30 March 2013, 06:47 AM IST
The word maverick is derived from an American cattle rancher named Samuel Maverick who was best known for NOT branding his cattle at a time when marking them for ownership was the done thing. Those wild west days are gone. In recent times, in the days of corporate farming, young calves are branded or tattooed or electronically tagged by the hundreds and thousands so that they can be herded together easily. There are very few mavericks, and the concept of open range or free range is rare in industrial age and industrial scale farming.
The word itself has migrated to other fields, particularly public life, where one hears often of maverick politicians. It simply means he or she is an individualist who doesn't toe the party line. Even this species has become increasingly rare. In democracies such as India and the US, party cadre typically falls in line, sometimes under the expedient excuse of consensus, under an expansive platform . It helps to stay in the fold, especially when one needs the party's image, organisational support , and its bankrolling to get elected. So party panjandrums swear by the party, its ideology and manifesto, and digressions are rare.
In the US, upwards of 90 per cent of lawmakers are returned to Congress with metronomic regularity in election after election, usually after they have sworn by the party line. Indian lawmakers are even more timid. Violating the party line can deny you a ticket. But within the party itself some amount of dissent and digression is permitted , particularly in the US. Sometimes such expression of dissent, bordering on rebellion, may go against perceived national interest.
For instance, in the past decade, there have been lawmakers , including some Republicans , who opposed the Iraq War. Some of them visited Baghdad in the days before George Bush decided to bomb the Iraqi capital. A decade after that mindless war, Lincoln Chaffee, then Republican Senator who joined six other GOP lawmakers in voting against the use of force, is even more vehement in calling it an unnecessary war. He went so far as to oppose George Bush's renomination of John Bolton, a war hawk, as the US ambassador to UN, effectively shafting it. He quit the party much later and went on to run for and win the Governorship of Rhode Island, the first independent to do so in more than 200 years. You could say he is a maverick. Going even further back, there were lawmakers, including Republicans such as John Sherman Cooper and George Aiken who vocally opposed the Johnson administration's Vietnam policies advocated negotiations and de-escalation as early as 1964. It's hard to imagine such open dissent in India against national security policy. Although Sri Lanka is starting to show up some cracks, that is more on account of regional and ethnic politics.
In the light of all this it was interesting to see three American lawmakers, all Republicans , make a beeline to Gujarat to meet with Narendra Modi and invite him to the US, breaking what is seemingly a national consensus. After all, the ban on Modi's travel to the US was instituted by the Bush dispensation, and the Obama administration has only continued the policy. So why would the three (mavericks?) break rank, particularly when Washington and New Delhi have washed their hands of the matter and not encouraged anyone to do so? In this instance, both the Indian embassy in Washington and the US embassy in New Delhi were kept out of the loop. From all accounts, the three US Representatives are not part of any Congressional Delegation (CoDel) visiting under the aegis of FICCI or CII, the usual route for such trips. They reportedly signed up for the trip at the instance of Shalabh Kumar, a millionaire Illinois businessman belonging to the Overseas Friends of BJP, in what is evidently an effort to persuade the administration to lift the ban on Modi. The group will visit ten Indian cities in ten days in a private jet arranged by the Overseas BJP.
The US lawmakers' profile offers an interest insight into what drives their Modi/India foray. All three are relatively young, personable Representatives who have run enterprising small businesses before entering politics. Their constituency reflects small town America in dire need of economic oxygen. Clearly, their outreach reflects the aspiration of their constituents, Washington politics be damned. Illinois Representative Aaron Schlock, the leader of the group, typifies this thinking. He's elected from the Illinois' 18th Congressional district, which includes the city of Peoria, which is the world headquarters of Caterpillar Inc, but also a byword for Middle America or "provincial" in America. The two other Representatives , Cynthia Lummis and Cathy Rodgers, are from districts that have similar small cities, Cheyenne in Wyoming and Spokane in Washington State. These are cities eager to do business.
In the marketing world, they say that if it flies, or sells, in Peoria, it will do so anywhere. In that sense, it is a metaphor for mainstream acceptance. So if a maverick from Peoria comes calling on Modi, it's a fair guess that the US ban on him will soon be ending.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Mavericks to Modi’s rescue
Dengan url
http://osteoporosista.blogspot.com/2013/03/mavericks-to-modias-rescue.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Mavericks to Modi’s rescue
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar