in the dark. In [former CIA operative Donald] Jameson’s words, “[M]ost of [the Abstract Expressionists] were people who had very little respect for the government in particular and certainly none for the CIA.” Multiple artists self-identified as anarchists, particularly Barnett Newman, who was so taken by anarchism that he would later write the foreword to the 1968 reprint of Russian author Peter Kropotkin’s 1899 Memoirs of a Revolutionist, describing the anarcho-communist’s influence upon his life and work. In other words: tell Clyfford Still or Helen Frankenthaler that you wanted to use their paintings to forward a government agenda, and the answer would most likely have been a firm no.

The CIA’s answer to these problems was something known as the long-leash policy. This solution kept CIA operatives at a remove of two or three degrees from the artists and art exhibitions—sometimes even more—so that they could not be linked to any furtive governmental bankrolling. In order to fulfill this need, they elicited the participation of arts foundations, artists groups, and, most crucially, art museums, requesting their assistance in organizing special exhibitions, events, and collections. Such activity was funneled through a new arts agency created by the CIA named the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which was developed in 1950 and not revealed as a CIA project until 1966. It would always appear, then, that a museum or arts corporation was presenting and promoting Abstract Expressionism, never the government, no way! And no one was the wiser, not even the artists themselves. Especially not the artists themselves.

Artnet for more

Four consecutive US governments have incrementally expanded their reliance on using the US dollar as a weapon of war, forcing nations across the world to create alternative financial systems and pursue de-dollarization

The US government currently imposes sanctions on a third of all nations on earth in a situation that disproportionately affects low-income countries – 60 percent of which are under US sanctions of some kind – according to an analysis of the White House’s long-standing policy of economic warfare by the Washington Post.

This trend spiked during the last four US governments and reached a fever pitch under President Biden, who imposed over 6,000 sanctions in just two years.

“It is the only thing between diplomacy and war and, as such, has become the most important foreign policy tool in the US arsenal,” Bill Reinsch, a former Commerce Department official, told the US news outlet. “And yet, nobody in government is sure this whole strategy is even working.”

Washington’s over-reliance on using the US dollar as a weapon of war took a marked turn following the 11 September attacks in New York City. Up until then, economic sanctions had primarily targeted “rogue states” like Cuba and Libya to block them from taking part in the global financial system and instigating regime change.

However, from 2001 onward, sanctions were more freely used by successive US presidents to isolate nations worldwide, in particular, shifting their strategy to West Asia and further east. “As the Treasury Department became a key player in the global war on terrorism, US policymakers began to understand the power of the nation’s financial hegemony,” the Washington Post details.

The Cradle for more

by SPENGLER

US envisions India as democratic counterweight to China but Asian powers are moving toward more economic cooperation and less strategic conflict

India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on July 25 endorsed her economic advisor’s proposal to open the country to direct investment from China, effectively frozen since the Sino-Indian border clashes of 2020.

Earlier this week, Reuters reported, “India’s Chief Economic Adviser V Anantha Nageswaran said…that to boost its global exports New Delhi can either integrate into China’s supply chain or promote foreign direct investment (FDI) from China.

“Among these choices, focusing on FDI from China seems more promising for boosting India’s exports to the US, similar to how East Asian economies did in the past,’” Nageswaran said according to Reuters.

The proposed opening to China—a rebuke to American diplomacy in the region—followed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to New Delhi earlier this month.

Asia Times’ newsletter Global Risk-Reward Monitor reported exclusively July 11, “Modi asked Putin to help India resolve its longstanding border dispute with China. This is the most important military conflict in Asia, limited as it is, because it puts the region’s two largest countries at odds. Russian mediation, however informal, would entail a diplomatic revolution, and make a mockery of America’s hope of rallying Asian countries against China.”

In 2022, I argued that a demographic imperative—the declining population of non-Muslim parts of Asia versus the growth of Muslim populations—would push India, Russia and China toward a strategic rapprochement.

The Ukraine war has driven these prospective rivals together. India’s bottomless appetite for discounted Russian oil propelled its imports from Russia to US$67 billion in 2023 from only $8.7 billion in 2022. India, moreover, acts as Russia’s distribution agent, re-selling Russian oil and distillates to third countries.

It is noteworthy that although India and China have an ongoing border dispute, India has never joined the US and its allies in condemning China’s treatment of its Uyghur Muslim population. The United States meanwhile has accused India of human rights abuses against its Muslim minority.

Asia Times for more

by CELINE LI

What struck me most when I first set foot in the Philippines was the abundance of shopping malls. On the way from the airport to our residence, I counted nearly a dozen shopping malls, passing one every few minutes. These massive buildings were far from ordinary; they occupied vast acres of land, with stores and restaurants from one end of the street to the other in a seemingly endless maze, stretching for what seemed like several soccer fields in length.

Digging a little deeper, I learned that shopping malls were not only a place where Filipinos met friends and family, but also a way for people to unwind, relieve stress and even work productively (1). Interviewing a few locals on our first day of work, I learned that shopping malls were an endemic feature of the Philippines. Not only these spaces were meeting places, they also represented a fiber of the zeitgeist: a rampant culture of conspicuous consumption that has made its way throughout Southeast Asia over the past decade (2). Shopping malls are at the epicenter of this endless cycle of work and leisure, bringing these seemingly dichotomous activities together under one roof. Not to mention the fact that these megacenters serve as people’s refuge from the congested roads, unbearable heat and unpredictable downpours that occur almost every day of the summer (3).

From furniture stores to cinemas, churches to ice rinks, it’s easy to see why shopping malls attract people of all ages, preferences and backgrounds (4). The impeccable dining rooms and charming architecture drew us in, but the playfulness of famous brands like Nike and Starbucks, the interactive displays of Inside Out characters and the glittering merry-go-round enticed us to stay. Each of these elements complemented and enhanced our experience, making our journey through these malls not only immersive but also very memorable. On several occasions, my fellow interns and I spent hours wandering around the aptly named Mall of Asia, and, not surprisingly, we couldn’t find our way back from where we’d entered. Ranked as the sixth largest shopping mall in the world (5), I was certain that each visit would be filled with new discoveries, whether cultural, social, historical, financial, religious or leisure-related.

Essentially, malls combine retail with interactive, exciting and stimulating attributes, capitalizing on the global paradigm shift towards digitization, while keeping consumers satisfied and engaged, prolonging their stay and boosting sales. The comparison between the sparsely decorated malls found in America and the vibrant community centers of the Philippines becomes incomparable. “Malls are a means of escape for most Filipinos, discouraged by the difficulties of everyday life “(6). We can conclude that shopping malls represent a haven of peace in the midst of urban chaos. In a country where security, internet access and clean toilets are rare, shopping is perhaps not just an occasional outing, but an activity that contributes to a better quality of life.

As I continued to wander among the bustling market stalls, I couldn’t help but wonder how these mega-malls managed to be viable in a country where almost 20% of the population lives below the national poverty line (7)? Moreover, given the decline of shopping malls in America, how did they manage to remain so imposing in Southeast Asian countries?

As a Canadian-born Chinese student, it was clear to me that disparate economic models were affecting Asian countries like the Philippines, as opposed to Europe and the USA, but what exactly was drawing this strict line between consumers in the North and those in the South? I was both fascinated and confused, but my curiosity pushed me to the end of my questioning.

Alternatives International for more

by SARAH INGRAM

When Christi Angel lost her close friend Cameroun Scruggs in 2020, her bereavement – like their relationship – was uniquely propped up by technology.

The pair lived hundreds of miles apart, so maintained their friendship through texts and online chats. When Cameroun tragically passed away during Covid, Christi had no option but to attend his funeral via FaceTime.

So, perhaps it seemed natural that she would use artificial intelligence to keep the connection alive after death.

Cameroun was Christi’s first love, she recalls. ‘He was there for all of my firsts. He was funny, silly, he loved animals – he was just a great person.’

The pair met when Christi was 14 and they had a deep and meaningful three-year relationship. After the couple split, they remained close for the next two decades and in constant contact despite their 800-mile distance, united through their shared history and love of music.

Christi, a full time carer and mum of one, was living in New York and Cameroun in Tennessee when she heard her friend was critically ill with liver failure at the age of 48.

Metro for more

by KELSEY DAY

To survive, we are asked to forget that our lands and bodies are being violated, policed, ripped up, silenced, sacrificed

I got the news naked in the New River, in the backwoods of Appalachia. Water slashed against my skin. The river was closed in by curtains of green, oak trees rippling on both sides of the bank. The messenger was naked too. She lay on a boulder that jutted out of the water, her hair willowing out in streams. She made her hands into a gun and aimed it at the sun.

‘Maybe we won’t even notice it.’ She cocked her hands back, as if preparing to fire. ‘Only part of the pipeline would hit North Carolina. The South Gate. The rest of it is in Virginia.’

But we both knew she was wrong – of course we’d notice it. These mountains, the oldest in North America, are deeply interconnected. State lines mean nothing to the rivers, the wind currents, the bats, the toads. Isolationist comfort would not protect us. We both knew this, belly-up in the river, under the twisting blue sky. Water pushed into my back, between my shoulder blades, carried here from somewhere else. The current tugged sweat and mud off my skin, and dragged it downriver.

It’s called the Mountain Valley Pipeline. There’s a lazy sheen to the name, as if the creators wanted it to sound idyllic. Like, it’s a pipeline, yes – and sure, we’ll need to clear the forests – poison the water – divide some communities – but just look at that view!

The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a 303-mile-long incision running from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia, with a proposed extension into central North Carolina. The pipe itself is 42 inches in diameter, and buried 3 feet underground. It was approved for construction in October 2017 and was expected to be finished in October 2020, but its progress was slowed by local opposition, operating both within and outside of the law. Not until June this year was the pipeline declared complete and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved it to begin service.

It’s a volatile, dangerous place to insert pipes carrying explosive gas

Supporters of the project claim that the pipeline will help meet an increased demand for natural gas and provide job opportunities to people who live in the affected areas. But the numbers don’t add up: according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, demand for natural gas in the region is actually projected to decline from 2019 to 2030. The United States, on the other hand, is projected to become a global leader in natural gas exports in the next five years – making it likely that this harvested gas will be shipped overseas. Further, the economic opportunities presented by this project require specialised workers who are often hired from out of state, negating any promise of jobs for the people who actually live in the affected areas.

Aeon for more

EDITORIAL — THE DAILY STAR

The government seems to be in overdrive to identify those involved in the violence centring the quota protests, which would have been welcome had it included in its assessment of “violence” the role of its own security forces, especially in the deaths of over 165 people (as verified by this paper) that occurred during those violent clashes. In this connection, more than 10,000 people have been arrested in 12 days, and at least 473 more detained in police raids till July 29, according to our reports. Many of the arrests and detentions, as highlighted by a recent editorial in this daily, have been taking place without following due process of the law.

Unfortunately, despite the gravity of the violence against students and the general population, the government’s sole focus seems to be catching those who carried out vandalism of public properties, or clashed with security forces and members of ruling party affiliated groups—totally disregarding the role played by the latter in terms of instigation, escalation, and even the commission of killings. It is not for nothing that the students are now asking if the damage and destruction caused to public establishments, which we must condemn, are worth more to the current regime than the loss of citizens’ lives.

By the home ministry’s own count, at least 150 people have so far lost their lives in the recent violence over the quota reform protests. Would the ministry please provide an answer for how these people died? Was there really a shoot-on-sight order? If so, who ordered it, and why? And if not, why did law enforcers go out of their way to indiscriminately open fire on protesters? It is beyond comprehension that law enforcement would react the way they did when there are many options available to riot police to dissipate protests in non-lethal manners. Verified videos, media reports, and eye-witness accounts have provided chilling evidence of the cruelty of the state apparatuses, which didn’t even spare a four-year-old standing on his balcony.

Despite repeated calls for accountability and justice—not least from the students themselves who have lost their comrades—we have not seen any real attempt by the government to address the mass killings, even as it observed a nationwide mourning in remembrance of those killed in the recent violence. The judicial probe commission that was formed has confirmed that it will only investigate the six deaths that took place on July 16 for now. Who will answer for the blood that has since been spilled? And when?

The Daily Star for more

by JOHN P. RUEHL

Most royal families continue to face a decline in relevance, yet their ongoing efforts to adapt means they cannot be discounted entirely.

Recently appointed British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged his loyalty to British King Charles III on July 6, 2024, continuing a tradition that dates back centuries. However, since the leadership role taken by Prime Minister David Lloyd George in World War I, the monarchy’s political influence has become progressively ceremonial and even more precarious since the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II in 2022.

This trend is not unique to the UK; in recent centuries, the role of royalty in politics has declined considerably worldwide. As political ideals began challenging royal authority in Europe, European colonial powers began to undermine their authority overseas. The strain of World War I helped cause several European monarchies to collapse, and World War II diminished their numbers further. After, the Soviet Union and the U.S. divided Europe along ideological lines and sought to impose their communist and liberal democratic ideals elsewhere, and the remaining monarchs faced accelerating marginalization.

Today, fewer than 30 royal families are politically active on a national scale. Some, like Japan’s and the UK’s, trace their lineages back more than a millennium, while Belgium’s is less than 200 years old. Several have adapted by reducing political power while maintaining cultural and financial relevance, while others have retained their strong political control. Their various methods and circumstances make it difficult to determine where royals may endure, collapse, or return.

Alongside the UK, the royals of Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands have all seen their powers become largely ceremonial. Smaller European monarchical states like Andorra and the Vatican City are not hereditary, while Luxembourg, Monaco, and Liechtenstein are—though only the latter two still wield tangible power.

Attempts to exercise remaining royal political power have often highlighted its increasing redundancy. Belgian King Baudouin’s refusal to sign an abortion bill in 1990 saw him declared unfit to rule before being reinstated once it passed. Luxembourg’s Grand Duke Henri meanwhile lost his legislative role in 2008 after refusing to sign a euthanasia bill. Following increasing scrutiny of Queen Beatrix’s influence, the Dutch monarch’s role in forming coalition governments was transferred to parliament in 2012, and she also lost the ability to dissolve parliament.

The British monarch’s decline in political influence is also evident, but it can still prove useful. The royal family’s global popularity is used to project soft power, while royal visits can help seal important agreements, particularly in countries with other royal families. The leaders of 14 other countries also pledge allegiance to King Charles III as their head of state.

Additionally, the monarchy can be used to bypass certain democratic processes. In 1999 the British government advised Queen Elizabeth II to withhold Queen’s Consent, preventing parliamentary debate on the Military Action Against Iraq Bill, which would have restricted the ability to take military action without parliamentary approval.

Rozenberg Quarterly for more