Shreekant Sambrani: Obama's glory

Obama didn't disown his pastor, but placed his remarks in a historical context and, by calling them both inappropriate and divisive, clearly distanced himself from them.

What a pity that the Indian media, print as well as electronic, is not likely to cover Senator Obama's illuminating address of March 18 except in passing, caught up as it is in the unedifying happenings of Indian polity. It was truly the defining moment of the current American presidential campaign, already the most interesting one in decades. The New York Times editorially hailed it as "Obama's profile in courage," which was no exercise in hyperbole. It exemplified how one single political leader could raise the level of debate several notches even as a beleaguered candidate is normally expected to engage in street-fighting.

Despite his phenomenal success in primaries in state after state, doubts about the Senator's lack of experience and his rather vague positions on issues close to the American electorate such as healthcare, education and immigration have persisted. Lately, intemperate remarks by those close to him "" a campaign manager had to quit after she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an off-the-record conversation "" and other supporters have put him under tremendous pressure. The incendiary rhetoric of his pastor, the Rev Jeremiah (talk of names fitting actions!) Wright was clearly the most damaging of these. The priest who heads the trinity Church (to which Oprah Winfrey also belonged for a while) had made a number of vituperative remarks, including saying that the US had brought 9/11 upon itself (many videos featuring him have been freely downloaded from YouTube recently). The candidate's response was a 40-minute speech delivered in Philadelphia, a stone's throw from the place of the signing of the Proclamation of Independence, a most appropriate location in view of what he had to say.

Senator Obama gave a capsule version of the history of American independence, not glossing over the slave-ownership heritage and the long, arduous struggle for equal rights, extending well into the present. He also talked of his own background, with his black Kenyan father, white grandmother in Hawaii, African-American wife who had both slave-owners and slaves as ancestors, and his half-brother and sisters and their children spread across three continents and many countries. The purpose was clearly to address the issue of race in this election, always present, but never discussed upfront.

He placed Rev Wright's remarks about racism in the United States against this background and called them not just inappropriate but divisive and clearly distanced himself from them. Yet he did not disown his pastor, because he could no more do so than disown his white grandmother, who, even as she lavished her resources and affection on him, was scared of black men walking about. He attributed these respective mindsets to their history. He talked of Wright's generation having gone through a long struggle to gain their rightful place in society more than 100 years after the Civil War which had guaranteed it to them.

Obama's analysis of the racial history of his country was not only lucid but dispassionate as well. And he followed it up by linking it to the present world which ought to have no place for such divisions. He cited his own campaign as an example; he had attracted tremendous response from white, black, Hispanic and Asian Americans and won big in the whitest of states. Yet he neither glossed over the past, nor romanticised it. He did not denounce Rev Wright, which would have earned him immediate brownie points from the more conservative white electorate. His show of compassion and understanding may cost him politically, but showed exceptional courage and leadership qualities.

The immediate political consequences of the speech are as yet not quite clear. There was hardly any audience reaction to the first, and the more important, half of the address, which contained Obama's reflections on this issue at the very core of the American society. Indeed, major applause was forthcoming for only two points, the first when he spoke of good jobs for all, which was to be expected in Pennsylvania, and the second when he alluded to the unpopular, wasteful and unsanctioned war in Iraq, which could be expected anywhere in the United States. He mentioned key issues such as education, healthcare and governance in a perfunctory manner and the audience responded likewise, suggesting that there were still lingering questions. The jury is thus still out on the fallout of this watershed speech.

The fact that this oration did not have the incredible emotional appeal of some other modern-day addresses, notably Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" and John Kennedy's "Ask not what America can do for you" and "Ich bin ein Berliner" should not affect our admiration of it. This was a speech of a candidate under attack, not someone basking in the glory of a moral high ground or electoral victory. Yet it was calm, relevant, soothing and elevating in its overall tenor.

I have not been a fan of Senator Obama so far. I am still not sure whether he would be the right president for the troubled nation. Yet I sat and listened to the whole speech because it commanded attention. I have recorded my revulsion of the rhetoric used by all sides in our elections, especially in Gujarat recently. It is not at all difficult to imagine that Obama could have used the equivalent of the "maut ke saudagar" line of attack, especially since the Clinton machine is not known for its clean approach. He made no references to the Clintons, by name or allusion, unlike our leaders, who lose no opportunity to mention their opponents in a most disrespectful fashion, including casting aspersions on their pedigree.

We may be largest democracy, but we have much to learn about civilised politics from the second largest and the oldest practicing democracy in the world.