I Don't Want Nirvana! I Want Great Food, Always! -- Part III -- Building Gastronomical Bridges

A couple of months back, Neeti visited Pali Village Cafe and came back gushing on the food and the ambience.

Since we were in Bandra last night, Neeti suggested that we go there. And I had to agree. Located in a quintessential East Indian bungalow, the Cafe has a rustic charm to it, with traditional furniture, antique lamps and bare walls! The place gave a Meditteranean "tavern-ous" look.

The fare was artisanal, with rustic breads on display. We ordered our meal and Neeti asked me "Aren't pasta, spaghetti similar to noodles we have in China?"

Indeed that's an exciting question. I replied that perhaps pasta in some form traveled with the legendary Marco Polo from China to medieval Italy.

After devouring our pasta, on the way back, I started Googling the query Neeti had posed.

There is indeed a theory that Ancient Rome did have something like the lasagne that we know of today. However, it were the Arabs, intrepid travelers and traders of the Silk Route that existed ub the Middle Ages who adapted the fresh Oriental noodles, dried them and carried them on their dhows from China to the Middle East and onwards to North Africa and then to South Europe! 

The Arabs used to stop by at Serendip (modern Sri Lanka), the Malaccas and the Malabar coast! Perhaps the noodles that originated in China inspired the Malay noodles and string hoppers (idiyappam) of the Malabar coast and modern Sri Lanka before settling in an alien land far away, in Italy!

Some believe that noodles existed in Asia much before Marco Polo’s trip to China. Archaeologists believe that central Asia is most likely the first area to have produced noodles thousands of years ago. From Asia, it traveled westward, perhaps through nomadic Arabs to Europe.

Once it reached the Mediterranean, the pasta / noodle making process was refined, and durum wheat became the ingredient of choice for pasta flour because of its high gluten content and long shelf life. When durum wheat pasta is dried, it lasts indefinitely, making it a very convenient food to store. Over time, because of pasta’s affordability, shelf life, and versatility, it became firmly rooted in Italian culture. The warm Mediterranean climate of Italy is suited to growing fresh vegetables and herbs, which meant that Italians could get creative with a delicious variety of pasta sauces.

Later, Italy became the centre of culinary innovation - tomatoes came in from the New World of the Americas, spinach and aubergines came in from North Africa. These new ingredients along with local delights like basil, olives, capers, cheeses, cured meats and wines resulted in a delectable cuisine that we call Italian! 

Is it also possible that the perishable, soft Chinese dumplings had been made since 1700 BC spawned off the concept of stuffed pasta. Today the “dumpling” style of pasta is manifested in ravioli, gnocchi and other preparations using regular wheat flour, eggs and water. 

Whether pasta is a part of Marco Polo’s legacy may be questionable, it is indeed true that gastronomical bridges between distant lands and civilisations may have existed for times immemorial, without us, modern people, knowing of them!

And talking of recent gastronomical bridges, I recently read of Sikhs who moved to California to work on farms in the late 1800s and early 1900s, who ended up marrying Mexican women because Californian laws prevented emigration of Sikh women for marriage. These Punjabi men chose Mexican women in marriage for a number of reasons. Physically, Mexican women at the time were thought to resemble Punjabis. They shared a rural way of life. Mexican women were also preferred for one important reason - their tortillas were somewhat like the makki ki roti that the Punjabis so missed in the Californian farmlands! So came about a melange of langars and chicken curry enchiladas!

Gastronomical bridges like these will continue to be built as people travel the world, we have already see that happening over the centuries, but today the pace of inter-cultural intercourse has only accelerated.
That's why one full year after I first wrote two editions of "I Don't Want Nirvana! I Want Great Food, Always!", I still believe in it, even more strongly than I ever did! 

Off The Cuff

Recently, I came across this anecdotal, "in your face", inspirational and witty speech delivered by the late Sri Lanka Foreign Minister, Lakshman Kadirgamar, to the Sri Lankan cricket team in the United Kingdom during the World Cup of 2003.

I sometimes wonder whether our sissy politicians would be savvy enough, or rather would have any time from their innumerable scams to take time out to inspire Indian youth. I would imagine no. But it appears that India's engine of enterprise, be it civil service, business or sports, would go on and on, despite or inspite of the government and our senseless politicians.

I can never imagine our "esteemed" external affairs minister ever taking a principled stand on supporting sportsmen on doubtful decisions. Knowing fully well that India is high on cricket now, as the World Cup in on right now, I have reproduced the speech in full over here, as these emotions are what all Indians would have:

"Captain Atapattu and members of the Sri Lankan team, Members of the Sri Lankan community, Friends of Sri Lanka, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Some historians say, I think uncharitably, that cricket is really a diabolical political strategy, disguised as a game, in fact a substitute for War, invented by the ingenious British to confuse the natives by encouraging them to fight each other instead of their imperial rulers.

The world is divided into two camps - those who revel in the intricacies of cricket and those who are totally baffled by it, who cannot figure out why a group of energetic young men should spend days, often in the hot sun or bitter cold, chasing a ball across an open field, hitting it from time to time with a stick - all to the rapturous applause of thousands, now millions, of ecstatic spectators across the world. The game has developed a mystical language of its own that further bewilders those who are already befuddled by its complexities.

In the course of my travels I have a hard time explaining to the non-cricketing world - in America , China , Europe and Russia - that a 'googly' is not an Indian sweetmeat; that a 'square cut' is not a choice selection of prime beef; that a 'cover drive' is not a secluded part of the garden; that a 'bouncer' is not a muscular janitor at a night club, that a 'Yorker is not some exotic cocktail mixed in Yorkshire or that a 'leg-break' is not a sinister manoeuvre designed to cripple your opponent's limbs below the waist.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me see whether politics and cricket have anything in common. Both are games. Politicians and cricketers are superficially similar, and yet very different. Both groups are wooed by the cruel public who embrace them today and reject them tomorrow.

Cricketers work hard; politicians only pretend to do so. Cricketers are disciplined; discipline is a word unknown to most politicians in any language. Cricketers risk their own limbs in the heat of honourable play, politicians encourage others to risk their limbs in pursuit of fruitless causes while they remain secure in the safety of their pavilions. Cricketers deserve the rewards they get; the people get the politicians they deserve. Cricketers retire young; politicians go on for ever. Cricketers unite the country; politicians divide it. Cricketers accept the umpire's verdict even if they disagree with it; politicians who disagree with an umpire usually get him transferred. Cricketers stick to their team through victory and defeat, politicians in a losing team cross over and join the winning team. Clearly, cricketers are the better breed.

It is said that the task of a foreign minister is to lie effusively for his country abroad. That may be true, but it is certainly true that he has to fight for his country and defend it at all times. Our cricketers may recall that in the run-up to the 1995 World Cup , Australia refused to play a match in Colombo, citing security reasons. Shane Warne said he wouldn't come to Colombo because he couldn't do any shopping there. The press asked me for a comment. I said "shopping is for sissies". There was a storm of protest in Australia. A TV interviewer asked me whether I had ever played cricket. I said I had played before he was born - without helmets and thigh guards, on matting wickets that were full of holes and stones, and I had my share of broken bones to show it. My friend the Australian foreign minister was drawn into the fray and phoned me. We decided to cool things down. A combined India/Pakistan team came to Colombo at very short notice to play an exhibition match in place of the Australian match. It was a magnificent gesture of South Asian solidarity.

Against strong security advice I went on to the field to greet and thank our friends from India and Pakistan . When the whole episode was over I sent a bouquet of flowers to my Australian counterpart. Flowers are also for sissies.

I remember vividly the incident that occurred in Australia when Murali was called for throwing and Arjuna led his team to the boundary, in protest, but cleverly refrained from crossing it. I was watching TV in Colombo. As a past captain I asked myself what I would have done in Arjuna's place. In my mind I had no hesitation in supporting his decision. A few minutes later the phone rang. The President of the Board called to ask for advice. I said Arjuna was right because a captain must, on the field, stand up for his men and protect them, but the consequences must not be allowed to go too far; good lawyers must be engaged and a reasonable compromise must be reached. That was done.

During that tour I paid an official visit to Australia. My friend the Australian foreign minister in the course of a dinner speech invited me to go with him the next day to Adelaide , his home town, to watch the final day's play. I knew what the result was going to be. In my reply I said that at the end of the match I did not want to be the one to tell him that Australia had "won by a Hair". Accordingly, I went back home, as planned, to maintain the good relations that we have with Australia..

Foreign ministers sometimes find themselves in very difficult situations. Take the case of the Foreign Minister of Uganda. President Idi Amin told him that he wanted to change the name of Uganda to Idi. The minister was asked to canvas world opinion and return in two weeks. He did not do so. He was summoned and asked to explain. He said: "Mr. President, I have been informed that there is a country called Cyprus. Its citizens are called Cypriots, If we change the name of our country to 'Idi' our citizens would be called... “Idiots". Reason prevailed.

A story goes that a shark was asked why diplomats were his preferred food. He replied "because their brains being small are a tasty morsel, their spines being supple I can chew on them at leisure - and they come delightfully marinaded in alcohol."

Ladies and Gentlemen, as I approach the close of this brief address I wish to speak directly to our Sri Lankan team. Today we lost a match. But you lost to the rain and Duckworth and Lewis. You did not lose to England. Only a few weeks ago you had a resounding victory against South Africa. You will win again tomorrow. What is important is to keep up your confidence and spirits.

All of us, your fellow countrymen and women, have been enormously impressed in recent times by the commitment, discipline, athleticism and determination that you have displayed in the field. The people are with you. We all know that each and every one of you, are constantly busy honing your skills. We can see that you are maintaining a high standard of physical fitness. When the people see this it gives them not only immense pleasure but the moral upliftment that Sri Lankans are capable of in rising to the challenge of sustained performance.

Every team loses. It takes two to play a game. One has to lose. It is the manner in which you play the game which gives the promise of success to come. It is a great pleasure to see how youngsters are being drafted into the national team. Our team is united; it reflects all the races and religions of our country. Cricket, like all international sport today, is highly competitive; and so it must be, and so it must remain. It must always be regarded as a very high honour to represent one's country at any sport.

All of you are role models for our youth. They will be looking to see how you take defeat. To exult in victory is easy, to remain well balanced in defeat is a mark of maturity. Do not allow yourselves to be disturbed by the armchair critics who will no doubt engage in a display of theoretical learning on how the game was played. Many of these critics have never put bat to ball. It makes them feel good to indulge in the past time of amateur criticism. They do not know what it is to face fast bowling in fading light; to engage in a run race against daunting odds; to find the stamina and sheer physical endurance to spend concentrated hours in the field of play. They know nothing of the psychological pressure that modern sportsmen are subject to. Therefore, my advice to you is - ignore them. Go your way with customary discipline and methodical preparation for the next game, the next series in different parts of the world under different conditions.

For me it has been a great pleasure and an honour to be here with you tonight. When I was invited to be the Chief Guest at this occasion on my way to New York for the General Assembly of the United Nations, I accepted with eager anticipation of meeting our cricketers and relaxing for a moment.

Nobody told me that I had to make a speech, until last night when it dawned on me then that there is no such thing as a free dinner!"

Sowing Seeds of Discontent in Success?

In May 2009, I had written a piece appreciating the coordinated approach the military and the civil administration had taken in Sri Lanka to tackle the menace of the LTTE.
I thought the manner in which the grand defeat of the LTTE was orchestrated was an ideal example for the Indian establishment, which is why I had titled the blog post as "The Fall of the Tiger - A Lesson for India".
But the way events have played out in Sri Lanka only go on to show that if the success is not managed, seeds of discontent leading to a potential disaster could be immediately sown.
The squabbles between former General of the Sri Lankan Army, Sarath Fonseka and the president, Mahinda Rajapaksa only show that success is not easy to manage, it's certainly more difficult than managing in a crisis.

It's all too easy to stand together in times of crisis. That's when you can see doomsday right in front of your eyes. It becomes a fight of survival, an existential fight. And you can't make it without standing together. You need each other to survive.

But success changes everything. Existence is no longer threatened. And egos take over reason. It becomes every man to himself, at least in the mind. Each individual sets out to achieve what his ego dictates.

That's precisely what happened in Sri Lanka.

Rajapaksa's actions against Fonseka were certainly a clear indication of an ingrained insecurity that successful politicians have. Rajapaksa is not the only politician like that.

The greatest political leaders have deeply ingrained insecurities. At home, the hugely successful Indira Gandhi was so terrified of Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw following the 1971 war that she confronted the Field Marshal and asked him if he was plotting a coup. The witty Field Marshal replied "Don't you think I would be a worthy replacement for you, Madam Prime Minister? You have a long nose. So have I. But I don't poke my nose into other people's affairs."
The Russian case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky is another example, where Vladmir Putin's insecurities were at work.

I am not trying to suggest that Sarath Fonseka's conduct following his resignation from the army is not questionable. He had been spilling beans on what transpired in the military campaign against the LTTE. That's not what is expected of a seasoned general.

The real risk for Sri Lanka would come in now. How Rajapaksa deals with Fonseka and other opponents will determine the destiny of Sri Lanka. If he's not careful, he may end up sowing seeds of discontent leading to another round of unrest, which is highly undesirable from India's perspective.

The Great Game ...

A few years back, the then Defence Minister of the NDA government, George Fernandes created quite a furore when he stated that China was India's enemy No. 1. Was he wrong?

On the face of it, trade between India and China is booming. Indian IT companies are entering the Chinese market. Indian manufacturing companies are poised to leverage on China's low cost manufacturing. We are too happy to import anything Chinese. We apparently crossed the Great Wall, ever since Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's Beijing visit in 1988.

On the other hand, India remains the only country with whom China has not moved an inch for resolving the border disputes in Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. China has still not recognised Sikkim's amalgamation into India. Every now and then, whispers are heard of Chinese incursions across the border and ensuing skirmishes. Very recently, there was a news on an evacuation from Nathu-la. A major skirmish was suspected. There was complete silence from officials.

And if you think these are small insignificant incidents, then sample this. China has followed a policy of encircling India, creating a "string of pearls". It is building a naval presence In Myanmar. It has set up a "listening" station in the Coco Islands of Myanmar, to snoop on India's missile test site in Orissa and ISRO facilities at Sriharikota. Not too much is known about the two deep-water ports being constructed by China at Kyaukpyu and Sittwe. Undoubtedly, these strategic assets can be used against India if the need arises.

Sri Lanka has been a significant recipient of Chinese military aid to help it fight the LTTE, while India looked the other way (though it is rumored that Indian military strategists and intelligence assets were readily made available to the Lankans). Further, the Chinese are building a port at Hambantota, in southern Sri Lanka. This is suspected to be a naval base and fuel bunkering facility for the Chinese.

Chinese involvement in Nepal is well known, so is their de-facto alliance with Pakistan. The Chinese have been heavily investing in the development of the Gwadar port in Baluchistan which is strategically located at the head of the oil tanker routes in the Persian Gulf and is rumoured to be a future naval base. Their investments in Gwadar would give them not only energy security but also an opportunity to choke oil supplies to India.

It is also suspected that when Pakistan decided to go nuclear immediately after their 1971 debacle, the Chinese not only did help provide (read: proliferate) nuclear technology to build the bomb, but also allowed the Pakistanis access to their Lop Nor nuclear test site in Xinjiang, much before India went overtly nuclear in 1974. Such support is continuing till date. Hasn't China signed the NPT?

Arming the Pakistani military was always a non-issue for the Chinese. The Chinese have apparently facilitated the transfer of North Korean missile technology to Pakistan, which was the foundation of the Pakistani IRBM programme.

The Chinese have also built the Karakorum Highway right from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir into Xinjiang. This undoubtedly is a strategic asset for both countries - China gets a road access to Pakistani ports in the Persian Gulf while all-weather road transport facilitates Pakistan's easy access to heavy-duty Chinese military hardware. China has very smartly propped up Pakistan, as a constant threat, a constant pin-prick to keep India occupied to further its agenda of dominance.

China is also focussing on building a strategic relationship with Bangladesh, along similar lines.

China has played quite a dubious role in promoting insurgency movements in the North-East as well as the Maoist and Naxal movements all throughout the mineral rich areas of eastern and central India. It is a clear attempt of weakening India from within, an act of war, which we have failed to recognise till date.

A few weeks back, on August 8, 2009, newspapers here covered an article, authored by Zhong Guo Zhan Lue Gang, which appeared on a Chinese website (http://www.iiss.cn/) captioned 'If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up'. The article which been analysed on rediff.com clearly talked about breaking India into 20-30 pieces.

Clearly, the Chinese are following Deng Xiaopeng's doctrine of "Keep a cool head and maintain a low profile. Never take the lead - but aim to do something big." They appear to be overtly warm and friendly but do not spare any opportunity to undermine India.

Talking of undercutting, Chinese intentions became crystal clear when the Indo-US nuclear deal was being culminated and the Nuclear Suppliers Group was considering the US sponsored India-specific waivers. The Chinese all along indicated their support but started dithering just before the vote. It took a desperate phone call from the then US President George W. Bush to the Chinese President Hu Jintao at 1 AM Washington time to get the Chinese on board.

Chinese lobbies worldwide have been fairly active in supporting the grand objective that China has. Australia under Prime Minister John Howard was quite eager to start uranium supplies to India. However, John Howard was succeeded by Kevin Rudd, who has been experiencing an orgasm with China, as he has himself said!!!! Now Kevin Rudd had been a relative unknown on the Australian political theatre and his election was marked with controversies of Chinese funding benefiting him directly! Australian blogs have sarcastically been calling Rudd a Mandarin Chinese!

Now Rudd did a complete U-turn on assuming office - he stymied all attempts to sell uranium to India citing a stand of non-proliferation. He tries to project an image of maintaining a moral high ground, but his actions are quite suspect. On whose insistence is Rudd taking this stance? I think we have sufficient clues on this.

The scramble for resources has led both India, China and other powers into Africa. The Chinese have very often outbid all other competitors. Very often this has achieved by bribing successive regimes. If the incumbents do not oblige, the Chinese arm insurgents. The Chinese have had quite a success in acquiring such assets, but their subsequent actions and attitudes towards the locals have brought fears of a second round of imperialism. This has happened in Zambian copper mines and tin mines in the Congo, besides other African countries. Chinese "neo-imperialism" has been well covered in the international press, including the The New York Times.

Why is China playing the Great Game to outbid, outsmart and keep India on its toes?

The answer lies within China.

China is a multi-ethnicity rag-tag union held together with an iron fist. The recent Uighur unrest in Xinjiang and the Tibetan protests in 2008, which were spontaneous but heartfelt, indicate a very strong undercurrent which would erupt at any moment the fist loosens.

That is precisely what the Chinese establishment is scared of. It needs to keep the economic miracle running. This can be sustained only by gobbling up whatever resources are available.

India can possibly be the only challenge that China faces for dominance in Asia. "How can India (despite being a multi-"ethnicity" country still thrive?" is a question that bothers the Chinese establishment. It therefore has to prove a point that India is a horrible example to look up to. This is a point which has to be proved at any cost. And Pakistan, Bangladesh, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) do the job well for the Chinese establishment.

India, in a sense, can also be called a multi-ethnicity union. But the difference lies in the a benevolent governance here unlike an iron fist. While there is discontent from time to time, every "ethnicity" does get a voice, is heard and issues do get sorted out.

That is something which is hugely comforting, but is not enough till the Great Game is on. Sadly, few Indian governments have ever recognised the Great Game.

The Chinese philospher Sun Tzu had said "For, to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." China is doing just that.

The Great Game is an all out war, without combat, without war being declared. George Fernandes recognised this fact.

India needs to recognise that the Great Game is being played.

India needs to evolve a set of carefully calibrated strategies to play Great Game. I would be talking of some of these strategies in my subsequent blog posts.

The Fall of the Tiger - A Lesson for India

The Tiger is finally dead.

After being on the run for the last couple of months, the head of the banned terrorist outfit, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Velupillai Prabhakaran has finally been eliminated.

There has been a lot of controversy in India on the Sri Lankan offensive against the Tigers, Tamil rights and the possible political fallout in India.

There is no doubt that Tamils do need to be treated as equals in the Sri Lankan society alongwith the majority Sinhala majority.

All that intellectual discussion is indeed good, but from a more practical aspect, India needs to learn a very important lesson from this Sri Lankan episode.

The Sri Lankan Army has indeed done a great job of fishing militants out of the hideouts. People say this exercise has been ruthless, but so have been the terrorists. The single-minded agenda of General Sarath Fonseka of the Sri Lankan Army has actually paid off. Full marks to the president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, for his unflinching support to the army for this mission. he kept the human rights activists and NGOs out of the war-zone and ignored all international criticism of this war.

Terror deserves no mercy, whatever be the cause. Sri Lanka has done it exactly that way. We, India, would do well even if we understand a little bit of this.

The new government in Delhi has a majority. It can take a tough stand on terror. We should take strong action now in Kashmir, the North East and the Naxal areas in Eastern India. Let's forget the people who would cry foul over minority rights, human rights and other shitty root-cause theories. All it takes is political will to have a muscular security policy, to send a message to the world that India cannot be messed around with..

Let's do it now, or we'll lose this opportunity.