How the British Colonized India

I have started a new page on my website to discuss how the British colonized India and the relevance of that part of Indian history to today’s America.  I shall keep you informed as I add new material.

Will America break up?

Today, after a divisive campaign (to say the least) is election day  when Americans will elect their next president.  The bi-partisan distrust of the two major political parties, namely, the Democrats and Republicans, the power brokers of this nation, raises the question: How long can such a divided and acrimonious United States of America last as one country?  Indian history offers a not so optimistic answer.


Religion-Based Division of A Country (1947)
Red and Blue States of America (2016)






To explain, I shall show two maps – a geographical map of British India  at the time of partition (top, left) and the  political (“Red and Blue States”) map of America (top, right).  What is important is that you see the distribution of the two colors – yellow and green on the map to the left, and red and blue on the map to the right.

Serious religious differences resulted in the breakup of British India into two countries – predominantly Hindu India (shaded yellow)  with predominantly Muslim Pakistan (shaded green) on either side of India (East and West Pakistan). East Pakistan became the new country of  Bangladesh in 1971.

So, coming back to the political discord in America, blue states (mostly on the two coasts), have more than the necessary 270 electoral votes to elect a president – no red states (the middle part) needed.  A rather  discomforting thought!

Laurel, Hardy and Elections

After she has been (finally?) cleared of those “damn emails”* by the FBI,  a likely refrain from hopeful HRC, if she should win tomorrow, might be “It’s another fine mess I have gotten into“, made famous by Laurel and Hardy.  Enjoy their election-stress reducing  shenanigan titled “Chickens Come Home”.

  • Bernie might be thinking he gave up too soon

NY Times: Trump’s Patriotism?

The main point of this message is that every American must exercise great caution when s/he casts aspersions on another American’s patriotism. Therefore, it is quite disappointing to read a rather reckless opinion on the GOP presidential nominee’s love of country in one of its leading newspapers, of which I am regular reader.

I am NOT a Trump supporter, primarily because of his and his party’s policy positions and statements on important issues (to me, anyway) such as health care (replace “Obamacare” with what?), economics (based on the failed trickle down theory), environment (that global warming is a myth) and immigration (a religious test for entry into this country appears unconstitutional).  As for my personal thoughts,  Mr. Trump’s actions and words are, or appear to be, unethical, narcissistic, bigoted, misogynistic, clueless of solutions to serious issues that currently plague  this nation, quite crude in language and style, . . .

But, is Trump unpatriotic?  In the absence of concrete “unpatriotic” deeds by Mr. Trump, and given that I have no access to inner thoughts of people, I am obliged to at least give Mr. Trump (and, for that matter, Mr. Bruni) the benefit of the doubt.  To rebut just one of his reason’s for doubting Mr. Trump’s love of country, i.e., the unpatriotic act of  draft-dodging, it is important to note that two of our recent past presidents conveniently managed to avoid going to Vietnam.

When did, given our country’s history, being bigoted or controversial raise doubts of one’s patriotism?  In conclusion,  “Is casting unfounded aspersions on the patriotism of a politically conservative candidate the last refuge of a liberal journalist?”  (adapting lexicographer Samuel Johnson’s statement “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” for the occasion)


So, finally we are back to being . . .

free and brave?

So, what’s next?

The people have opted to trust the GOP.   I hope it works!  Let us hope that the next two years result in  meaningful reforms with respect to tax( e.g.  billionaire hedge fund managers now pay a ridiculous  tax rate of 15%) and immigration (e.g., dream act)  fairness.


To be fair, I do believe that ALL Americans – rich, poor, and those in between – should bear the economic burden of running this country. However, these days, one major focus appears to be on balancing the budget on the back of the middle class, e.g., reducing Medicare benefits. Not so fast. First, let us cut CORPORATE welfare. For now, here are just 2 such cuts:

1. Dividend/investment income should be taxed at the same rate as earned income. For example, people like Mitt Romney now pay at a rate of about 15%. They should be paying a much higher rate.

2. The Government should change the law so that it can negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry. Guess what, those growing drug costs are part of Medicare (Part D).
Write your Senator/Representative.



1. Two candidates who do not wish to present a clear vision for America’s future.
2. A press corps that do not adequately challenge the candidates’ statements, answers and/or political ads.
3. A confused electorate.

Won’t you coddle me too, my darling Congress?

Thanks, Mr Buffet.

Let me first define “We”. It means one or all of the three: the middle class, the electorate that matters, the suckers. Political pundits tell us we vote our pocket books. How long will we have a pocket of our own? Read on…

Stop Coddling the Super Rich”