Would you like to be a slumdog? The recent success of the movie has brought to the fore the lives of people living in the slums. For many people this was their first exposure to slums and the lives of the people in them.
Are there any slums in the virtual world? Well there are pictures of slums on the internet but nothing that can really be called a slum. Will there be slums in the virtual world in future? Well my belief is that we will see the first virtual slums in Second Life.
For those who dont know let me start by describing Second Life. Second Life is an online virtual world created by its residents. The residents of Second Life are avatars who can interact with each other and engage in various activities. Avatars dont have to be human. You could become a vegetable, mineral or animal in Second Life.
Interestingly Second Life and real life have begun to converge in interesting ways. Maldives, Sweden, Malta, and other countries, have embassies in Second Life. Islam Online has created Mecca in Second Life where one can go on a Haj. LifeChurch.tv has twelve branches, eleven on mainland USA and one in Second Life. Second Life even has a currency that is pegged to the major currencies of the world. Money earned in Second Life can actually be converted to real money. In second life one can use money to buy property, goods and services. Land and many other things in Second Life cost money and one can trade in them.
I think it is only a matter of time before someone buys land in Second Life and develops a slum. Visitors could comfortably sit in front of their computer and experience the slums, just as we watched the movie Slumdog Millionaire sitting on a comfortable chair eating popcorn. The experience in Second Life would be more real than watching a movie because you would actually be participating in living in a slum with other residents. You would be a slumdog. Life for the slumdogs of this virtual slum would be just as unpredictable as life in Dharavi. This method of visiting and participating in slum life could have many takers because one can avoid the stench, the poverty, the beggars, and most of all the guilt.
Have you noticed the enthusiasm displayed by children when playing computer games? “Shoot at the monster on the left, and pick up the ammunition in the corner.” Children display an adrenalin rush when playing computer games. In fact educators have realized the potential of games and now many educational games are available in the market. Adults have also taken to gaming in a big way. A part of astronaut training includes playing computer games. Even the armed forces use computer games to familiarize soldiers with real combat situations. Studies have shown that computer game players have better visuo-motor skills. The video games market in India was estimated at Rs. 700 crores in 2008.
Today computer games can be played on mobile phones, laptops and specialized gaming consoles. After the Iraq shoe throwing incident, there are numerous games available where the player has to throw shoes at an image of Bush. Similarly after the Hudson river plane landing, games are available where the player has to safely land a plane in the river and save all the passengers. There are multiple games based on Bollywood characters.
History of gaming
Gaming requires a screen to view images and characters present in the game, a speaker to play audio and a handheld input device using which the player can control the play. The handheld controller could be a keyboard or a mouse or a specialized game controller consisting of joysticks, buttons and/or rollers.
If you ask an avid gamer what the major improvement in gaming has been over the years, he will tell you it is better graphics and sound. Indeed cleaner graphics and good audio quality have been the major focus of game developers. Today gaming consoles like PlayStation and Xbox use large processing power in the form of dedicated 32- and 64-bit processors resulting in high definition graphics and crystal clear sound. They use advanced image filtering techniques to render smoother textures in the image.
The input device has so far been limited to the handheld controller. Recently Nintendo launched the Wii console which is the first handheld controller to use motion sensing as part of gameplay. The Wii handheld controller includes a spatial motion sensor that allows sensing of the players arm position and orientation. Every movement of the arm is captured by the sensor and forms part of the players response to the game. By adding this one feature the Wii console easily became one of the hottest selling video game consoles.
So this is today. What does the future of gaming look like? What should game designers be focusing on?
Attentive controllers are the future of gaming
Humans are adept at using their hands. So while it is natural to provide inputs using our hands, other forms of input are also possible. To communicate we use speech, facial expressions, eyes, hand gestures and body movements. It is natural to include these forms of input also into gameplaying. The next generation will see us moving from handheld controllers to attentive controllers. Attentive controllers are game controllers that not only take input from our hand but also allow input in the form of speech, vision and motion. Wii has begun to address the last of these by incorporating one form of motion, that of the hands holding the controller.
Heightening the gaming experience is one of the major aims of game designers. Indeed the future will belong to games that allow better player-device interaction. Wii created a flutter in the gaming world by incorporating motion sensing as a new input dimension. But speech, vision and possibly other forms of motion like, gestures can also be captured. Startups in the gaming space have an opportunity to make a major impact on the gaming industry by building attentive controllers that take the gaming experience to the next level. Also importantly speech, vision and motion are mature technologies so these attentive controllers can be built with innovative use of existing technologies.
Incorporating speech recognition into games will enhance the gameplay and also lead to more complex storylines. Say during the game you could ask, “How far to the next ammunition facility?” Today speech recognition and dialog technology have advanced enough to recognize sentences like these and act on them. The response could be spoken back by the computer. Such technology would allow near realistic gameplay situations to be created. In F1 racing the driver often asks questions to his team. Question answering could now be incorporated into the F1 video game.
Gaze following technology has improved enough to know which part of the screen the player is looking. Gaming strategies could be evolved based on this. For example to make the game more challenging and interesting, the bad guys could sneak up on you from the side of the screen that you are not paying attention to. This could lead to gameplay strategies where the player pretends to be looking somewhere to fool the system into making a specific move.
The challenge is now on console designers to build attentive controllers that can take other forms of input from the player. Speech, vision and motion technologies have matured so they can be incorporated into the controller. Gameplay and storyline could then be built around the use of such attentive controllers, taking the gaming experience to the next level.
It has been over two months since the Mumbai Terror attacks on 26 Nov. A lot had been promised by our government and some changes have already happened.
Where do we stand with the coastal command structure that was proposed by the Home Minister. From what I have heard so far, I see a major hole in the proposed coastal command.
Home Minister Chidambaram has been talking about the new coastal command that is being set up in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks. The components of this coastal command seem to be the following:
Basic infrastructure
Set up maritime security command under Indian Navy supervision
Set up an intelligence network connecting the security command with coastal police stations, the home ministry and intelligence agencies
Increase number of coastal police stations
Purchase boats and better equipment for coastal police, coast guard and Navy
Set up helipads along the coasts
Prevention
Increase patrolling of the coasts using speed boats and helicopters
Increase manned surveillance of roads along the coasts
Improved Radar surveillance along coastline
Automatic Identification System for all sea vessels to monitor identity, speed, location and course
Biometric Identity cards for fishermen
Crisis response
Set up zonal crisis management cells
Equip marine police and coast guards with latest firearms
Designate hospitals in coastal zones and prepare them to handle emergency situations
This is great but....
The Hole
I agree the marine police, coast guard and navy need the best and the latest equipment. But the plan so far looks heavily dependent on having more security men. It also seems to be saying, come and do your thing Mr. Terrorist and we will try to catch you. Instead what we really need to be saying is dont even try anything because we will surely catch you even before you reach our shores.
Home Minister Chidambaram's approach to me seems to be only about providing better fire power to the forces and on physical surveillance of the seas. It is necessary to do that but our aim should be to make sure they are stopped at sea. But to do that is it enough to just patrol the seas using boats. In a mall which is usually less than 100m x 100m in size how many security men do we require to monitor the premises? Well without CCTV cameras it turns out that a mall would require at least 150-200 security men working in 3 shifts. The Indian coasts are much much bigger. So how many coast guards will we require? The answer is too many.
It is very clear that a surveillance system that is based entirely on physical monitoring by coast guards and police is not enough. Just like the mall requires CCTV systems to reduce the load and make security more effective, the seas need electronic surveillance and not just an increased number of well armed coast guards. Put in the combat multipliers
A good security force makes intelligent use of combat multipliers.
What is a combat multiplier? A combat multiplier is technology and intelligence that allows non linear scaling. Which means that with just a few security men the force is effective in stopping attacks.
Till some years back an army was as good as the number of soldiers it had. Then slowly missiles, bombs, tanks, aircrafts, aircraft carriers, submarines etc. were introduced which allowed an army to scale up non linearly. Army men armed with spears were needed in large numbers. With guns, you needed fewer men to inflict the same damage. With missiles and bombs you needed even fewer.
In the Mumbai attack what if the terrorists had been intercepted at sea? Once they had reached the hotels and other destinations, no matter how good the guns our police force was carrying, it was very difficult to stop them from causing damage. So in this case the combat multiplier would have been better surveillance of our coasts, of our hotels and stations, to stop the terrorists early. Once the terrorists had taken up their positions, they became very powerful.
What must be put in place
We must have:
Networked Sonar and Radar net around the coasts
Aerial surveillance using ISRO satellites
Our Home Minister must think of using sonar, radar and satellites to do the surveillance. He has talked very fleetingly about increased radar surveillance and automatic identification system for ships, but that idea needs to be broadened and its scope increased. Only then it will have the necessary combat multiplier effect. This can be the CCTV system of the seas. The coast guard then becomes even more effective by utilizing this intelligence. So in addition to the things already proposed by him, the Home Minister must put in place a system to provide electronic surveillance of our seas and coasts. Such a system can be put in place by utilizing the combined knowledge of ISRO, DRDO and other research organizations in the country.
In a media-saturated and media-consuming world, is terrorism a "noun" or a "verb"?
“Kill one person and frighten ten thousand” -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War (circa 500 BCE).
In the above quotation by Sun Tzu lies the kernel of my arguments. I would like to begin by outlining that this essay does not claim to be a conclusive and unproblematic argument about terrorism and the media. Though I am acutely aware of its limitations, it should not stop us from engaging in intellectual speculations about the nature and discourse of terrorism and the manner in which it is articulated in public and private spheres. I stress the word speculation because I begin with the assertion that though a widely used term, social "truth" is an elusive one (truth as in material and empirical facts). It is not my objective to play philosophical tricks, so let us try to tackle a simple proposition: if a group of religiously motivated individuals' objective is the undermining of liberal societies and they achieve this by exploiting modern technologies, social networks to evade the law, cause destruction, and operate with impunity, what should be the response of a "liberal" society? Should it engage in a widespread program of surveillance and controls? Would it then continue to be a "liberal" society? Playing the devils advocate, I could pose a counter question. If we did not exercise controls and track every individual, wouldn't the terrorists take over the society. Here lies the problem. Terrorism is not a phenomenon new to the 21st century. As evidenced by Arthur H. Garrison in his study of 18th, 19th, and 20th century terrorists -- from Maximilien Robespierre, Johann Most, bin Laden, the Army of God, the Animal Liberation Front to the Earth Liberation Front -- there has been no change in the idea of terrorism as a tool of social change over the last three centuries (see Garrison:2004). Though his cause, techniques, and destruction may be different, Osama bin Laden's use of terrorism is for no different purpose from that of Maximilien Robespierre.
At the same time, the modern liberal democratic state has survived and evolved over a similar period. On the other hand, the gains of liberal democracies are being lost in our response to terrorism, chiefly by imagining this as a new problem. These are the broader contours that inform my essay. Let us begin by examining pragmatist calls made by tough-talking politicians and policy wonks to tackle the problem of terror:
In the above clip, Narendra Modi, talking to Prabhu Chawla, argues that because of the tough nature and resolve of his administration, no terrorist attack has taken place in Gujarat over the last five years and goes on to presents a commonsensical argument for new tough laws against terrorism. The tough laws he refers to here is the need for the reinstatment of the dreaded POTA and the introduction of newer laws. The entire bluster falls flat when Chawla asks why the need for new laws when he has thwarted terrorist activities under existing laws. The inimical Modi sidesteps the question.
Democratic Response to Terror
Our response to terror -- war on terror -- is unlike historical notions of war between states. And the term "war on terror" or terms such as "Mumbai 26/11", which is nothing but a mimesis of 9/11, is an erroneous argument because such metaphorical labels seek to appropriate notions of "war" (as as the World Wars) to raise the salience of certain actions by the state. Recent history provides us adequate example -- Cold War, War on Terror -- that these actions have some, if not entirely, underpinnings that go against the idea of "liberal", "moral", and "enlightened" societies. Thus, we end up in illiberal positions such as justification of collateral damage and the very redefinition of the democratic state. For example, torture, a means of information gathering, policing, coercion, and social control, that can only be imagined as a medieval idea is now socially acceptable in liberal democratic societies such as USA. In India, the police is widely known to use torture as a means of extracting confessions. As argued by Stuhr:
Americans have managed to become more vulnerable than ever before in their own eyes and, at the same time, more aggressive in the eyes of the others than ever before in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, more patriotic (at least superficially) and self-professedly peace loving at home and, simultaneously, more hated and perceived as war mongering abroad, at once the most vocal opponent of weapons of mass destruction and the nation most heavily armed with weapons of mass destruction, and thoroughly determined to act decisively while equally determined to avoid critical self-reflection (Stuhr:2004)
The above essay was prophetically written by Stuhr in 2004 as Obama echoed similar sentiments about USA's fall from grace. How did the "beacon of liberty" get to this? To begin with, I refer to our understanding of terrorism, which is largely based on (a) the tele-visual and pervasive nature of modern media and communications; (b) the liberal economics driving news organisations that profit from the relaying of acts of "terrorism" and "mean world beliefs" (see footnote 2); (c) newsroom ideologies that identify with conservative and martial elements in the policy and political realm who seek to present solutions that seek to erode any discourse about democracy, justice, and rule of law (see footnote 1). My claim is that the Indian media and policy elites have come together to mimic US establishment and the media in the Cold War and post Cold War era, particularly 9/11. The logic of deterrence offered is based on the framing of one set of people as "enemies" having an agenda against "us"; their "misuse" of our human rights laws. Evidence shows that the response of the "liberal state" is one that is leading to curbing of liberties earned through centuries of struggle, and collateral damage of innocent civilians. Without painting a conspiratorial picture, I argue that the three conditions outlined earlier have unintended consequences and these are not suited for a just and democratic society, primarily because it seeks to portray terrorism as a new and pressing problem raising its salience over other equally important issues. The central problem here is of agenda setting and public opinion shaping by people with a certain viewpoint (mean world beliefs). These individuals and groups have the characteristic of mimicing each other -- both on the terrorists' side as well as the democratic side. This is contrary to the claims that media in a liberal economic regime and new communication technologies will lead to greater human enlightenment, thus the argument here that all we are getting through mainstream media is transmission and not communication.
News Framing
Let us understand a basic axiom: Terrorism is 99 per cent a communicative exercise and 1 percent factual violence (Professor Philip Taylor, personal interview). By this I mean the symbolic intimidation of individuals and groups is far greater than the empirical and material acts of violence or intimidation. Take the recent case of the Mangalore assault on women by members of Shri Ram Sene. Though it is only one incident in a huge list of crimes against women in India, its widespread coverage in the media has served to form attitudes and beliefs about and towards groups and issues. Gender issues rarely get the kind of sustained coverage that this one incident has received. While the liberal media has expressed outrage, politicians have come forward to exploit the wider moral panic of a largely conservative Indian society on the issue of women exercising their right to do whatever they feel like. The issue, though simple on the surface, is far more complex.
We are relentlessly barraged by news by mainstream news organisation that "imagine" news for us, that is to say they enclose an event in a world out there (like a photo frame) in an organised and selective way to tell us what is at issue, and it plays a role in influencing how we think about things. To understand this better let us take a few steps back. For example the events at Nandigram have been framed as anti-development by those believing in free market driven industrialisation and development; human rights advocates have framed it as an issue of violence by the state against its own citizens in support of capitalist interests; others have framed it as a rural uprising against an elite conception of development.
When we apply the above-mentioned principle to the Mangalore case we note that Times Now framed it as an issue of "moral policing" inviting “shock” barely concealing its liberal bourgeoisie outlook. Times Now had an array of frames by which the event could have been explained, helping us understand it in all its complexity. For example, parochialism, feudalism, patriarchy, anti-globalisation, right-wing politics, morality, censorship, gender, Hindu fundamentalism, voyeurism, technology. The "active and informed consumer of news" in us should be motivated to ask more questions about such portrayal. After we have informed ourselves of the complexity of the situation, we can ask another question. Does the immediacy of the news media coverage trigger a pathological response, one that is based on dominant and popular views. We note that in the Mangalore case, the media has largely stuck to the frame of "moral policing", when the event is far more complex. Similarly, we can ponder over questions of what frames are being excluded in presenting to us the "war against terror"? Are we part of the pathological response -- mimetic fear and hatred coupled with an asymmetrical willingness and capacity to destroy the other without the formalities of war.
Terrorism as a Frame
Isn't it ironic that the Cold War period, during which we had the greatest threat of global annihilation, fear, paranoia and mistrust, we had comparative order and peace (that is to say despite the mistrust between the West and the Soviet Bloc and their capabilities to annihilate the entire world, none of the apocalyptic fear actually came true). On the other hand, with the spread of global capital and democracy in the last two decades we have mutual hatred and actual acts of brutal violence by both democratic and anti-democratic parties, the invasion of Iraq being a prime example. We are constantly bombarded by the term terrorism but we fail to understand what it is. All we know is that certain individuals and groups hate "us". Who is this "us" and "them"; what do they hate us for; what have we done to invite this hate -- these issues are presented within televisual and verbal frames fear that invariably result in "mean world beliefs" (see footnote 2) leading to predictable responses. For example, post Nov 26, 2008, Barkha Dutt unwittingly stated on a live talk show, “let us all agree to give up some freedoms”. She was furthering the consensus building of an idea that required nuanced debate and discussion. Unfortunately, her objective at a debate got co-opted by reactionary voices -- a panel of Mumbai elites -- who foregrounded her pronouncement with calls such as “let us carpet bomb Pakistan”. Dr Paul Boxer of Rutgers University, who I recently interviewed, has argued that "media coverage can easily reinforce any latent stereotypes already held, and help to generate new biases in thinking". This is what I had referred to earlier as triggers to a "pathological response". James Der Derian presents the following facts:
When one takes into account how war-related fatalities have been reversed in modern times, from 100 years ago when one civilian was killed per eight soldiers, to the current ratio of eight civilians per soldier killed, then compares the similarly-skewed combatant-to-non-combatant casualty figures of 9/11, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War, the terror/counter-terror distinction begins to fade even further. (Der Derian:2005)
Subjective violence (see footnote 3), once restricted to either the darkest forces of any society or the specific arms of the state is now effectively determining civilian policy. Thus we have the honourable Narendra Modi suggesting that we should enact laws that allow surveillance of anybody who is suspect by the state (link). After the departure of George Bush, evidence is emerging from behind the US security and surveillance regime that shows that their coverage of suspects extended to anybody and everybody including leading journalists, literally turning a democratic society into one that was beginning to mimic exactly those individuals and groups who hated us link). Those who hate us are largely the fundamentalist, religious, other, or to point to the elephant in the room, the Muslim. But what about Shri Ram Sene? Aren't they exactly mimicking the Taliban? What about Lt Col Purohit? What about the killing of Christians in Orissa in 2008? Why do we form clear distinctions between terror inflicted by our guys and by the "other" guys? It is particularly instructive that the "other" guys are presented as different, who have to be marked as such either by way of their physical features, cultural differences, political world views into a neat package of fear and loathing. This is demonstrated in two illustrations that I will talk about.
Spectacles and Social Porn
News narratives are complex, especially during times of crises. Journalism professional values often call for striking a balance between the various demands of the sociology of journalism with a focus on balance and fairness. This is not a simple case of reporting or copy editing, but works at various filtering mechanisms such as newsroom culture, biases and ideology, shared values, competition etc. The 19 Sep police storming of Batla House in Jamia Nagar, Delhi following the 13 Sep explosions presented journalists with an unfolding story that would be challenging to any newsrooms.
A few days later the police presented a few suspects in the full glare of the media with their heads covered in the Keffiyeh, a head covering widely used in the Arabic world. Whatever be the facts of this particular incident, the symbolic dimension of the act cannot be wished away. There is a problematic blurring of the spectacles provided by the terrorist acts and the subsequent police and media discourse. This visual bombardment by both the police and the media takes the focus away from the onus of proof and investigation. Terrorism defined as acts of barbaric killing, coercion, or subjugation of other humans in any form is an immoral spectacle. But that has to be countered with science/efficiency, rule of law, morality, and dignity, and not a counter spectacle.
What do the above images signify? To what extent is the police, the media, and the readers all deriving the same message about the terrorists -- that they are different and need to be differentiated, are Muslims, and have a teleological link to the Arabic world. The underlying and dangerous assumptions, though unstated, are clear (also see footnote 4). Journalists and critics would justify the above spectacle as merely the consequence of the terrorists own actions. There is some truth in that. We cannot draw moral equivalence between the actions of terrorists and those of police officers. However, there is a wider mimetic tendency going on here. The police and the media have joined the terrorists to add another spectacle that focuses on presenting terrorists as objects, rather than restricting them as perpetrators of a crime that can be dealt within a democratic rule of law. The latter would require focus on getting to the evidence and prosecuting the guilty, which are the founding principles of democratic justice. Voices in newspapers such as The Telegraph have raised questions about the manner in which Batla House was stormed. Such fissures within the media itself lend credibility to the charge that the tele-visual terrorist acts and state response increasingly becoming self-contained and mutually dependant events. The day after the storming of Batla house, images of officer Mohan Chand hours before his death and his bereaved family were played up. The actions of terrorists, and similar spectacle-based activities of media and security establishment, can be likened to pornography. That is, they are devoid of any intellectual meaning. After we are exposed to the first few minutes of human intimacy via sexual acts, we do not learn anything more. The aesthetic of pornography is founded on metronomic monotony and repetitiveness and lacks any intellectual depth. It is troubling that the NIA-UAPA bills were passed without any public debate or discourse. The ruling party and the opposition were in a hurry to pass the bills. Did the media play a role in consensus building for the passage of the bill? Absolutely?
News, Death, and Morality
It can be argued that media’s fascination with images that are troublesomely intimate, yet lack any meaning in themselves, point to encouragement of a voyeuristic reader. Terrorism is no longer an empirical fact, but has acquired an iconic, fetishised, and optical character. I had referred to our own culpability in the construction of terrorism as a "mean world" problem. The "War on Terror" frame, which was introduced by the world's only remaining hyper-power, USA, has now reached India. The intellectual bankruptcy in Indian news media was proven when it framed the issue as India's 9/11 demonstrating the power of communication, i.e., how the propaganda efforts of Bin Laden and the Bush administration have become a globalised phenomenon. We are absolutely at ease with this term. Isn't it instructive that over 300,000 civilians have died in Iraq since 2003 and we accept this without shock and horror. Here lies the rub of media in a liberal economic agenda that commodifies news and information. Without condoning acts of terror, we can ponder over some facts. For example, over 100,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide over the last decade. Yet it does not have the same "terrorising" effect as say the bombing of a train that kills a few hundred. Over 500 journalists covered the Lakme Fashion Week while there are only a few specialist journalists covering rural and development affairs. As argued by P Sainath:
In a country whose unemployment is simply stunning, the labour correspondent is extinct. 2006 was the worst year of farmer suicides. How many national media journalists were covering the agrarian crisis in Vidarbha? There were six. But there were 512 journalists covering the Lakme Fashion Week in Mumbai.
I had earlier suggested that terrorism is 99 per cent a communicative act and 1 per cent actual violence. The illustrations I have provided so far are aimed at suggesting that news and our understanding of the world "out there" is not based on an unproblematic relaying of facts. That is, terror is no longer a verb, but has acquired the proportions of a noun. A highly complex interaction between media sociology, ideologies, the establishment, and the nature of the "here and now" media technologies that influence how we understand terror. Modern terror is not specifically new. The media presents us news in a highly simplified way, amplifying our own stereotypes and biases. Thus, the Somalian piracy crisis has been presented in the western and Indian media as one of lawlessness (with links to Islamic terrorism), which acquired hysterical proportions after the sinking of a pirate mother ship by an Indian frigate (link) while the crisis in Congo has been presented as an issue of ethnic rivalries in a backward African country (link). Both of these frames are wrong and we are deluding ourselves by believing them so.
Terrorism as long is driven and focused on individuals and groups (Bin Laden, Let) serves as a mimetic force with both sides elevating each other to justify their own existence. I particularly stress that I am not drawing a moral equivalence between Bin Laden and democratically elected leaders. But when democratic responses are driven by personalities, stereotypes, and oversimplification (for example axis of evil, you are with us or against us, India's 9/11) with no room for internal reflection we are met with internal contradiction. For example, even though we can safely label the the LeT founders as crackpots, they have and will continue to point at the Malegaon blasts, Gujarat 2002, Mumbai riots, and the systemic violence against Muslims in India as a recruiting tool to their cause. The question is whether these cases are authentic or not? The answer, from an honest, liberal, moral, and democratic perspective would be Yes. We can continue to build defences, try to fight against the bad guys, or fix our own shredded clothes through which our naked body is clearly visible.
(The author, Kishore Budha, holds a PhD in Communications Studies from the University of Leeds, UK and is a former print media journalist. He has also worked in the area of Web-based business intelligence tracking. He is currently based at the University of Leeds and blogs at Subaltern Media. He has published in the area of digital content and communities, journalism and ideology. His research specialism includes media philosophy, critical theory, informatics societies, media industry, journalism, communication technologies.)
Footnotes 1. Read a report based on Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan’s presidential address at the inaugural session of the international conference of jurists on “Terrorism, Rule of Law & Human Rights” in New Delhi on December 13, 2008. Link
2. "Mean World Beliefs" also have been termed "persecution beliefs" and refer generally to the belief akin to, "Others are out to get me." The idea here is simply that the world is a mean place. "Just world beliefs" involve the notion that the world is a just place -- that is, that individuals ultimately are punished for their wrongs, and/or that there exists a sort of fundamental fairness in human interaction.
3. Subjective violence is an act committed by one agent or body against other. Here the links and culpability are clear. Systemic violence on the other hand is the violence inherent in the system that goes on in the background that we know but do not recognise as being "violent". For example, the global capital system which can destroy economies, institutions, societies, families, and individuals, yet we do not register the same kind of horror we express towards subjective violence.
4. For more on media portrayal of good vs bad Muslims see this article (Link).
References
Alvi, Naziya (2008) ‘My brother, the bomber’ Hindustan Times Delhi, 21 Sep, P1
Chauhan, Neeraj (2008) ‘Linked to Lashkar, fan of Osama, Atif was part of 14 behind blasts: police’ Indian Express, Delhi Edition, 21 Sep, P1
Der Derian, James(2005) 'Imaging terror: logos, pathos and ethos', Third World Quarterly, 26:1, Pages 23 — 37
Garrison, Arthur H. (2004) 'Defining terrorism: philosophy of the bomb, propaganda by deed and change through fear and violence', Criminal Justice Studies, 17:3,259 — 279
Sanghvi, Vir (2008) ‘After the blasts’ Hindustan Times, Delhi Edition, Sep 21, P12
Sharan, Abhishek and Singh, Vijaita (2008a) ‘Who was Atif’ Hindustan Times Delhi, 20 Sep, P1
Sharan, Abhishek and Singh, Vijaita (2008b) ‘Nationwide terror network unravels’ Hindustan Times Delhi, 21 Sep, P1
Srivastava, Tushar (2008) ‘I’ll be back in an hour’ Hindustan Times Delhi, 20 Sep, P1
Stuhr J.J. (2004) "Old Ideals Crumble: War, Pragmatist Intellectuals, and the Limits of Philosophy", Metaphilosophy, Volume 35, Numbers 1-2, January, pp. 82-98(17)
Tripathi, Rahul (2008) ‘Lashkar support for IM-SIMI operation, explosives procured from Karnataka’ Times of India, Delhi 21 Sep, P2
Telegraph (2008) ‘Made-for-camera operation shows chinks Arrest bright spot amid goof-ups - Loss for life’ The Telegraph, Sep 21[online] here
Virilio P (1983) Pure War, trans by M Polizotti, New York: Semiotext(e), 1983
