Tis the season for giving. But sometimes it is easier to give than to receive, simpler to express sympathy than to accept it with grace,
I was reminded of this from an event in San Francisco. I was visiting with an old college friend, Tom Swift, and we were on our way to an early breakfast in Sausalito when we got off the highway ramp and were stuck at a red light. There was an old couple, relatively well dressed but standing mournfully at the lights with a cardboard sign seeking help. I gave it no thought till I saw Tom roll down his window and gesture to the woman who ran up to our car and to whom Tom handed over a few dollars. That seemed to start a chain reaction among the motorists at the light and pretty soon a few more cars owners beckoned the couple to give them a few dollars. As we rolled past the couple, I could see the man overcome with emotion with tears in his eyes while his wife cuddled up and kissed him, both their faces were awash with wonder and gratitude. He may have been cynical before but no more and her belief in the goodness of random strangers seemed justified. Receiving help and sympathy apparently is sometimes more difficult than the act of giving…
Yet there are different reactions to these acts of individual generosity. I have seen a beggar woman who has been around the World Bank building in Washington for the last twenty years. She has been at the same corner with the same sign “help me” and passerby’s often drop coins into her outstretched hands. She has not changed and indeed her reaction to the alms is curiously one of a sense of entitlement. People going to the bank are rich and she is poor and so the rich owe the poor.
Then there is the reaction of wonder and gratitude reflected in the face of that couple in San Francisco. These are most often people who have fallen unexpectedly on hard times, and as Tom explained, a prime cause has been the rising cost of healthcare.
Then there are still others who receive a gift when they are down and out but which stimulates in them a determination to give back to others when they prosper.
But what I really wanted to explore is the mind set of the receiver of gifts. It is easy to understand what drives the Good Samaritan, but what about the beneficiary of these gifts?
A great many cultures deliver variations of the message that it's better to give than to receive. This identifies us as good people, selfless, and perhaps even self-sacrificing.
Thus, by being giving people we believe that we earn the approval of others and avoid being the recipients of their disapproval. The self-esteem issue is often closely entwined with the nature of a giver. Often we may unconsciously believe that we don't deserve to receive. As long as we are giving we don't have to deal with the issue of what we deserve to receive.
Of course it is easy to give. After all then people thank us for our kindness and generosity, and we get to view ourselves as good people. Being kind and generous also gives us power. We have the ability to effect change and improvement in the lives of others. A related benefit is that we get to avoid feeling vulnerable. To me, this was initially the least obvious benefit of not receiving, so I suspect that it might be the most powerful one.
But it is in receiving that you discovery the challenge of who you are. For we have been given the message while growing up is that the appropriate response to a compliment is modesty to the point of humility. Ideally, we imply that we have never given a thought to the possibility that we have even a minor talent or gift. Some of us may have been even conditioned to the point where we believe that even to contemplate receiving in any form marks us as selfish and self-centered.
Giving spontaneously, without the need to bolster low self-esteem, to create a favorable appearance, to control relationships, or to protect oneself from vulnerability is the really true act of generosity. When it is practiced in a way which is designed to protect our fixed ideas of who we are it bears little relationship to generosity. Similarly when we refuse the generosity of others, our energy is tied up in resistance, in the attempt to preserve our emotional/mental status quo. We find, as well, that our attempts to genuinely love and nurture ourselves feel like a struggle. And it should not for gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.
“Perhaps the most overrated virtue on our list of shoddy virtues is that of giving” writes John Steinbeck, “Giving builds up the ego of the giver, makes him superior and higher and larger than the receiver……. it is so easy to give, so exquisitely rewarding. Receiving, on the other hand, if it be well done, requires a fine balance of self-knowledge and kindness. It requires humility and tact and great understanding of relationships. In receiving you cannot appear, even to yourself, better or stronger or wiser than the giver, although you must be wiser to do it well”.
So in this holiday season, give a thought to the receiver of your gifts.
anil
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Mothers and sons
In a strange, faraway country, each boy believes that his mother is a virgin,
and each mother believes that her son is God.
In many eastern cultures, a woman is expected to depend on her father till she is married, her husband till she is a widow and her son till she dies. This dependence has a price. But the most interesting of these relationships is the one between a mother and her son.
Teenage behavior helps parents to cut themselves loose from their children: as your children love you less, they, rather helpfully, become less lovely. But not for mothers. They continue to believe that their son is a work in progress and is well on its way to perfection just give her enough time! She wants her son to find the right girl- usually one who closely resembles her and settle down. From his birth, her son is her major lifetime project. However, when it does happen, and another woman displaces her in her sons life, she feels adrift and with no major project in mind.
All mothers feel the pain of no longer being needed, but wont admit to it. They may passionately want their son to find the right woman, but when it happens, the mother often feels that she is cast aside. Perhaps it does all come down to Oedipus after all: the mother-son relationship is a deep and intense one during childhood, but, unlike the mother-daughter bond, a specific rupture has to be made before the child can be fully adult.
Thus the most delicate aspect of mother and son relationship comes, when another woman enters into his life, either as a girlfriend or as a wife. This is the time, when almost every mother starts feeling insecure and becomes apprehensive. From being the only woman in her son's life, she has to share the affection with someone, who is as important in her son's life as she is.
There is an irony in all this, of course. That the pressure to disavow our mothers might come not from fellow men, but from women – the very women who are theoretically sizing us up as the person who might, ultimately, turn them into a mother – is curious to say the least. Are men, perhaps, merely the intermediaries in an intergenerational rivalry between women?
A mother and son relationship is a very unique one. Boys generally look up to their fathers or a father-figure for how to interact with others, show affection towards others, and respond to different situations. But the mother, on the other hand, has a chance to show her son how a girl wants to be treated and how he should expect to be treated by the opposite sex. But men don’t look cool talking about their mothers since other women – with good reason – run a mile from a man who loves his mother too much. However wonderful and adorable a man’s mother is, the slightest mention of this fact makes him look as if he has not quite grown up and, therefore, is deeply unattractive. . A woman who reveres her parents will make a different impression. Daddy’s girl has a better connotation than a Mama’s boy. Does it not?
It is not easy for the son to make his mother understand that she has and will always be the most special person in his life but that now that there is another woman in his life. While this new person- his wife- can never take her place, there is a change. On the other hand, a mother should also understand that she has to stop holding on to her son all the time and let go of him. If he is not careful, he can sometimes end up living with two mothers- his wife and his mother. One does not want to be his mother, the other refuses to let him be any thing else but her son. Therein lies his dilemma. Whom should he please?
and each mother believes that her son is God.
In many eastern cultures, a woman is expected to depend on her father till she is married, her husband till she is a widow and her son till she dies. This dependence has a price. But the most interesting of these relationships is the one between a mother and her son.
Teenage behavior helps parents to cut themselves loose from their children: as your children love you less, they, rather helpfully, become less lovely. But not for mothers. They continue to believe that their son is a work in progress and is well on its way to perfection just give her enough time! She wants her son to find the right girl- usually one who closely resembles her and settle down. From his birth, her son is her major lifetime project. However, when it does happen, and another woman displaces her in her sons life, she feels adrift and with no major project in mind.
All mothers feel the pain of no longer being needed, but wont admit to it. They may passionately want their son to find the right woman, but when it happens, the mother often feels that she is cast aside. Perhaps it does all come down to Oedipus after all: the mother-son relationship is a deep and intense one during childhood, but, unlike the mother-daughter bond, a specific rupture has to be made before the child can be fully adult.
Thus the most delicate aspect of mother and son relationship comes, when another woman enters into his life, either as a girlfriend or as a wife. This is the time, when almost every mother starts feeling insecure and becomes apprehensive. From being the only woman in her son's life, she has to share the affection with someone, who is as important in her son's life as she is.
There is an irony in all this, of course. That the pressure to disavow our mothers might come not from fellow men, but from women – the very women who are theoretically sizing us up as the person who might, ultimately, turn them into a mother – is curious to say the least. Are men, perhaps, merely the intermediaries in an intergenerational rivalry between women?
A mother and son relationship is a very unique one. Boys generally look up to their fathers or a father-figure for how to interact with others, show affection towards others, and respond to different situations. But the mother, on the other hand, has a chance to show her son how a girl wants to be treated and how he should expect to be treated by the opposite sex. But men don’t look cool talking about their mothers since other women – with good reason – run a mile from a man who loves his mother too much. However wonderful and adorable a man’s mother is, the slightest mention of this fact makes him look as if he has not quite grown up and, therefore, is deeply unattractive. . A woman who reveres her parents will make a different impression. Daddy’s girl has a better connotation than a Mama’s boy. Does it not?
It is not easy for the son to make his mother understand that she has and will always be the most special person in his life but that now that there is another woman in his life. While this new person- his wife- can never take her place, there is a change. On the other hand, a mother should also understand that she has to stop holding on to her son all the time and let go of him. If he is not careful, he can sometimes end up living with two mothers- his wife and his mother. One does not want to be his mother, the other refuses to let him be any thing else but her son. Therein lies his dilemma. Whom should he please?
The death of shame
Webster's New World College Dictionary defines shame as a painful feeling of having lost the respect of others because of the improper behavior, incompetence, etc. of oneself or another; or as a dishonor or disgrace. People have been complaining about other people’s manners since the beginning of civilization and yet rude and immoral people have still somehow managed to flourish everywhere.
Recently ND Tiwari , governor of Andhra Pradesh and once considered as a potential prime minister of India, was caught in bed with three women – not one, not two but three. When caught he denied it and then complained that it was the result of opposition traps. There was neither an admission of guilt nor a hint of shame.. Fortunately, the body politic was suitably outraged that he was removed without delay.
These incidents of public servants have become all too common place and only rarely do they lead to a public humiliation or some degree of effective outrage.
It is true that in 2008, when the New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was caught fooling around on his wife with a high-priced escort named Ashley Dupre, he did resign. But his replacement, David Paterson, who admitted to numerous affairs -- as well as marijuana and cocaine use – was sworn in as a governor of the largest state in the US shortly thereafter. Another governor, Mark Sanford of South Caroline, who was caught in an extramarital affair, rather than resign with whatever shred of dignity he had left, brazenly addressed the entire nation in a bizarre news conference that involved tears, true confessions, and apologies to nearly everyone he ever met. But he opted to remain as governor.. Not to be outdone, senators like Vitter and Ensign even when caught in dalliances, brazenly refused to resign and the press, true to its short term memory, gave them a pass and they still routinely opine on all matters moral and immoral. Not only that like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan, these public figures have become richer from behaving like tramps.
Even outside the steamy world of celebrity sex-capades, shame has become an outmoded concept. No longer is there any shame in staying on welfare or having a child out of wedlock. There is no shame in being just a mediocre student in school. Elbows on the dinner table and interrupting are accepted. We can talk and text in the movies -- and screaming at someone in public is OK. We put up with crude, even filthy, language on the radio, in music, and more and more on television. Four letter words and worse, is heard everywhere, every day. Coarse behavior is considered acceptable with people shouting “liar” at the president within the house. Senators, who should know better, routinely decry the opposition party members as traitors and some even wish that they would die before casting a vote!
We teach our kids that self-esteem is something entitled simply because one exists. We tell children that they are all great kids and they deserve to be appreciated just the way they are. Perhaps a little old-fashioned shame could serve us well. This is not to advocate a return to the harsh judgments of yesteryear. No one wants to see someone tarred and feathered for making poor choices or behaving badly -- but perhaps just a wee touch of accountability could have some positive effects.
The sense of shame is a kind of cement in any decent society. The fear of shame reminds each of us that some things must not be done. You don't become a criminal because you would bring shame to your family. You don't employ muscle against the weak. You don't beat up women or prey on the old. You don't father children and then abandon them. You don't cheat or swindle because exposure would coat you with the tar of shame. You don't preach high ideals and live a lie. But it's clear that we are now awash in shamelessness. It's clear that the sense of shame needs to be revived and the shameless held to account.
It is time to start being judgmental and critical of actions that are considered immoral or wrong by society. What's wrong with shaking one's head or uttering a well-placed, "tsk, tsk," or even telling someone you don't want to hear bad language? What is to prevent the press from giving publicity to these hacks and ill-mannered boors? I, for one, would be very happy if the Washington Post would stop writing series on idiots like Salahis or Tom Coburns. Good riddance, I say, to all of them. Take your filth and meanness somewhere else and not on national TV or papers—just take them away.
For as Salman Rushdie points out “shame is like everything else; live with it for long enough and it becomes part of the furniture.”
Recently ND Tiwari , governor of Andhra Pradesh and once considered as a potential prime minister of India, was caught in bed with three women – not one, not two but three. When caught he denied it and then complained that it was the result of opposition traps. There was neither an admission of guilt nor a hint of shame.. Fortunately, the body politic was suitably outraged that he was removed without delay.
These incidents of public servants have become all too common place and only rarely do they lead to a public humiliation or some degree of effective outrage.
It is true that in 2008, when the New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was caught fooling around on his wife with a high-priced escort named Ashley Dupre, he did resign. But his replacement, David Paterson, who admitted to numerous affairs -- as well as marijuana and cocaine use – was sworn in as a governor of the largest state in the US shortly thereafter. Another governor, Mark Sanford of South Caroline, who was caught in an extramarital affair, rather than resign with whatever shred of dignity he had left, brazenly addressed the entire nation in a bizarre news conference that involved tears, true confessions, and apologies to nearly everyone he ever met. But he opted to remain as governor.. Not to be outdone, senators like Vitter and Ensign even when caught in dalliances, brazenly refused to resign and the press, true to its short term memory, gave them a pass and they still routinely opine on all matters moral and immoral. Not only that like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan, these public figures have become richer from behaving like tramps.
Even outside the steamy world of celebrity sex-capades, shame has become an outmoded concept. No longer is there any shame in staying on welfare or having a child out of wedlock. There is no shame in being just a mediocre student in school. Elbows on the dinner table and interrupting are accepted. We can talk and text in the movies -- and screaming at someone in public is OK. We put up with crude, even filthy, language on the radio, in music, and more and more on television. Four letter words and worse, is heard everywhere, every day. Coarse behavior is considered acceptable with people shouting “liar” at the president within the house. Senators, who should know better, routinely decry the opposition party members as traitors and some even wish that they would die before casting a vote!
We teach our kids that self-esteem is something entitled simply because one exists. We tell children that they are all great kids and they deserve to be appreciated just the way they are. Perhaps a little old-fashioned shame could serve us well. This is not to advocate a return to the harsh judgments of yesteryear. No one wants to see someone tarred and feathered for making poor choices or behaving badly -- but perhaps just a wee touch of accountability could have some positive effects.
The sense of shame is a kind of cement in any decent society. The fear of shame reminds each of us that some things must not be done. You don't become a criminal because you would bring shame to your family. You don't employ muscle against the weak. You don't beat up women or prey on the old. You don't father children and then abandon them. You don't cheat or swindle because exposure would coat you with the tar of shame. You don't preach high ideals and live a lie. But it's clear that we are now awash in shamelessness. It's clear that the sense of shame needs to be revived and the shameless held to account.
It is time to start being judgmental and critical of actions that are considered immoral or wrong by society. What's wrong with shaking one's head or uttering a well-placed, "tsk, tsk," or even telling someone you don't want to hear bad language? What is to prevent the press from giving publicity to these hacks and ill-mannered boors? I, for one, would be very happy if the Washington Post would stop writing series on idiots like Salahis or Tom Coburns. Good riddance, I say, to all of them. Take your filth and meanness somewhere else and not on national TV or papers—just take them away.
For as Salman Rushdie points out “shame is like everything else; live with it for long enough and it becomes part of the furniture.”
Friday, December 11, 2009
Obama's Nobel Lecture
This is a lecture worth studying
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In todays wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. Kings lifes work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitlers armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions _ not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates -- and weakens -- those who dont.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we dont, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention -- no matter how justified.
This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
Americas commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries -- and other friends and allies -- demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed Americas commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russias nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.
I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests -- nor the worlds -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- and condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolutions horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Pauls engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that is why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities -- their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of ones own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their faith in human progress -- must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of mans present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him."
So let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees hes outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In todays wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. Kings lifes work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitlers armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions _ not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates -- and weakens -- those who dont.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we dont, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention -- no matter how justified.
This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
Americas commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries -- and other friends and allies -- demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed Americas commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russias nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.
I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests -- nor the worlds -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- and condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolutions horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Pauls engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that is why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities -- their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of ones own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their faith in human progress -- must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of mans present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him."
So let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees hes outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The strangest of tastes - Part II
I had just finished the piece of marmite, when my attention was drawn to another product which draws an equally fanatic following.. on either side. Durian.
Opponents of this food product say that eating durian is "like eating sweet raspberry blancmange in the lavatory novelist ( British novelist, Anthony Burgess). Chef Andrew Zimmern compares the taste to "completely rotten, mushy onions." Anthony Bourdain, while a lover of durian, relates his encounter with the fruit as thus: "Its taste can only be described as...indescribable, something you will either love or despise. ...Your breath will smell as if you'd been French-kissing your dead grandmother." Travel and food writer Richard Sterling says: ... its odor is best described as pig-shit, turpentine and onions, garnished with a gym sock. It can be smelled from yards away. Other comparisons have been made with the civet, sewage, stale vomit, skunk spray and used surgical swabs.
One would imagine that with such testimonials, the devotees of this fruit would be chastened. Not so. Indeed lovers of the fruit call it the “King of the Fruits".The Javanese believe durian to have aphrodisiac qualities. A saying in Indonesian says “durian jatuh sarung naik” which loosely translated means that when "the durians fall ..the sarongs come up".
Durian is an expensive and exotic fruit from Asia and its name is derived from the Malay word "duri" meaning thorn - due to its thick, tough and thorny husk. The durian fruit is either loved by durian aficionados with an almost cult like fervor or hated by those repelled by its smell. The rich, buttery smooth and luscious flesh of the durian fruit is delicious and is comparable to no other fruit. However, the disagreeable odor of the durian fruit gave birth to this often repeated phrase: "durian is a fruit that smells like hell but taste like heaven".
It is said that you should
• Never burp after devouring on a Durian. The consequences are ghastly!
• Never combine Durian with carbonated drinks. This choice will leave you sorry!
• Never leave the Durian in the car on a hot summer's day or even in a hotel room. The stench will take the wind out of your sails.
• Never kiss your better half after consuming a Durian. You will end up on your rear or even a break-up.
• Never leave Durian uncovered in the fridge. Or else, the entire stuff in the fridge will smell like Durian and you will have only smelly food for dinner.
Indeed its odor has led to the fruit's banishment from certain hotels and public transportation in Southeast Asia. At least marmite is not banned anywhere that I know of!
Opponents of this food product say that eating durian is "like eating sweet raspberry blancmange in the lavatory novelist ( British novelist, Anthony Burgess). Chef Andrew Zimmern compares the taste to "completely rotten, mushy onions." Anthony Bourdain, while a lover of durian, relates his encounter with the fruit as thus: "Its taste can only be described as...indescribable, something you will either love or despise. ...Your breath will smell as if you'd been French-kissing your dead grandmother." Travel and food writer Richard Sterling says: ... its odor is best described as pig-shit, turpentine and onions, garnished with a gym sock. It can be smelled from yards away. Other comparisons have been made with the civet, sewage, stale vomit, skunk spray and used surgical swabs.
One would imagine that with such testimonials, the devotees of this fruit would be chastened. Not so. Indeed lovers of the fruit call it the “King of the Fruits".The Javanese believe durian to have aphrodisiac qualities. A saying in Indonesian says “durian jatuh sarung naik” which loosely translated means that when "the durians fall ..the sarongs come up".
Durian is an expensive and exotic fruit from Asia and its name is derived from the Malay word "duri" meaning thorn - due to its thick, tough and thorny husk. The durian fruit is either loved by durian aficionados with an almost cult like fervor or hated by those repelled by its smell. The rich, buttery smooth and luscious flesh of the durian fruit is delicious and is comparable to no other fruit. However, the disagreeable odor of the durian fruit gave birth to this often repeated phrase: "durian is a fruit that smells like hell but taste like heaven".
It is said that you should
• Never burp after devouring on a Durian. The consequences are ghastly!
• Never combine Durian with carbonated drinks. This choice will leave you sorry!
• Never leave the Durian in the car on a hot summer's day or even in a hotel room. The stench will take the wind out of your sails.
• Never kiss your better half after consuming a Durian. You will end up on your rear or even a break-up.
• Never leave Durian uncovered in the fridge. Or else, the entire stuff in the fridge will smell like Durian and you will have only smelly food for dinner.
Indeed its odor has led to the fruit's banishment from certain hotels and public transportation in Southeast Asia. At least marmite is not banned anywhere that I know of!
Monday, December 7, 2009
A Very Indian Wedding ..in the US
Indian mythology says that there are eight different types of Hindu marriages. But as Indians have emigrated to different countries, particularly in the last fifty years, new traditions are emerging which struggle to blend tradition with modernity in marriage customs.
The most common form was the Brahma marriage, where a boy is eligible to get married once he has completed his Brahmacharya (student hood) and where the grooms family seeks out a suitable bride for their son. Then there is the Gandharva marriage, which is similar to love marriage, since it is without the knowledge of the parents. There are other marriages such as Daiva, where the bride is married to a priest, Arsha where the bride is given in exchange for two cows and married to an old sage, Prajapatya where the bride’s father goes in search for a groom for his daughter. In the Asura marriage, the groom is not suitable for the bride but willingly gives as much wealth as he can to cement the marriage. And there is the Rakshasa marriage where the groom fights battles with the bride's family, overcomes them, carries her away and then persuades her to marry him. Paishacha marriage is the eighth and last type of Hindu wedding but it is considered as the inferior type of marriage, since the girl's wish is not considered and she is forced to marry the person chosen for her. In Hindu dharma, marriage is viewed as a sacrament and not a contract and is performed in Sanskrit.
The traditional Indian wedding customs were formulated more than 35 centuries ago. Each ceremony, each occasion, and each ritual thus had a deep philosophical meaning and purpose. In the early days in the US, there were, however, no Brahmins around since most of the immigrants tended to be engineers or doctors. So a detailed checklist was issued by Indian associations for those wishing to get married here explaining the various customs, which read, in part: “The auspicious wedding day begins with the Mangal Vadya, the playing of the Shahenai, a traditional reed flute- like wind instrument of Indian Classical Music, and the Noubat, the small drums. The groom arrives with his family and friends at the entrance to the wedding hall and is first greeted by a young maiden, the bride's younger sister or niece, holding a water pot to quench his thirst. Next, the bride's mother welcomes the groom performing a ceremony to ward off the evil spirits he may have encountered on the way to the wedding. He is then asked to break the Saapath (the earthen clay pot) symbolizing his strength and virility and is then led to the Lagna Mandap where the wedding ceremony is to be performed.”
“The bride is brought to the Lagna Mandap by her Mama (maternal uncle) and is seated behind a white curtain, a symbol of traditional barriers. After the bride's father thanks the Gods, the curtain is removed and the couple exchange flower garlands. The bride and the bridegroom exchange garlands, made up of cotton threads, to proclaim acceptance of each other. The wedding ceremony begins with the worship of Lord Ganesha, the remover of all obstacles and Varuna, Lord of the Seas. A copper vessel containing water, flowers, and coconut is worshipped followed by the worship of the five basic elements of creation, namely fire, earth, water, air, and light. The bride's parents invoke the Gods and tell the groom, "On this Holy Occasion, we will give our daughter who is a symbol of Lakshmi, Goddess of Prosperity, to you in the presence of the Sacred Fire, friends, and relatives." The couple is then united by placing the bride's right hand in the groom's right hand. The ends of the scarves worn by the bride and the groom are then tied together signifying unity. The couple vows to remember the Divine; to look upon others with sympathy, love, and compassion; to be strong and righteous; and to show goodwill, respect, and affection to each other's families. The marriage is solemnized before the Lord Agni (the Sacred Fire) who is the symbol of light, power, and purity and acts as the principal witness to the ceremony. The invocations and offerings are also made to Lords of the nine planets to remove all obstacles and bless the bride and the groom. The bride and the groom circle the fire four times. The groom leads the bride in the first three rounds. The bride, representing Shakti, the Divine Energy, leads in the last round. At the end of each round the bride's brother or cousin gives offerings for the Sacred Fire. The first three represent the material wealth of cows, silver, and gold. The last one represents the gift of the bride herself to her new family. At the end of the ceremony, the bride stands to the groom's left, where she has taken a place closest to his heart. The groom offers Mangal Sutra (a sacred necklace made of black beads) to his wife and places Sindoor (a red powder) on her forehead. Both signify the mark of a married woman and symbols of his love, integrity, and devotion towards her.”
“The bride and groom take seven steps around or toward the sacred fire representing the seven principles and promises to each other:
1. Together, we will acquire energy to share in the responsibilities of married life.
2. Together, we will fill our hearts with strength and courage to accomplish all the needs of our life.
3. Together, we will prosper and share our worldly goods and we will work for the prosperity of our family.
4. Together, we will cherish each other in sickness and in health; in happiness and in sorrow.
5. Together, we will raise strong and virtuous children.
6. Together, we will fill our hearts with great joy, peace, happiness, and spiritual values, and
7. Together, we will remain lifelong partners by this matrimony.
With the Saptapadi—the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire- the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. The bride and groom are now united and seek blessings from Lord Vishnu the Preserver and his consort Lakshmi, The Goddess of Wealth. The couple then seeks blessings from the Gods, parents, and elderly relatives by bowing to their feet. Married women from the family bless the bride by whispering "Akhanda Saubhagyawati Bhav" (blessing for abiding marital happiness) in the bride's right ear. The last ritual of the ceremony is where the bride begins an important role in her life as a wife and a member of the groom's family. She throws a handful of rice so that the house of her childhood remains prosperous and happy. The bride and bridegroom then retire to a bedroom suitably decorated with flowers and outside their room, a glass full of almond laced milk is placed as stimulant for the rigors of the wedding night.”
Prior to the Hindu Code Bill in 1953, there were no restrictions on polygamy, child brides or on dowry. Now however, the Indian penal code prescribes severe punishment for such acts. In fact the immigrant Indians, newly rich, in the US sometimes seek to kindle their connections with their old traditions by reverting back to some of these antediluvian, and illegal customs. So dowry in a disguised form has emerged in the form of requests for cars and houses from the family of the bridegroom. Rituals are extended over three to five days in a bid to outdo the neighbors. Sometimes this means that modernity is going backward. Fortunately the families reverting to the old are few and what is emerging is a hybrid mix of the old and the new which is fascinating.
Over the past few years, internet has replaced the old methods of finding a spouse. Portals like e-harmony.com provide opportunities for young Indians to look for a suitable mate. The Indian portals like shadi.com, however, still provide for parents to do the short listing of candidates!
In ancient times, the bridegroom never saw the bride till the wedding day. But now he goes to the parents of the bride to formally seek their permission to propose. He then takes his bride to a restaurant, kneels and proposes to her with a diamond ring along with a glass of champagne.
As in the past, the bride’s family traipses to the bridegroom’s house carrying gur and a gold coin along with sweets and presents. Sweets are often replaced with chocolates. These, called “shagun” are really meant to “reserve” the bridegroom for the bride. Once the bride’s mother has accepted these gifts, she is honor bound to continue on with the marriage.
The bridegroom used to come on a white horse to the bride’s house for the wedding. But now a white Mercedes-Benz does the trick.
The marriage is still solemnized under a lagna pandal but since now it may be within a hotel, the pandal is not constructed with banana plants but is instead a wooden frame draped with flowers. The sacred wooden fire is often replaced with gas lit flames due to fire restrictions within the hotel.
The bridegroom has to wear a dhoti but now there are ready made and tied dhotis that can be strapped on while the bride can wear jeans below her lovely sarees.
Gold retains its power as a gift but now a bridal registry is seen as a more practical alternative.
The best change however is the fact that the five days of festivities are now compressed into one day or the time the hotel will allow for a booking.
And as for that glass of milk outside the room. It is now champagne in an ice bucket in the room!
The most common form was the Brahma marriage, where a boy is eligible to get married once he has completed his Brahmacharya (student hood) and where the grooms family seeks out a suitable bride for their son. Then there is the Gandharva marriage, which is similar to love marriage, since it is without the knowledge of the parents. There are other marriages such as Daiva, where the bride is married to a priest, Arsha where the bride is given in exchange for two cows and married to an old sage, Prajapatya where the bride’s father goes in search for a groom for his daughter. In the Asura marriage, the groom is not suitable for the bride but willingly gives as much wealth as he can to cement the marriage. And there is the Rakshasa marriage where the groom fights battles with the bride's family, overcomes them, carries her away and then persuades her to marry him. Paishacha marriage is the eighth and last type of Hindu wedding but it is considered as the inferior type of marriage, since the girl's wish is not considered and she is forced to marry the person chosen for her. In Hindu dharma, marriage is viewed as a sacrament and not a contract and is performed in Sanskrit.
The traditional Indian wedding customs were formulated more than 35 centuries ago. Each ceremony, each occasion, and each ritual thus had a deep philosophical meaning and purpose. In the early days in the US, there were, however, no Brahmins around since most of the immigrants tended to be engineers or doctors. So a detailed checklist was issued by Indian associations for those wishing to get married here explaining the various customs, which read, in part: “The auspicious wedding day begins with the Mangal Vadya, the playing of the Shahenai, a traditional reed flute- like wind instrument of Indian Classical Music, and the Noubat, the small drums. The groom arrives with his family and friends at the entrance to the wedding hall and is first greeted by a young maiden, the bride's younger sister or niece, holding a water pot to quench his thirst. Next, the bride's mother welcomes the groom performing a ceremony to ward off the evil spirits he may have encountered on the way to the wedding. He is then asked to break the Saapath (the earthen clay pot) symbolizing his strength and virility and is then led to the Lagna Mandap where the wedding ceremony is to be performed.”
“The bride is brought to the Lagna Mandap by her Mama (maternal uncle) and is seated behind a white curtain, a symbol of traditional barriers. After the bride's father thanks the Gods, the curtain is removed and the couple exchange flower garlands. The bride and the bridegroom exchange garlands, made up of cotton threads, to proclaim acceptance of each other. The wedding ceremony begins with the worship of Lord Ganesha, the remover of all obstacles and Varuna, Lord of the Seas. A copper vessel containing water, flowers, and coconut is worshipped followed by the worship of the five basic elements of creation, namely fire, earth, water, air, and light. The bride's parents invoke the Gods and tell the groom, "On this Holy Occasion, we will give our daughter who is a symbol of Lakshmi, Goddess of Prosperity, to you in the presence of the Sacred Fire, friends, and relatives." The couple is then united by placing the bride's right hand in the groom's right hand. The ends of the scarves worn by the bride and the groom are then tied together signifying unity. The couple vows to remember the Divine; to look upon others with sympathy, love, and compassion; to be strong and righteous; and to show goodwill, respect, and affection to each other's families. The marriage is solemnized before the Lord Agni (the Sacred Fire) who is the symbol of light, power, and purity and acts as the principal witness to the ceremony. The invocations and offerings are also made to Lords of the nine planets to remove all obstacles and bless the bride and the groom. The bride and the groom circle the fire four times. The groom leads the bride in the first three rounds. The bride, representing Shakti, the Divine Energy, leads in the last round. At the end of each round the bride's brother or cousin gives offerings for the Sacred Fire. The first three represent the material wealth of cows, silver, and gold. The last one represents the gift of the bride herself to her new family. At the end of the ceremony, the bride stands to the groom's left, where she has taken a place closest to his heart. The groom offers Mangal Sutra (a sacred necklace made of black beads) to his wife and places Sindoor (a red powder) on her forehead. Both signify the mark of a married woman and symbols of his love, integrity, and devotion towards her.”
“The bride and groom take seven steps around or toward the sacred fire representing the seven principles and promises to each other:
1. Together, we will acquire energy to share in the responsibilities of married life.
2. Together, we will fill our hearts with strength and courage to accomplish all the needs of our life.
3. Together, we will prosper and share our worldly goods and we will work for the prosperity of our family.
4. Together, we will cherish each other in sickness and in health; in happiness and in sorrow.
5. Together, we will raise strong and virtuous children.
6. Together, we will fill our hearts with great joy, peace, happiness, and spiritual values, and
7. Together, we will remain lifelong partners by this matrimony.
With the Saptapadi—the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire- the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. The bride and groom are now united and seek blessings from Lord Vishnu the Preserver and his consort Lakshmi, The Goddess of Wealth. The couple then seeks blessings from the Gods, parents, and elderly relatives by bowing to their feet. Married women from the family bless the bride by whispering "Akhanda Saubhagyawati Bhav" (blessing for abiding marital happiness) in the bride's right ear. The last ritual of the ceremony is where the bride begins an important role in her life as a wife and a member of the groom's family. She throws a handful of rice so that the house of her childhood remains prosperous and happy. The bride and bridegroom then retire to a bedroom suitably decorated with flowers and outside their room, a glass full of almond laced milk is placed as stimulant for the rigors of the wedding night.”
Prior to the Hindu Code Bill in 1953, there were no restrictions on polygamy, child brides or on dowry. Now however, the Indian penal code prescribes severe punishment for such acts. In fact the immigrant Indians, newly rich, in the US sometimes seek to kindle their connections with their old traditions by reverting back to some of these antediluvian, and illegal customs. So dowry in a disguised form has emerged in the form of requests for cars and houses from the family of the bridegroom. Rituals are extended over three to five days in a bid to outdo the neighbors. Sometimes this means that modernity is going backward. Fortunately the families reverting to the old are few and what is emerging is a hybrid mix of the old and the new which is fascinating.
Over the past few years, internet has replaced the old methods of finding a spouse. Portals like e-harmony.com provide opportunities for young Indians to look for a suitable mate. The Indian portals like shadi.com, however, still provide for parents to do the short listing of candidates!
In ancient times, the bridegroom never saw the bride till the wedding day. But now he goes to the parents of the bride to formally seek their permission to propose. He then takes his bride to a restaurant, kneels and proposes to her with a diamond ring along with a glass of champagne.
As in the past, the bride’s family traipses to the bridegroom’s house carrying gur and a gold coin along with sweets and presents. Sweets are often replaced with chocolates. These, called “shagun” are really meant to “reserve” the bridegroom for the bride. Once the bride’s mother has accepted these gifts, she is honor bound to continue on with the marriage.
The bridegroom used to come on a white horse to the bride’s house for the wedding. But now a white Mercedes-Benz does the trick.
The marriage is still solemnized under a lagna pandal but since now it may be within a hotel, the pandal is not constructed with banana plants but is instead a wooden frame draped with flowers. The sacred wooden fire is often replaced with gas lit flames due to fire restrictions within the hotel.
The bridegroom has to wear a dhoti but now there are ready made and tied dhotis that can be strapped on while the bride can wear jeans below her lovely sarees.
Gold retains its power as a gift but now a bridal registry is seen as a more practical alternative.
The best change however is the fact that the five days of festivities are now compressed into one day or the time the hotel will allow for a booking.
And as for that glass of milk outside the room. It is now champagne in an ice bucket in the room!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)