Book Review : Homage to Catalonia

Homage to Catalonia
by George Orwell

George Orwell went to Spain as a journalist to cover the ongoing revolution in 1936. Once he was in the midst of dramatic events, he decided it made more sense to join the fight against the Fascist forces which had been under the command of Franco, and aided by Hitler and Mussolini. This book, written in 1937 after he returned to England following a bullet injury in his neck that prevented further participation, deals with his personal experiences fighting alongside anti-Fascist groups. It also provides a description of significant political developments that he was aware of. Today, it represents a very important document on the war, and although it is one man's account of his involvement in a large-scale war, it manages to paint a pretty clear picture of the different positions taken by various groups and the constant internal strife, the severe betrayal, the egregious lies and false propaganda and the insidious international engagement. Even though several years have passed since the tumultuous events, the details and description are very interesting but more importantly, it brings out aspects of war and the machinery surrounding it that are usually not to be found in more standard treatments.

Reading this book after Nineteen Eighty Four, I was constantly trying to make connections with that great novel and not surprisingly, a lot of what Orwell witnessed in Spain provided the basis for the creation of the harrowing world of Airstrip One. Nonetheless, his experiences in this battleground were far more diverse than just the use of misinformation and pure fabrication to control the course of war. There are as many examples of generosity, loyalty, sacrifice,forthright honesty and goodness of spirit as there are of tragic betrayal and lies that makes this a much more pleasing narrative when compared to the bleak and hopeless environment in which Winston Smith is trapped. The book succeeds amazingly well in being able to describe how the war was perceived by the ordinary conscripts and volunteers and their valiant efforts, their ideals and their hope of a better and just future. The nature of the confrontation is itself such that in many of the instances, it is not the bullets and the explosions that everyone is most scared of, but the terrible winter and the crippling shortage of essential supplies. There are situations where people, even enemies behave in ways contrary to general expectation, and most often it is a turn to the more positive of human tendencies. Thus the book is made a lot bearable even though in the end the gaols of the idealistic revolutionary groups are sabotaged by the more cunning and powerful Communist forces.

Orwell is initially unaware of the various political factions that exist in the country and their different agendas. Not interested in political divisions or understanding their subtle variations in principles, he decides to join the P.O.U.M, a leftist revolutionary party that is one of the many organizations that have come together to fight Fascist takeover of Spain. The events leading up to the start of the war can summarized as follows: the Spanish Republican government is being besieged by the military that is led by General Franco who attempts a coup d' etat with the help of Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. The Government is weak and unable to defend itself. In an effort to resist the spread of the Fascism in Spain, political parties of varying shades, militia groups, workers and peasants decide to launch a concerted effort to defend the government. The Communists (UGT) receive support from Communist Parties all over Europe especially USSR, under its leader Josef Stalin. The co-operation and alignment of foreign players in this struggle to fend off Fascist takeover is not decided based on any grand principles but more by constitution of military alliances and particularly the strength of relationship with Soviet Union. The agenda of the Communists here, unlike what one would imagine, can only be described as the right-wing with focus on retaining control in the hands of a few and allowing the country to kowtow the Soviet leadership. Hence, Communists are in favor of a centralized government and are not opposed to adoption of a capitalistic system. That may seem very surprising at first but as it would be become clear in just a while, the primary intention of the Communists was for the country to be a useful military and political alliance of the USSR, irrespective of what the nature of the economic or political structure that exists. In particular they are strongly opposed to the Anarchists -who represent the radical anti-Stalinist Left - and other revolutionary organizations like P.O.U.M that aim to make Spain a completely decentralized country where land, property and production is controlled by local councils and peasants and farmers exert direct control over decisions concerning their lives. The reason the Communists bitterly oppose this setup can be understood by studying the alliances, say, for example,between France and USSR. This relationship would benefit the Russians, only if France, a capitalist-imperialist country, is strong and stable, and hence the Communist Party in France would tow the line of the Russian Communists, which is essentially anti-revolutionary. We are told about how French Communists initially voiced their unwillingness to fight their German comrades, but later on made a volte-face and marched behind the tri-color , sang the national anthem and bid goodbye to their earlier protests for decolonization. The Spanish UGT was influenced by their French counterparts, and hence opposed any form of revolution by the militias. Since Britain was still quite isolated from Russian influence, the English Communist party remained somewhat ambiguous in its policies towards the Spanish situation or European Imperialism. But as it becomes amply clear later on, the Communists in England fell behind the UGT and demonized the revolutionary groups. It should also be mentioned here that Mexico supported the Republicans (i.e the united anti-fascist groups) and provided arms and ammunition to fight the Spanish Army. In fact, Mexican cartridges were regarded as a premium in comparison to their local counterparts and were reserved for use with machine guns.

At any rate, as Orwell clarifies, the Communists would still be better than the Fascists. They would undertake some development and construction - build roads, provide education, erect hospitals and reduce the exploitation by the land-lords. On the other hand, Franco, being supported by the landlords, the rich bourgeois and the Church clergy, would return power to the same groups that impoverished the nation and marginalized the poor and caused the disillusionment with capitalism.
But, as noted above, Orwell is unfamiliar with the political intricacy that existed when he joined the fight and even when he does learn about the main groups, he seems to treat the matter with little importance. He repeatedly insists that he finds these divisions and associations quite perplexing and is quite cynical about the necessity to know anything more than the bare essentials on the topic. And yes, politics cannot be ignored in such a novel and it figures quite prominently in many places, especially towards the end of the book.

The first part of the book is devoted to the experience of fighting in the cold, wintry P.O.U.M camps at the frontline. While one would imagine the mood to be very intense considering how bloody the conflict had been in retrospect, the nature of the war and the different aspects surrounding it paints a slightly different picture. At times, it can get as removed from such intensity that some incidents begin to actually sound quite funny. To start with, the various rebel groups, and even most of the pro-Fascist troops, have a remarkably poor supply of arms and ammunition. To worsen the combat potential, much of the weapons -the rifles and machine guns for the most part- are of lamentable quality and perform unreliably. The minor accessories were also in short supply - telescopes, periscopes, wire-cutters, field glasses or even cleaning materials. Next, the preparedness level of the army was ludicrous. Most of these fighters -both volunteers and conscripts- were rooted in left-libertarian ideology who took the concept of equality and abolishment of hierarchy to extremity and insisted in treating everyone in the same manner. However, it does not take much expertise to know and understand that an army functions effectively and successfully executes complex operations only if there is some sort of structural hierarchy in the system which demands rigid discipline and obedience to authority. When this central tenet is missing, the combat force simply descends into a disorganized, amateurish, blundering mass that bungles up every plot. But naive idealism would make the P.O.U.M fighters -and to a greater extent the Anarchists - blind to such reality as it would, later on, to the cunning and devious betrayal by the Communists.

Many of the people fighting were kids - several under 15. Few received any training and at any rate, even those that did were given one that lacked the basic standards of professionalism that in the end, it possibly made no difference to their capacity to participate in a war. Practically no one was taught how to use an automatic and the familiarity and skill with the gun was so pathetic that it led to repeated incidents where people came close - and in some cases, actually did- to accidentally shooting their own men. Ironically, an equal number of deaths were averted because of the spectacularly poor Spanish marksmanship. Orwell himself would have been wounded earlier on, were it not for the woefully inaccurate firing skill of the Spanish militiamen. This must be seen in the broader context of Orwell's experience with the Spanish people in general, irrespective of their political affiliations. While not complete strangers to brutality, the fighting spirit displayed by the Spanish was comparably less aggressive, their hostility mitigated by an element of sympathy and consideration, their determination to achieve victory naturally undermined by the absence of killer instinct, and their ideology rarely overwhelmed their collective humanity. Orwell greatly admires the decency of the ordinary Spanish people. To Orwell, their easy friendliness, loyalty and ingenuity comes as a great surprise and we often encounter stark comparisons drawn between this and the attitude of the English people.
It may be cliche but there is something authentic when Orwell remarks, while observing the Spanish graciously acknowledge the French for their superior war tactics, that the English would rather have their hands chopped off rather than making such an admission. In addition, the Spanish warmly greet foreigners and strive to make their visitors feel comfortable; class-divisions are less visible and rigid in Spain as compared to their deeply entrenched presence in English society. Another curious feature is the apparent lack of religious feelings amongst the Spanish working-class and peasants. No religious customs seem to be observed and people do not invoke religious ideas and beliefs in the face of unpleasant events. There is little sanctity for the dead people as can be inferred from a graveyard that is littered with bones. The gravestones hardly ever bear religious inscriptions on them, something that strongly suggests a complete absence of faith in people. The Church was widely acknowledged a swindle by the elite and no one believed it representing anything useful. And this feature also explains why the revolutionary groups wanted to completely destroy the institutions associated with the Church as soon as they had an opportunity. (I have read elsewhere that they raped and tortured the nuns and the clergy but all of that could very well be remnants of Communist propaganda.)
Sadly though, as Orwell notes, it is this same magnanimity that made infantile groups like P.O.U.M and Anarchists hapless idealists waiting to be cruelly betrayed even before anyone of them saw it coming. In a foreboding sense, he writes,

There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life - snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc -had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tinted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves,and no one owed anyone else as his master.Of course such a state of affairs could not last.




Orwell lists five essential items while he was at the front - which was basically a hilltop "position" in Zaragosa, amongst other such positions in the mountain ranges. Those are, in the following order, firewood, food, candle, tobacco and enemy. This should give a quick idea that the enemy was not the main concern amongst the militiamen at the front. During most of the day, the Fascists did not matter at all and during the night, except for the possible fear of a random bullet striking someone, the primary preoccupation was to keep warm in the extremely cold weather. The same was true about the Fascist troops across the valley at their position. The typical situation at the frontlines was radically different from the standard imagination of a fierce battle between troops during the war. There were no airplanes dropping bombs and the rifles were so obsolete and poorly designed that in most cases the shots fired from them would fail to make their way across to the enemy trenches and instead drop in the valley between them. That being the case, it would not be hard to understand that the risk posed by occasional shots fired by those who received little or no professional training is minimal and less of a bother than the freezing weather that everyone had to struggle against on all nights. The weather became almost intolerable when there was rain and many men did not have the necessary clothing to protect themselves from the biting cold. Firewood was of utmost importance and a considerable part of the time and effort was spent on gathering and storing it. The soldiers ventured into the valley and pull out the shrubs and bring it back escaping being accidentally hit by the bullets buzzing overhead. The living conditions at the frontline was abominable -there was not enough water to clean up, the men defecated in the trenches itself, there was dirt and grime everywhere around, and people slept with their clothes on lest an attack caught them floundering. Yet, Orwell was happy to receive his quota of one pack of cigarettes everyday. The matches and candles were plenty initially but their supply was severely reduced later on and they had to overcome the shortage of this all-important commodity.

While all these brave young men -many of them volunteers from various countries -were fighting for a revolution that would lead to the establishment of a classless Socialist/Anarchist society,treacherous plots were devised by the Communists, primarily the U.G.T and P.S.U.C, who in fact were assumed to be on their side and provide necessary military and political support. The Communists bitterly opposed the revolution and claimed that it was important to first have a democratic setup in the country. They argued that the revolutionary groups were hurting the cause of creating a democratic Spain by not uniting together and forming a strong alliance. However, in reality, their motives were quite different. As briefly explained earlier, the Communists followed the Russian line and wanted Spain to remain a stable capitalistic country that could be useful as a military ally to USSR. Indeed, the military aid provided by Soviet Union was contingent on such an arrangement. Britain and France indirectly backed this movement too in the hope of protecting their significant financial investments in the country. If the revolution were to take place the way the Socialists envisaged, it would result in the collectivization of production and complete dominance by trade-unions without any guarantee of repayment to foreign investors. Furthermore, the Communist Parties in both these countries adopted a stand that merely reflected the interests and ideology of the Russians. Orwell however does make it quite clear that the ordinary soldier working for the Communists was just as well-meaning as anyone in C.N.T or P.O.U.M, and was primarily involved in the war effort to defeat Franco. It was the Communist leaders and their powerful associates in Europe that were masterminding these counter-revolutionary tactics. The foreign Communist press was particularly deceitful. In the early days, they simply portrayed the revolution as misguided ideology that would lead to fracturing of the anti-Fascist forces and create unnecessary chaos. However, later on the Communist propaganda becomes a lot more insidious. They contend that the P.O.U.M's revolutionary philosophy weakening the combined battle against Fascism was not simply a result of some misguided idealism, but rather, a deliberate design. They portrayed P.O.U.M army as consisting of traitors who were secretly working with the Fascists to sabotage the Government forces. The P.O.U.M militia and everyone who worked with organizations with similar ideology were labeled as cowards, murderers, spies and Trotskyists.


It is not a nice thing to see a Spanish boy of fifteen carried down the line on a stretcher, with a dazed white face looking out from among the blankets, and to think of all the sleek persons in London and Paris who are writing pamphlets to prove that this boy is a Fascist in disguise. One of the horrible features of a war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people not fighting.

A lot of this negative and divisive Communist propaganda was being disseminated when the P.O.U.M militia was in the frontline naively assuming full ideological support from their Communist "allies", whatever the differences might be amongst them in terms of initiating a revolution. Supply of arms and ammunition to the Anarchists was curtailed lest they use them later for revolutionary goals. In a civil war such as this and at the time when the Fascist powers in Europe were gaining strength by the day and expanding their sphere of influence in the continent, one would have been expected that the great democracies of the world, namely Britain, United States and France would have had the foresight to come to the rescue of the Spanish Government and suppress Franco's Army. That can only be considered bad judgment even if self-interest was the primary motivation for extending military aid to foreign wars. But more unfortunately,as Orwell observes no country, aside from Mexico had the decency to back the Government in what was clearly a just cause against tyranny. All these powerhouses were eager to declare neutrality in the conflict and it was upto some of their brave citizens to join the war effort and lay their lives to contain the reach of Fascism. The external role in this civil war was largely provided by Communists all over Europe who were devotedly playing to the Soviet tune.

Back at the front in Aragon, the troops occupying the P.O.U.M position alongside Orwell launch a surprise attack on the Fascist redoubt. Crawling through the sodden ground, striving to remain noiseless, and maintaining proper communication with their fellow fighters, the group manages to take control of the Fascist parapet and kill or drive away the fascist conscripts occupying the dug-outs there. A powerful telescope is discovered at the enemy camp that would be of crucial importance in the battle but the fighters settle on a ammunition box to bring back with them alongside Fascist rifles. Despite leaving behind the telescope the ambush is considered a success in the sense that Fascists were forced to divert their troops for counter-attack from another position where they were fighting the Anarchists. Following this event, the batch of troops are substituted by a different set and they make their way back to Barcelona.

The Barcelona that Orwell returns to after being at the front for about three and a half months has had a makeover in appearance. The revolutionary spirit that once dominated the atmosphere of Spain and the surrounding philosophical principles of an equal, classless society without hierarchy or one-upmanship that had attracted so many ordinary working class people, was now gone, and in its place was the quiet, unremarkable world of established class-structure, one that separated the rich from the poor, with the privileged flaunting its wealth while the shopkeepers and workers were cringing. There was a brief period when everyone treated others as equals, irrespective of their social position or profession. Thus, waiters and flower-women refused to take tips and looked at people in the eye, revolutionary language was commonly adopted, workers addressed each other as "comrade" and there was almost no begging. But that atmosphere was to be temporary, something created by idealistic people who briefly flirted with the idea that such a thing as perfect equality is a viable scenario in society. It was at best an illusion - a suspension of disbelief - but a tempting possibility to entertain and hope for in the face of long and damning injustice and inequity.

A fat man eating quails while the children are begging for food is a disgusting sight, but you are less likely to see it when you are within sound of guns

The Popular Army had been formed by the government and all the militia factions were officially a part of it. The revolutionary sentiment was almost non-existent and it was replaced by an unspoken resignation to the reality that there was never going to be a revolution that would lead to workers' control of production, land and revenue. With little fighting going on, pessimism returned to the populace as the town slid back to normalcy. The Anarchist-Communist split was very much alive and this division seemed to predominate the thoughts and fears of the people more than threat of a battle with fascists.



On 3rd MAy 1937, the Civil Guards launched a surprised assault on the Telephone Exchange in Barcelona that had been controlled by the CNT. The Civil Guards were nothing more than a peacetime police force that acted as a strongarm bodyguard protecting the ruling elite. Taking over the Telephone Exchange was part of the strategic manoeuvre to weaken the militia forces and arrogate power by winning control of all industries and organizations that were under the supervision of Anarchists. As the news of this event broke throughout the town, it caused panic and confusion as both sides - Government/Civil Guards on one side and Anarchists/POUM on the other- were entering into an armed confrontation on the streets and buildings in the town. Shots rang out, bullets flew in all directions, troops ran to occupy positions on rooftops, wielding guns and guarding buildings, each of which were predominantly occupied by members of a single political party.

The rival groups were randomly firing at every other suspected individual on the street leading to complete chaos as people were holed up in buildings for protection. Orwell finds himself running between different hotels and cafes in this tumultuous setting, sometimes being dragged along by fellow militiamen and at other times to find out if his wife was safe (she was staying in a different place). The chaotic street fighting is a real tragedy and renders so much of the effort, the spirit and the sacrifices of people futile. It is truly disillusioning and depressing ;instead of facing a battle with the real enemies (Fascists), here there were troops firing - and killing some and wounding others -at each other barely aware of the reasons for targeting the "opponents". These events seem to quieten down the next day as Civil Guards are asked by the government to be more cautionary in using weapons and firing at Anarchists but nonetheless the fear and mutual suspicion was still quite strong and the troops were still camped on rooftops prepared for any offensive fire.

Throughout the fighting I never made the "correct" analysis of the situation that was so glibly made by journalists sitting thousands of miles away.What I was chiefly thinking about was not the rights and wrongs of this miserable internecine scrap, but the discomfort and boredom of sitting day and night on that intolerable roof, and the hunger which was growing worse and worse- for none of us had a proper meal since Monday (this was Thursday)


Things were returning to normal even when the CNT members were completely overpowered as the Telephone Exchange was wrested out of their control by Civil Guards. Even at other important strategic Anarchist holdings, the government forces had moved in and had taken charge. Simply put, the city came under the mercy of the government and its armed guards and troops. In addition to such assaults, many of the remaining Anarchists retreated from their barricades because of food shortage. Adding insult to the injury, the government passed a law requiring all organizations to surrender their arms as the civil guards go around ensuring that the law is duly enforced. Debilitating the militia even further, the Anarchist press was censored while the Communist publications continued to run wildly fabricated stories of CNT/POUM treachery. The Anarchists desire to hold on to their arms was "interpreted" by the Communists and the foreign press as a disloyal and selfish action. They claimed that the weapons were badly needed at the Aragon front although it was clear that both Communists and revolutionaries had stashed weapons that they would use for reasons other than fighting the main fascist enemies.

At this point, the feeling and mood in Barcelona was one of deep distrust- distrust for everyone around be that friends, fellow soldiers, associates, comrades, it made no difference. Nobody could foresee who would turn out to be a spy - there can be people working for any of the groups including fascists, communists, foreign governments - and denounce them to their ideological enemy. Meanwhile the CNT feared that there would be a foreign intervention if the internal strife went too far -indeed there were two British warships that had moved into the harbor as the fighting intensified with the proclaimed aim of "protecting British interests" but there was little doubt that it was to crush any massive uprising by the working class.


The POUM was decried as "Franco's fifth column" and as Trotskyists who were loyal to the Fascists. The outbreak of the conflict at the Telephone Exchange was described as an insurrection by the Anarchists. The gross misrepresentations of the events by the Communist press was systematic, ubiquitous and invariable - spinning facts to the degree that the roles of the various parties involved were reversed : the Telephone Exchange, the Daily Worker stated for example, was being held by the Government workers until being seized by the CNT forces in a surprise uprising. Never mind the fact that the same story was turned around a couple of days later without any mention of retraction or correction of the previous account. Also forget about the blatant contradictions in the descriptions and statements: inflammatory leaflets were the cause of the Anarchist uprising according to one release, but in another report, it was argued that these same leaflets were issued following the attack - it was a consequence. The newspapers did not care to maintain basic consistency in even stating the day the actual attack took place. In fact, the propaganda program was so obsessive that the Communists, either out of poor judgment or indifference, were giving away vital military secrets that could compromise their war effort while benefiting the Fascists. These included details about the strategy, the preparedness and the number of troops at the front and other tactical information that could be crucial to outcome of the war. (Orwell mentions in a footnote about the relative accuracy and neutrality of coverage in the Manchester Guardian,a newspaper known today simply as The Guardian. Incidentally, amongst all the regular newspapers I have come across in the English language, I find The Guardian most balanced and objective in coverage and detail.)


The betrayal reached its zenith in June 1937 when the POUM was declared as a full-fledged illegal organization by the government and all suspected members of the party were rounded up and flung into jail without the slightest concern for any due process. The Communists concocted a dramatic tale of how the entire group as a Fascist Plot designed to undermine and subvert the government forces.The charges leveled against POUM were ludicrous, such as claims that militiamen were in radio contact with Franco or in communication with the Nazi regime. Anyone rejecting the Communist policy from a left-wing perspective was conveniently condemned as Trotskyist -the implied meaning being treachery and a possible link with Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. That this was full blown lies is apparent from the mere observation that these troops were still in jail for long after they were arrested, something that was impossible had they found any evidence of such subversive collaboration with the Fascists. In fact when an independent international delegation was went to Spain later on to investigate the role of the POUM in the conflict, the diplomats did not uncover any evidence to support any of these outlandish allegations. This admission of the innocence of POUM was in fact was made by the some of Spanish Government leaders, including the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Justice.

As appalling as the Communist backstabbing may sound, it is nothing particularly unexpected for this uniquely disgusting political ideology to denounce its detractors as traitors. Orwell point out for example that while today opponents are attacked as "trotskyist-fascist", a few years ago "Social-fascists" would have been the derogatory term of choice. But these critics and skeptics are not permanent nor does the official Communist line have any qualms about consistency (much like it does not have any principles). So such treacherous "social-fascists" like members of the British Labour Party were claimed to be behind a planned military invasion of USSR but this same Labour Party has now automatically morphed into a natural ally that English Communist Party members are trying to get into.


After the POUM is outlawed, Orwell again volunteers to go to the front in Huesca although his affiliation is not very clear. He mentions that he has been moved into a more structured pay commission that the militiamen were forced to accept abandoning their earlier stance of complete equality for all soldiers.
It is here though in the trenches of the battlefield that Orwell gets shot by a sniper that puts an end to his volunteering effort to fight Fascism in Spain. His recollection of the experience of getting shot straight through the neck is quite unusual in that he explains everything in a clear and objective manner. More amazingly, true to his style, even a dramatic personal incident like this one does not alter his perspective on his role in the war as merely a soldier fighting for a greater cause and coming close to death not unlike so many other brave individuals. In life, it so often happens that we are preoccupied with our self-importance. We like to think that our world view is unique and accurate, that our feelings deserve respect,that our concerns are serious and genuine and our opinions and ideas, important and insightful. In all of our thoughts and involvements, we feel the need to project our intellectual abilities. We obsess over what we like and what we don't and we make a big deal about the little ups and downs in life. What a stirring contrast it is when someone who is now considered as one of the most important authors in the 20th century, describes a bullet making a clean pass through his throat in the most ordinary way one can imagine -without ever drawing unnecessary attention to himself. I have never regarded myself as a fan of modesty of any kind -not at the conscious level at least- but his experiences in Spain- particularly this incident- evokes immense admiration. In his engaging introduction to the copy I hold, Lionel Trilling writes:

Orwell takes his place with these men as a figure. In one degree or another they are geniuses, and he is not - if we ask what it is that he stands for, what he is a figure of, the answer is: the virtue if not being a genius, of fronting the world with nothing more than one's simple, direct, undeceived intelligence and a respect for the powers one does have, and the work one undertakes to do.



Returning to the actual incident, Orwell explains that being shot felt like an explosion around him, something akin to a lightning strike with no awareness of pain but a sense of numbness and a dazed feeling. It had to pointed out to him that he was actually shot and it was only a brief while later that the horrible sense of pain came to overwhelm him and oddly enough, it was felt first in his arms. Despite this ghastly injury, he notes, almost glibly, that he has no resentment for the sniper who got him and would in fact congratulate the soldier on his shot while recognizing that he[Orwell] would have done the same thing had he been in the sniper's place.

He is carried in a stretcher to an ambulance that takes him to a temporary medical facility from where he is transported to Barbasto in an incredibly bumpy journey. About another half dozen trips to various hospitals and medical centers, where he silently witnessed all varieties of dreadful wounds on fellow inmates like smashed rib cages and collar bones, and followed by an additional 2 months of rest, Orwell recovers to reasonable health and miraculously he has his voice back -something that most doctors had ruled impossible. Unfit to continue fighting, he returns to Barcelona in the hope of finally leaving the country and going home.

The situation in Barcelona is a depressing one, with armed men roaming the streets, ubiquitous occurrence of arbitrary arrests, and a perpetual sound of machine gun fires heard all around. A this stage, the Communists have full control over the city and CNT/POUM militiamen - even those who had former ties with these groups -were being jailed without any charges or consideration of a fair trial. In order to leave the POUM without being considered a deserter, Orwell needs to be declared unfit first and then obtain the discharge papers from POUM headquarters. While this may sound like a straightforward affair, Orwell had to stop by a dozen hospitals to get his documents in order to be free to leave. No sooner does he return to Barcelona than his wife hurriedly warns him that he was now in real danger of being arrested - since he had served in the POUM militia before. The news of this inexplicable situation in Barcelona was something that Orwell cannot bring himself to accept - he had done nothing to hurt the cause of the anti-fascist resistance. Now, it was necessary to remain on close alert and protect himself from being discovered. Lying low was not an easy choice- any hotel or inn in Barcelona required its staff to report about new visitors to the place ; several waiters in restaurants were also familiar with militiamen faces and they could easily give away the identity inadvertently in the presence of Civil Guards or other Government troops.

Elsewhere POUM leader Andreas Nin was arrested and thrown to jail where he was believed to have been later killed by the secret police - this incident was concealed from the public by the Communists who provided vague and sometimes conflicting information on Nin's condition.[He was actually tortured and murdered by the Soviet Secret police] In another event Bob Smilie, one of the young men that Orwell knew from fighting in the front, was now known to have died in prison from medical complication. Orwell recalls Smilie as being a "tough lad" who was able to withstand the rigors of winter better than most of the other militiamen and his prison death is suggestive of the terrible conditions in which the Spanish jails were maintained. A student who left Glasgow University to join the revolutionary forces, Smilie's death was truly symbolic of the genuine tragedy of the conflict - the Communist betrayal.

But what angers one about a death like this is its utter pointlessness. To be killed in the battle- yes, that is what one expects; but to be flung into jail. not even for any imaginary offence, but simply owing to dull blind spite, and then left to die in solitude- that is a different matter.


Despite the horrible events which has left Orwell with evil memories of Spain, he belabors to point out that he has few bad memories of Spaniards. It would appear, according to him, that even if Franco were to ascend to power, the military dictatorship would not be the as brutal and repressive as in other countries[something that was partly borne out to be true]. Spaniards hardly possessed the efficiency or the ruthlessness to impose the kind of totalitarian nightmare that was possible in Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR. The Communist secret police, while displaying some of the spirit of the Gestapo had little of the same competency or aggression.


In his last few days in Spain, Orwell tries unsuccessfully to free George Kopp, the Belgian volunteer who was Orwell's superior officer while fighting on the Aragon front. Kopp was arrested while carrying a letter to a government official and as usual, no charges were filed for the incarceration. Orwell explains the situation to the assistant of the colonel (the government official in question) and manages to get the letter back - which should have served as a proof that Kopp was serving the government- but it turns out that this new evidence was insufficient to secure his release[Kopp survives somehow despite interrogation and torture by Soviet Secret Police after which he settles in England].

On that defeated note, Orwell, along with his wife and two other British militiamen, leave Spain and after a short stop in France return to London.

(Fascists had full control of the country by 1939 when General Franco came to power).

A momentous oppurtunity for change

Here, right now, as I type these words, is an incredibly opportune moment for us to witness the change that we have been hearing from Barack Obama. For someone who came to power on the promise that he is going to bring change to Washington politics and reverse the damages and disastrous policies followed by the Bush Administration, he could not have bargained for a better time to show the world what he was sincere. As Israeli shells pound the Gaza strip is what is unquestionably an obscene display of excessive force against a decidedly weak opponent, we have a situation that calls for unreserved and strong condemnation.

Most importantly, everyone is waiting for the signal from America. Indeed, there are commentators arguing that this whole episode was a demonstration to the incoming President about how Israel is going to deal with this longstanding dispute. And we are still waiting for a comment..... No, Mr. Obama, dodging questions by saying that there is only one President at a time is not good enough, and that is certainly not what people in the world expected to hear. You can say more, even if you cannot do much, like the strong words you chose when responding to the congratulations from Mr. Ahmadinejad. Evidently there is only one person running the White House and we all know that the President in waiting cannot order an intervention, but a less ambiguous reaction would have gone a long way in changing the face of geo-politics in the Middle East in months to come.


And yet, nothing is coming from the man who stood for change. I understand how entangled American interests are in the special US-Israel relationship and I am not naive enough to have believed that the new President would supply tanks and ammunition to Palestine on arrival, but there was definitely a hope for a relatively more even-handed approach to the resolution of conflict. And nothing, not even the financial mess, could have presented a golden opportunity such as this to ascertain Mr. Obama's real intention of bringing change and improving the image and global standing of America.

And, we are still waiting....

Society and human behavior

I am a vegetarian. I also happen to be raised a vegetarian. Up until now, I have maintained a certain distaste and even disgust for the sight and smell of meat. But I have also come to realize that vegetarianism is significant from an ethical point of view too. My primary concern here is animal welfare since there is ample evidence to believe that sentient beings are put through some of the most horrifying conditions one can imagine before being slaughtered.


I am often shocked by how people don't seem to care too much about this at all. How is it possible they don't realize the inhuman treatment that animals are subjected to for the trivial benefit of satisfying their palate? I find their flippant attitude inexplicable, especially so when is many cultures, cruelty to dogs would be condemned in the sharpest way possible (and can even be punishable). However, I am not going to be discussing the ethics of vegetarianism here, even though I have several opinions on the issue. Maybe, I can post it sometime later. Besides, there other sites that discuss this including Wikipedia. No, here I am going to use this fact as a starting point to launch into a more general argument that, when a certain behavior is acceptable in society, however despicable it may be, there will be many people who would not refrain from indulging in the same.

I was completely shocked when I learned about how the Red Army marched into Germany when the tide of the war swung in the favor of the Allies, and then raped and molested all the women they could find. They ravaged and destroyed the towns and did not even spare some of the 'liberated' death camp prisoners. I was equally taken aback when I heard about the anti-Sikh riots in northern India by Hindu extremists in the aftermath of the assassination of Indira Gandhi. That rioters just picked on innocent Sikh men, dragged them out of their homes, and brutally attacked and murdered them was something I could not believe. Maybe it was my sheltered childhood, but the fact that normal people were capable of such barbarism went beyond my comprehension of humanity.


Of course, I have grown up now and am aware that these incidents are far from being isolated cases of violent atrocities. War crimes follow virtually instance of a warfare or regional strife, and this has been the situation throughout recorded history. However appalling Abu Graib or Guantanamo Bay may be, it is not particularly unique, even for the US Army (though this is no justification for their continued existence). It is not just horrendous acts perpetrated by armies and other combat groups that are guaranteed presence in all of human history, but so are other forms of injustices and cruelty entrenched in wider society during better times of peace and prosperity.. Slavery, colonialism and imperialism, racism, oppression of women, casteism, trafficking are all examples of human behavior, that viewed from the perspective of modern "civilized" world, appears as wholly deplorable. And yet, they were acceptable at one point. Widespread, almost unopposed acceptability has existed/still exists with regard to the practice of just these same human indignities in societies. Today, in most parts of the Western world, slavery would be perceived as completely abhorrent, but less than 300 years ago, there were several educated, intelligent and otherwise decent human beings who participated in the practice and held various flawed beliefs to justify it. Some of the leading philosophers and thinkers in the generations past have lent their credence to the idea that Africans are fundamentally inferior and hence deserve the treatment they get.


A similar justification was made, based on the ideology of "White Man's burden", for conquering and ruling other nations while impoverishing and depriving them of their resources. Not many in the oppressive community/country back then expressed a tenth of disgust that the majority would now do,looking at the past. How is this possible? Obviously, there is no inherent change in human beings over a few hundred years. There is also no reason to believe that each generation is born with certain unique inherent traits. In other words, if the same child were to be hypothetically transported across time to a different era, the whole outlook that he/she develops would be spectacularly divergent from what it is now. But, if such is the case, would it not be reasonable to argue that this is nothing more than a generalized version of "cultural relativism". Clearly, that is not how people understand it today, otherwise we would be hearing a lot more along the lines of "Who are we to judge what someone did in a different period when public morality was so different?".Much like when we hear a lady is being stoned to death for alleged adultery in Iran, few would take the stand that it is all fair and reasonable from their(Iran's) cultural standpoint. No, we believe, correctly or incorrectly, that these are wrongs and must never happen anywhere or anytime. Once we claim such absolutes in ethical judgments, we need to go back and revise our opinions on why so many participated in and encouraged what was so obviously WRONG. The answer, according to me, is simply that it was acceptable in society then whereas it isn't so anymore now.That is the sad truth of the world we live in:we are capable of doing just about anything so long as it is acceptable in society. So much for peoples' righteous moral outrage! Alter this argument a little and replace society by a group or institution, and we can explain everything from the Holocaust to human-rights violations in North Korea. The group is the one that has authority and power - the men in charge of implementing official policy of torture and abuse.


A microcosm of the same phenomena can be witnessed in the whole ragging issue in colleges across India. Students, barely past their teens, mostly growing up in regular middle-class families and seemingly introverted, somehow get transformed to something quite vicious and sadistic. The abuses inflicted on the freshmen in certain colleges, can take many forms, including repeated beatings and sexual humiliation. It is interesting though that in these cases, those in the vicinity witnessing the initiation ritual, see nothing odd about two people simulating sodomy. This is particularly striking when contrasted with the overall attitude of the broader Indian society when it comes to similar issues. How come those nurtured in a closed environment like this, in less than a year, turned to doing something that is not only in poor taste, but is also outright illegal?
It is equally interesting to note that the same people who were in the thicket of organizing the ragging drill would not have much of courage to do anything even a little daring in an environment where such behavior would not be acceptable. In other words, timid individuals who seem incapable of standing up and being bold can turn into monsters when they know that their actions would be regarded as normal, however disgusting these actions may be in a more standard setting.

My hypothesis was strengthened when I learned about some famous experiments that were carried out to test similar potential possibilities in normal people. Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram devised a famous test where participants were supposed to administer electric shocks to a "victim" whenever he/she answered a question wrong. The order to do so was to be provided by a a stern authority figure who sat in the same room as the participant. And with every wrong answer, the voltage was incremented. The results were astonishing -many of the participants triggered shocks greater than 200V and only one participant refused to do so beyond the 300V threshold. 65% of the participants were willing to go up to 450V although many of them expressed reservations and were uncomfortable to do so. Interestingly, this was three months before the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi operative considered to be the architect of the Holocaust. Basically, the experimenters wanted to determine if ordinary Americans were capable of doing what the Nazis had done. (By the way, the analysis of Eichmann's personality is also noteworthy.)

Ten years later, an even more disturbing psychological experiment was carried out. The Stanford Prison Experiment involved selecting a bunch of undergraduate students, randomly assigning them "prisoner" and "guard" roles that they are supposed to enact for a period of 14 days in a real prison. The whole arrangement was setup in a manner that would simulate a real prison environment as accurately as possible: from the baton that the "guards" carried around to the chains tied to the ankles of "prisoners". The lead experimenter Professor Philip Zimbardo was himself playing the prison superintendent. The experiment had to be shut down in 6 days because the whole situation got out of hand very soon. Guards began to beat the prisoners, denied them food, and routinely humiliated them. Some of the prisoners were thrown into solitary confinement. The prisoners are said to have been psychologically traumatized at the end, having undergone serious stress during the progress of the experiment. To be fair, the experiment was criticized by many (though not criticisms are convincing) and the BBC conducted its own Prison Study in 2002 and the results this time were definitely less dramatic than SPE. The difference seems to lie in the fact that in the conditions were less harsh and hostile in the BBC commissioned study than in the SPE. That is not to say it did not have any incident involving tyranny and abuse of power. My own interpretation is that the inferences that can be drawn from all these psychological experiments are in line with my overall opinion of human nature and behavior.

When we go by this hypothesis, we are able to better understand various barbaric events in history and also societal attitudes to and (in some case )participation in various horrors, from mild injustices like denying equal rights to women to applauding brutal Gladiator fights. So long as everyone around feels the same way, it reinforces the idea of normalcy in such behavior and people will engage in them without any compunction. Or, they are unlikely to realize what their actions would be judged harshly in the future or by a society with different norms. Thus every time I hear about some horrible violence somewhere in the world, I am inclined to believe that the perpetrators are living in a place and time where such activities are deemed acceptable . It is a truly disturbing thought indeed.

Endnotes:
(i) It is important to remember that most of the experiments that I have described here were not designed to study anything directly related to what I am interested in. Instead, they mostly concerned the willingness of normal people to simply follow instruction in the presence of an authority figure, however much it went against their perception of what is right and what isn't. In their own right, they are quite surprising. The results from the BBC Prison Study are particularly well reasoned out and analyzed. I also do not claim that my conclusions based on these experiments have been obtained in some perfectly-justified purely rational arguments. I just see a strong connection between them and my own hypothesis of human behavior. Also,in no way am I desperate to find evidence-weak or strong- to prove my point. Far from it, I actually wish I could be proved wrong.

(ii)Same goes for various incidents I have highlighted. It is certainly possible that the underlying motivation to commit violent crimes may been have vastly different in these cases.
(iii) Irrespective of the idea you may get away with on reading this, it was by no means written to drive home the imperative for converting to vegetarianism.
I cannot however deny that I feel the same logic applies to the whole issue of vegetarianism though.

Some facts

The events that have been unfolding in the aftermath of the horrible attacks in Bombay are quite unprecedented. Public discontent over perceived lack of adequate security provided by the government has lead to widespread protests , condemnation of those in power, and a great sense of betrayal and disillusionment. As we speak the uproar is raging in several places, through different mediums and channels and at various levels. Both the volume and extent of involvement by the public surpasses any response we have seen so far in earlier tragedies.

No doubt, it was indeed a ghastly series of events and there can be nothing said or done that would make those who have lost a loved one feel better. I will not pretend to understand what they must be going through.

However, not being so close to the disaster should help others look at the attacks in a more objective manner and take note of a few relevant facts and statistics that may be missed during the heat of the debate. Before I go on to list them, I must make it very clear that this is not meant to make the horror of this tragedy, or any of the related developments in international politics since, less significant. The idea here is to put things in their right perspective.
Here we go:
(I) The number of casualties from accidents every year in India is about 100,000. That is close to 300 deaths per day
(II) The number of Indian casualties in the deadly 2004 Tsunami is close to 12,000. I'd be interested to know the status of the rehabilitation efforts.
(III) The number of people of who die every year in Bombay Suburban Railway accidents is more than 3000.
(IV)Since these attacks, there has been a bus explosion in India that has resulted in 63 deaths.
(V) 5 people have been killed so far in terrorist attacks since then. These were associated with the Naxalite movement.
(VI) If you would like to have an idea of the frequency of terrorist attacks worldwide, here is the list for 2008.

Aside from this, it is important to consider the death toll arising from malnutrition in India. Preventable Diseases?

Should we also not care about those innocent citizens who are being arrested and inhumanly assaulted in prisons to elicit a confession?

Amidst the media obsession and sickeningly excess coverage, it is important that we never forget the basic facts involved and lose sense of balance that is so crucial in a precarious situation like this.

Note:Edits made to original post.

Dislike for the mainstream

What is common to the following: McDonalds, Coca Cola, Amheuser Busch, Hollywood blockbusters, MTV music, Windows, Walmart? Compare and contrast this with with their corresponding opposites : craft breweries , independent films, underground music, local farmers produce, Linux. There is a certain general statement that can be made about the former category and the adjectives used to describe them would include poor taste, culture of the masses, dumb, lowest common denominator, shallow, absence of complexity and sophistication. And the latter would be characterized as catering to niche audience, high quality and artistic merit, high culture, greater freedom and independence to experiment. Yes products and culture today fall into distinct classes and two broad ones that can be defined in this respect would be mainstream and well (for lack of a better word) non-mainstream. Ignoring whatever postmodernists have to say about recognizing such a division, we can all confidently say that such a distinction exists, rightly or wrongly, and it has been in our consciousness independent of how much we accept it.
The reason I started this article is because, while searching for the perfect beer to savor, I came across this interesting product from Stone Breweries that immediately drew my attention. It comes in a dark 22-ounce bottle, and has a monster picture in front and goes by the name of "Arrogant Bastard Ale" . Well, with such an aggressive, upfront title, it is naturally bound to make anyone curious. On looking at the details on the bottle closely, you see this warning :

"This is an aggressive beer. You probably won’t like it. It is quite doubtful that you have the taste or sophistication to be able to appreciate an ale of this quality and depth. We would suggest that you stick to safer and more familiar territory — maybe something with a multi-million dollar ad campaign aimed at convincing you it’s made in a little brewery, or one that implies that their tasteless fizzy yellow beer will give you more sex appeal. Perhaps you think multi-million dollar ad campaigns make a beer taste better. Perhaps you’re mouthing your words as you read this."

I couldn't care too much for my taste to be vindicated, but nonetheless I did add this one to my haul that evening.

Anyway, it has got me thinking ever since. And it is not the first time I have come across such elitism for the rare, the strange, the under-appreciated and even the unpopular. Heavy Metal Music is one department where you are likely to encounter some of the most haughty, smug bastards. An ardent fan of the art form, I know the feeling when people say that most music distributed widely has no intensity , no soul and no honest artistic expression. And it is equally true that we are being perpetually bombarded with silly, bloated, Hollywood excesses that we crave for something real and gritty. This particular case becomes an overkill if I introduce those awesomely innovative film industries in India.
A similar statement can be made on any of the other issues I mentioned at the beginning. What all this does to the 'superior',' better-informed, sophisticated' individual is to create a sense of contempt for everything commonplace and enjoyed by the majority in society. This is part reality, part cynicism, part a simple need to nourish the ego but whatever the cause may be it is sort of impossible not to feel that way when you turn on the TV and watch some mind-numbing sitcom that has millions of fans and has raked in profits several times that figure.


Here, I wish to argue that such a generalization about the worthiness of masses is totally wrong. In fact, the more I have broadened my horizons and learned about society, people, politics, history, culture and revolution , the more I have come to the conclusion that the masses are powerful, capable, perceptive and productive. I fact, I wish to completely abolish describing people with derogatory expressions like "masses". Yes, I say this after 47% of people in the most dominant nation-state on earth voted for an imbecile who understood foreign policy to mean geographical proximity.
It is a question of what aspect of civilization we are looking at and and its overall significance on people and society. What I have expressed my dislike for are things of a particular nature, ones whose impact is limited and those whose quality is really not a real life-and-death concern for people. On the other hand, consider the following: science, academia, literature, sports, jurisprudence. On any of these fields, what is regarded as mainstream and popular, and individuals held in high-esteem by the public is nearly coincident with opinions of better-informed people. For instance, Olympics are the biggest and grandest sporting extravaganza in the world but no one will argue that the best of talent is not represented there. In science the areas of research that follow mainstream scientific practices and procedures are always more likely to be accurate and be accepted in the future. In fact, there is a high probability that people not publishing in peer-reviewed journals are likely to be crackpots who make outlandish claims. Isn't it amazing that the mainstream scientific community that gets funded by taxpayer money is so structured that it weeds out fools and idiots and advances only those who observe the scientific method. I know there are several specific counter-examples to this but we need to take a broader look at the history of science and evolution to appreciate how the mainstream is always either (a) correct (b) eventually concedes to holding the wrong idea and corrects itself. In other words, it is far from obvious that the entire discipline was not sabotaged at some stage by crackpots (or creationists) to the point that the public understanding of science and budgetary allocations by government was based on their work. To a lesser degree the same applies to people who are working at NASA or inventing new weapons technology. These are multi-billion dollar projects but they involve the best and the brightest minds.
What about literature? Isn't Shakespeare considered the greatest playwright of all time? And who else but him occupies popular imagination of a literary genius. Majority of literature well-regarded by the critical establishment is also quite well-know to the public. In fact, even when it comes to something like music, no one is going to regard Britney Spears as a precocious wonder. Nor is a Rajnikath film going to win the Palm D'Or anytime soon. Or dethrone Satyajit Ray as a pioneer of creating a real movement in creative film-making in India.
Jurisprudence is another area where the best in the field come together to reach a consensus on contentious issues, resolving ambiguities, establishing precedents and protecting the highest ideals of the system. World history, anthropology, evolutionary biology, linguistics or any other academic research is an attempt to discover the facts of the world and it is usually free of any "mainstream biases" or influenced by political leanings.
But beyond all this, the most important example of the strength and importance of mainstream views and ideas is in the world of politics. Yes, the world inhabited by Bush and Palin.To understand why, stop for a moment and think of all the extremist political ideologies of radical organizations that exist everywhere on the planet. Political groups disguising their Fascist intents in more benign and acceptable expressions of nationalism that always receive support from certain circles that regard mainstream society as a bunch of misguided idiots. National Alliance, a White supremest organization in the United States, was headed by a theoretical physicist. Its members are usually people from of upper-levels of American society -scientists, lawyers, doctors, businessmen. And closer to home, aren't there Hindu intellectuals who have sympathy for RSS assertions of India being a Hindu nation? And this feeling is no less strong amongst plenty of Indian diaspora living in United States. (Why the fuck are they here?). What about the sober Bengali and Keralite communist intellectuals who, if given power, would not just put India out of the international stage but unleash vast destruction and carnage eventually adding another name to the doctrine's stellar gallery of exponents from Stalin to Kim-Jong-il. Imagine what would happen if the larger society had no voice in a system where "intellectuals" and privileged members had more political leverage. Dictatorship, totalitarianism, communism and all such ruthless regimes will take root. However brilliant and level-headed the individuals may be,inordinate power will ultimately result in authoritarian rule that clings on to this power by whatever means it can.Despite its many flaws and contradictions, democracy and equality are the greatest ideals in modern politics and for that to function mainstream opinions has to be given the maximum importance.

Apart from all this rationalizing, I must all also mention that from a standpoint of pure humanity, it is quite dogmatic to regard intelligence,appreciation of art, philosophy or any other attribute as being something so prized that it endows those people with special rights and privileges. Does being a decent human being not count as something admirable if it not accompanied by erudition or cultural sophistication? Besides, I am sure a run-of-the-mill Shah-Rukh-Khan film buff is more likely to be useful in practical situations than stiff, pretentious art-collectors. Or beer connoisseurs!

That brings me back full circle to the Arrogant Bastard Ale. Did I appreciate its depth? Was I worth it? Unfortunately, no. I thought I enjoyed bitter ales but this was so overwhelmingly hopped that it pretty much destroyed every other flavor in the beer. It got a little better towards the end but I had some difficulty in finishing it. Verdict: I am not sophisticated enough.

Movie Review: Battle of Algiers

Successful independence movements invariably involve great turmoil, desperation, individual courage and sacrifice , carnage and even ruthlessness. The Algerian War of Independence which lasted over a period of about 8 years was one of the more violent and bloody efforts that resulted in collapse of the French rule in the country. Occurring nearly a decade after the Second World War, the battle was raged when public attitudes and the political landscape made it difficult for open repression and dominance by colonial powers. Nonetheless, as clearly shown in this incredibly powerful film The Battle of Algiers , the war was savage and brutal. It also manages to capture the spirit of the struggle, the opposing viewpoints,an element of reasonableness amongst key players on both sides involved in the conflict and a collective human drama that unfolds as naturally as it is disturbing.

Released in 1965, only 3 years after freedom was declared for Algeria, this movie does a splendid job of recreating the atmosphere of discontent, violence and a growing sense of nationalism. An Italian production featuring one of the members of the FLN (National Liberation Front) playing a similar role, the film was banned in France for portraying the French policy and tactics in a less than noble way. This fact should not surprise anyone after watching the film. Remarkably even-handed as it is, it does not flinch one bit from chronicling the atrocities committed by both sides.

Shot in black-and-white in a way resembling a documentary, Battle of Algiers is a hyper-realistic, stark and unforgettable experience. The images of the ramshackle buildings,the narrow alleys, the rampant poverty and the street urchins that populate the screen are stunningly real. So is the determination on the faces of women as they plant deadly bombs in areas not far from small children.

The opening scene sets the tone for what it to come. An intensely frail, emaciated man with sunken cheekbones, is sitting on a chair baring his scarred chest in a room, as a few uniformed men surrounding him express regret that he had not "talked" earlier. He is helped to his feet, after the commanding officer enters the room, and as he struggles to maintain his ground, he is asked to put on the military uniform so that he is not easily identified. As he is about to be taken with the troops, he makes one last desperate but utterly hopeless effort to run away screaming "Nooooooo" but it takes only a few beatings and some threatening words to convince him to co-operate- in informing the French about the hideout of Ali-La-Ponte one of the leaders of FLN.
The FLN, as Lt. Colonel Matthieu explains to his soldiers, is like a tapeworm. Unless you destroy the head, it is always going to be regenerating its body and creating further problems. Col. Mathieu is given charge of combating the rising insurgency in Algeria and maintaining the French rule in the country. He understands that FLN is the greatest threat to French control, and wants his men to get rid of the organization altogether. He describes the protocol observed by outlaws when recruiting new members, and the complications that it entails for the French forces. While not explicitly stating it, he does indicate what is required of an "interrogation" to extract information from prisoners. The torture scenes are painful to watch but no one would question its honest inclusion in the film. Yes, the hideous establishments of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib come to mind just as so many events in this war uncannily resonates with contemporary political scenarios. It raises questions about the justification of terrorism by the weaker side. Is killing of innocent civilians acceptable if that happens to be the only mode of effective attack available for people fighting against oppression? However one has to be careful about interpreting Battle Of Algiers too- it was war to end colonial rule and as such drawing close parallels to other conflict zones may be improper.


Battle Of Algiers does not follow all the events in the war and focuses on the uprising in Algiers. While it depicts the violent activities of the FLN and French attempt to implement counter-insurgency methods to thwart them, there are some lead characters through whom some of the story is developed to provide a personal element to the narration. Many of these are either real individuals taking part in the struggle or are based on other real characters. Ali-La-Ponte is one of them, a disgruntled, illiterate , juvenile offender, he develops a violent dislike for French authority in Algeria and joins the ranks of FLN. Young and impulsive, he does not hesitate in slaying cops or Algerians he considers as traitors. His fiery personality takes takes him higher-up in the organization and he leads the way in staging public protests and carrying out lethal attacks.
The head of the FLN is El-Hadi Jafar, a character that is based on Saadi Yacef and played by himself. Jafar appears more controlled and thoughtful but he is just as radical not only in retaliation and destabilizing the French control, but also in his intolerance for his people who are victims of common weaknesses -alcohol, drugs, prostitution. While we sympathize with the Algerians for their battle against an external presence we cannot ignore the draconian impositions they enforce on society.

Ali-La-Ponte and others initially assault cops and others directly involved in nation's administration and law-enforcement, but after a bomb attack by an extremist French reporter that leaves several people dead, including children (I cannot over-emphasize how some of those images are disturbingly real), they increasingly target civilian French population.
The FLN runs a nationalistic propaganda to convince more people to enter the organization and support their goals. Their efforts to create discontent amongst Algerians is as important as their involvement in destabilizing French control through attacks. Another brilliant stroke of Battle Of Algiers is portrayal of the striking contrast between the poor living conditions of the Algerians, their slovenly attire and the swanky coffee-houses and bars frequented by the French. There is area in the city referred to as "European Quarters" where native Muslims are not permitted to move freely and I assume this was a common fixture in all European colonies. And yet that place is infiltrated by dangerous Muslim women - an entry facilitated by their change in attire more resembling the French . These women had resolved to carry out horrifying attacks and follow through they do with definite anxiety but little or no guilt (if only Hollywood was bold or honest enough to show simple truths like this, we would not be so shocked).

When random attacks increase and create considerable problem for the authorities, the French decide to bring in a military battalion to suppress the revolt. Leading the way is Mathieu, another character based on several French officers,- a suave, charismatic leader who draws enormous admiration and respect for his sense of balance and understanding, even though he does not countenance Algerian uprising and authorizes torture to capture the leaders of FLN. His charm, wit ,elegance and control can never be missed even when as he tackles tough questions from left-wing French media. Far removed from a monster caricature, he is simply a faithful soldier who does what is necessary to impose rule of law and protect French citizens. That does not stop him from publicly expressing admiration for some of the captured extremists, their courage and their principles. Some of his remarks, along with those of Ben M'hidi (the ideological voice of FLN) represent the simple but extremely profound truths about the nature of the confrontation and its ultimate objectives. These truths are simply laid out bare in the film, without any pontification or melodrama. Musical score is rare, but it is used to great effect in some of the dramatic moments like troops storming buildings or while depicting large-scale protests.

In the end, the military cracks down on most of FLN operatives but a few, including its leaders, are still at bay. One by one, they are brought down but not before the face-off results in maximum carnage. On their part, the French rank-and-file display racial and cultural arrogance in their sheer contempt for Algerian natives, often denigrating them as "Dirty Arabs". The Algerian fighters, on the other hand, are so disenchanted with the French that they relentlessly inflict as much damage as possible without any sign of remorse. The FLN is finally destroyed, when the remaining leader Ali-La-Ponte along three others hiding behind a wall are blown to bits after they refuse to surrender for a fair trial.


The FLN in Algiers may have been successfully suppressed and things seemed to be under control for a while but disquietude was most certainly going to grow one way or the other. In the last ten minutes or so, we are taken through a quick roundup of what happened in the following years. The limited random insurgency eventually gives way to massive widespread demonstrations, a collective desire for freedom and a national awakening to the possibility of complete independence. With only a small force battling against a large population, the situation becomes untenable for the French and they eventually concede.

(Algeria gained its independence in 1962 after a plebiscite organized by DeGaulle resulted in an overwhelming support for independence)

Elections

It is simply astonishing how long the US Presidential elections run. Campaigning for the major candidates in this year's election are said to have begun more than 20 months ago. They gathered momentum towards the end of last year and received copious coverage on the national and international media. The primaries and the Caucuses kicked off sometime in February after a series of long, aggressive rallies in different states and some very decisive debates that were widely publicized. The nomination process dragged along painfully from state to state for well over 3 months. It went all the way down the wire even after a flurry of results are declared following Super Tuesday for the Democatic nomination amidst great drama and excitement. Each of these primaries made headlines on every media outlet in the country, and there are thousands of them if you include the radio stations and local broadcasters. It is not just the final outcome that is reported, but the events leading up to the vote, the impassioned speeches, the sentiments of people, opinion polls, pre and post analysis , statistics and a slew of other things aimed at expanding the viewership. Remember this is nearly one full year before the incumbent bigot would leave the White House.

In this intervening period, Russia, Italy, Pakistan,Canada and Austria have all gone to the polls and elected their leaders. Those countries are from the top of my head and I bet there are dozens more that went ahead without creating more than a ripple in the international media . I also bet that the majority of people, including myself, who were aware of US primaries knew little or nothing at all regarding the results of the general elections in any of these countries. What can possibly explain this drastic difference in awareness? Media is the culprit surely. It seems that the more apropos question would be to ask why ? Why is there such a staggering excess of focus on electing someone to the Oval Office when others are almost ignored. Is it because journalists believe in the overwhelming importance of the elections? It is beyond question that the Chief Executive of United States has unparalleled power and privilege, but the sheer volume of campaign news makes most of it utterly devoid of new content. Or is it because the American media is the largest and also the most advanced? Could all this simply be the direct consequence of news reporting being a for-profit enterprise that just turns the race into a thrill ride for those following it closely, not unlike football games. Perhaps, but it certainly cannot explain why these elections are followed in other countries and by foreign networks. I can clearly recall watching a news report on BBC in 2006 about a small rally held by Hillary Clinton. Yes, that was 2006, less than 2 years after Bush was sworn in again. Remember how well Barack Obama was received when he traveled to Europe and gave a speech in Berlin? Most in Europe, both governments and people alike, seem quite definite in their choice of Obama for President. In India, The Hindu which usually does not concern itself with foreign affairs and internal politics has been carrying articles on the various candidates right from the start of the campaign. The only conceivable reason for this disproportionate interest is do with the unfortunate reality that what is important is decided by the extent of coverage given to it by the major media networks. While undeniably high quality and content is often rigorously maintained in newspapers like New York Times, it appears that there is always the pressure to feed reader's obsession with information surrounding events such as elections. Take a look at Washington Post or Slate during the last few weeks and you will find countless opinions on the campaign. And these are some of the best news sources in the world. It strikes me as an utter waste of journalistic talent especially when that talent can be put to use in dozens of other crucial issues around the world that desperately cry out for some media attention. Such issues exist in this nation itself and there are several more in other parts of the world, particularly in areas of constant conflict and instability.
To be fair, for many of these media organizations, the ultimate source of money comes from circulation/viewership and being completely oblivious of their audiences' expectations cannot make their business very successful. They are forced to maintain a balance between high standard and satisfying their patrons. I could have made a good case defending this unproductive excesses were it not for the extraordinary amount of space devoted to Sarah Palin. It did not take me more than a few hours following the announcement of her candidacy to conclude that she was the most incompetent ignoramus to be on the verge of sitting in the White House. Lampooning her is inevitable and it is hard to resist the temptation. But despite all that, it is quite unfortunate that such a huge chunk of all articles and opinions in major newspapers have been devoted to flaying her tirelessly. Even the financial crisis did not receive as much attention. I suspect it is because it is so much easier to bash Palin than even reckless corporate executives.
As I write, there is a very serious crisis in Congo where the lives of thousands of people are under imminent threat. Most people in the developed world have little awareness of it since it is unlikely to make the headlines anywhere. And even if it did, not for too long. There is plenty of more exciting things to be covered.

Finally, I cannot help but imagine the magnitude of travesty, if after 20 months of campaigning, worldwide following, several panels of experts , hundreds of statistics , thousands of smart, capable journalists and millions of dollars spent, John McCain becomes President and Sarah Palin a breath away from the Office.