HOW COULD I CLAIM THAT MY BOOK FIRST LADY PRESIDENT IMPACTED THE MIND OF OBAMA concerning the issues of opposition to the war and and "change" --and not anything read earlier or any "related" thought conceived on his own?
During the 2008 campaign, I sent a copy of the book First Lady President to Hillary Clinton as well as to Obama. But, I am not sure whether Hillary read the book at all. I conjecture that she may not have even been notified of its receipt due to the very first chapter, which plays out a bedroom scene of the lady president-elect in graphic details which could be embarrassing for a dignified woman such as Hillary Clinton. Quite possibly, If she received it, she did not go beyond the first chapter, as she must have felt insulted by it although it was plainly "fiction" despite the resemblance of the chief character to her and it was not meant to insult anybody, much less her. A free writer from a free country wrote his story with all the freedom in the world .He did not care who thought what about it. Hillary could appreciate it from this perspective, but it was difficult for her to do so.
But Obama's case was different. He is, after all, a man, Cast in fictional form along with the chief character who was so similar to the woman who was to be the greatest stumbling block in his way to the presidency. Therefore, I am quite confident that he himself read it, and enjoyed it. He would have had enough time in those days, as I sent it to him on 25th April 2007, a full 20 months or so prior to the election, with the primaries yet 8 months away. As an author and a counsellor, he knew the power of the written word; and with the possibility of finding some useful ones for him, he must have gone through it. Or perhaps he read it purely out of curiosity for what an "Asian" man might have written inside it about the American presidential election .He had lived in Asia, and had many Asian friends as well. It would have been irresistible for him to go through it after having carefully examined the coverpage and the backpage.
However, I do agree with anybody who contends that it is only President Obama, at the end of the day, who could confirm or deny whether he read the book. Others are just guessing -- including myself, the author. And this is my objective: to get a reply from the mouth of Obama as to whether he read the book. This is possible only if someone asks him. Quite possibly, on being asked, he might well confirm to have gone through it -- he being a true follower of Mahatma Gandhi as he claims or as many others perceive him to be since he hangs a portrait of Gandhi in the oval office. However, one thing is certain: he would never say that he became president only because of my book, as he will cite his own contributing factors without which he could not really clinch it. He naturally has his own perception, regardless of mine. But my claim is also not a mere hypothesis. It is based upon circumstantial facts: I sent a copy to him; he does have a curious and fertile mind; he did have the time to read if it pricked his interest, which sure it must have done; he had the time in terms of months and not days before the primaries began; it was a most relevant book, which was very clear from the very coverpage and back page. He could not throw it in the waste paper basket under any circumstance. He simply could not afford to do so. I feel so confident about it.
Now anyone might argue that "change" was the demand of millions of Americans. So how could my book be different from others in influencing Obama? Or, let us say, could he not himself have conceived these thoughts? How come this book made a difference?
One hears/reads all kinds of arguments in the media; but it makes a difference if someone personally hears something in a live meeting or if some one reads it in the form of a book. It makes a lasting and an "additional" impact upon the mind -- especially if they are given in the form of a "strategy" in a book. A book advises a man just as a living human being does, if the recipient of the advice is sensitive enough to grasp it. It is one thing to read casually in the form of a news, etc., but quite another in the form of a political strategy in a presidential election story to be used against one's opponent. In such a form, it can provide ideas to use it for furthering one's own cause, and also infuses resolution to do so.
For example, in the speeches leading up to the Iowa caucuses, Obama clearly adopted the strategy of proving himself "antiwar" and Hillary "pro-war," precisely as presented in the book. He did not touch other points in as emphatic a way as he did this point time and time again. He did so by quoting her vote in favor of the Iraq war and himself having spoken against it. He knew, having read the book, that this would work to his strategic advantage, and that the war issue would prove to be the key to the outcome of the election, as it was covered in all the major chapters of the book, and that it could tilt the balance as given in the book. In the book, it influenced the female presidential candidate so much that she had to decide ”there and then” in favor of African American man Charak Sudama to pick him up as her running mate, and to adopt the speech as part of her future strategy by basing her future speeches on it. In the book, it also impacted the audience present there and the media so much that they named it the “Sudama Doctrine.” So Obama thought: why not use the same strategy for himself in order to defeat Hillary and himself become the presidential nominee instead of depending on her mercy for being picked up as her running mate? And he was quite right to do so.
One might argue that he could just as easily have conceived this strategy from his own brain as well. Yes, he could have, but he did not. He did not have to. It was offered to him on a plate in ready-made form in the book, which inspired him. He did it by telling half the truth and concealing the remaining half. If he had told the full truth he would have been in trouble, and would be beaten by the smart Hillary. She had also spoken as much against the war outside the Senate as did Obama ,which he conveniently chose not to mention. At the time, Obama was not a member of the US Senate; so how could he vote one way or the other? He did voice his opposition to the war in a public speech (and maybe in the state assembly) like millions of other Americans did. He did not mention that he could not vote either way in the US senate, even if he wished to. Instead, he cited Hillary's vote in the Senate and his own opposing speech. But Hillary had made it very clear in the resolution speech that she was casting a vote in favor of the resolution to clinch unfettered access for UN inspectors, and not for war except as a last option. While discussing Hillary's vote, Obama did not give this clarification as it so finely suited to him; he simply talked about her vote in the Senate. Hillary's vote was meant to be a serious warning to Saddam that the US meant business. She was not pro-war at all. On the contrary, she was as anti-war, just as Obama was. But Obama proved the opposite just by mentioning her vote in the Senate. Unless they had this common benchmark, they could not be compared at all. He could compare her vote only if he was a member of the US Senate, had taken part in the proceedings, and had voted against the resolution, unlike her. Then and only then would there be an equitable comparison. As it were, he was comparing a high jump with a long jump simply because both were measured in feet. In this manner, he intellectually fooled the Iowa caucuses and the American people. If anyone had succeeded in drawing Hillary's attention to this (as I tried to do by going to Hillary's office in person, although at a late hour—just see “details” link on the website :ww.firstladypresident.in ), I have no doubt at all that she, talented orator as she is, would have burst Obama's bubble by making good fun of it in her campaign speeches, turning his own gun on himself, and today Hillary would be the president instead of Obama. But it was not to be.
Let me make this clear: I did not prompt Obama to stand for president. I did not provide him either the education, the God-given oratorical skills, or the other talents that he has. I did not give him one dime of money for his campaign. I did not provide him the capability to take the initiative or respond to arguments. Those are all his own God-given assets. But all these assets would be insufficient to make him the president. He could have risen to be 'Vice-President by it all in 2008, but not the president.
To become President, it was essential for him to defeat Hillary Clinton, who was far ahead of him in the opinion polls. I simply provided him the tools to defeat Hillary Clinton, although quite unknowingly. That is all I did: just two points-through my book, which were crucial enough, and which proved to turn the scales in his favor. Both of these points were there in the book -- TOGETHER. In one of the most crucial chapters (the nomination) which any willing mind turning the pages of the book would go through, and which anyone -- especially a presidential hopeful going through a book about a presidential election -- would certainly care to read. And read it he did -- just like any other reader would do. It made an impact upon his mind. Consciously or unconsciously, he filed these two points in his mind and used them at his will in his own way using his skills as a good orator. It did not need an army or missiles or fighter bombers to note the points in his mind .All he needed were his counsellor talents and an alert mind, which fortunately he possesses. I just armed him, although unknowingly, with these two points which were to prove very decisive and quite crucial for defeating Hillary. In other words, I unknowingly supplied the U-boat of Obama with two torpedoes, which he so effectively used to hit the majestically cruising aircraft carrier warship of Hillary Clinton on the high seas destined for the White House to take it to the rock-bottom of the ocean, then floated his own boat and eventually burst into the Oval office beating the remaining lot of hopefuls of both parties. This is what I did.
Now you might once again argue: how could I say that he drew inspiration from my book? It could have occured to him on his own.
Let me explain it with an example: Everyone knows that Obama was raised and educated by his grandparents. Obama also admits it, and is so grateful to them for it. But suppose he were to rebel and claim that he was not. That he could have been raised any way-- on his own, without the aid of his grandparents, but through the help of some government agency or charity or the like. This could also have been true. Yet the fact remains that he was raised by his grandparents.
Precisely the same way he, or for that matter anyone, can say he could have conceived these arguments on his own as well. Yes, he could have .But he did not. He did not have to. They were given to him in ready-made form by the book. It made a lasting impact upon his mind.Otherwise, we should have to say no book ever makes any impact upon anyone's mind. Everyone can think out any idea in the world from his own brain and use it anywhere as it suits him. But books have made a difference in the past, and the book made a difference in this case too. We cannot say that a book could make difference in any other case, but not in Obama’s. That would be a foolhardy argument.
Someone wrote to me: "Did you tell Obama to increase drone bombings in Pakistan and move the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan?"
Yes, I did. If Obama had the brains to read it,which he most certainly had. I did not do it by mentioning it in precisely these very words, but I certainly meant it. I meant to suggest increasing the drone bombings or increasing the force level of American troops (by drawing from anywhere, including from Iraq) to meet the challenge of the terrorists. I made it very clear through long, drawn-out elaboration that Pakistan's war against the terrorists was "phony" and not a real one .More than anything, it was largely meant to draw American resources and funds for the fund-starved Pakistan military .In reality, Pakistan's government, ISI, and military all were hand-in-glove with the terrorists. There was only one way out without sending the American forces into Pakistan: strike them with drones. Otherwise, it would be necessary to send American forces to fight the terrorists into Pakistan, as in fact during the campaign Obama had once promised or threatened .This was very clear in the chapter "General Hergej Khurapati."
The above-mentioned connections that I made are now well-established and even admitted by both US authorities and media --,but not back in 2007, when the book was dispatched to Obama. He certainly learnt it through the book. At that time, the American administration and the media were still beating the drum of "the USA and Pakistan are natural allies fighting a common enemy: the terrorists and Al Qaida."
Someone else wrote to me:
"The fact I'm not gung-ho to jump on you're the reason Obama won the election theory [sic.], if that is in fact your claim, which I'm not 100% sure that is what you are saying, but my less than gung-ho attitude may be a good omen for whatever you want to happen."
I am not asking anyone to be a gung-ho or Don-Quixote. I am saying a simple thing:my book was read by Obama and it's points were included in his strategy, which made a crucial difference in his campaign to win the presidency. Specifically, against Hillary Clinton. My book had an impact upon his psyche in working out the correct strategy. It did make a difference; it made a lasting difference, irrespective of whether he admits it or not. It is not foolhardiness out of which I am making this claim. Please see all the arguments in the 25 points of "Evidence" as given on the following link: evidence.htm.
You can understand it in this way: we are all children of God, who sends us to the world. That includes Obama too. But I claim that Obama was created by his Kenyan father and American mother, whatever their names were. Now any one can say that if God wanted, he could have sent Obama to the earth anyway, through any parents. After all, he is Almighty, and the Almighty can do anything. But common sense says that Obama was brought here by his parents: the Kenyan father and the American mother. And that appears nearer to the truth, despite the element of the Almighty involved in it. Precisely the same way, Obama could have thought of these critical points (anti-war and change) himself; he could have gotten them from any XYZ, but the evidence and common sense suggests that he got it as a matter of ‘"strategy" from the book he read, sent to him by me.
I can explain it with a better-still example:
We all know that Newton discovered the law of gravitation, and he did it on a given day by observing a falling apple from a tree. Now you can say that it was NOT Newton who discovered the law, as trillions of other human beings (and maybe even other animals) on the earth had also observed objects falling on the earth even before Newton. Everyone had seen this phenomenon. But the fact remains it was Newton who discovered it and nobody else. And he discovered it on a specific date. Not that he did not observe the objects falling on the earth earlier. For surely he had seen apples falling to the earth prior to that fateful day. But the idea that it was due to the gravitational force of the earth occurred to him on a given specific date. All his earlier observations did not count, did not matter. What he observed on that given specific date counted the most -- it mattered. That one single specific apple, while falling from the tree, made all the difference. Therefore, the credit goes to that specific apple only.
Precisely the same way, anyone could have thought of writing First Lady President. Everybody might have thought that someday a lady, or even an African American man, could rise within any party in the USA. But none of them wrote it in the form of a book: it was only "Inder Dan Ratnu" who did it. Any one of them who might have written the book could have sent it to Obama. But none did. It was done only by Inder Dan Ratnu. That too, just preceeding the start of his primary campaign. Precisely the same way the idea of using the war point could have been given to Obama by anyone, just as it could have occured to himself. Yet the fact remains that it was given to him by the bookFirst Lady President .Do you get my point?
I can give yet another example to prove my point concerning recent events in the Middle East. The people of Tunisia and Egypt overthrew long-entrenched dictatorial regimes; and now a struggle is going on to throw out Muamaar Gaddafi of Libya .Suppose the Libyan people succeed in their effort to eventually topple his Govermnent and remove him from power, which in all probability they will. Then I might claim that the end of the Libyan dictatorship came about because of the people of Tunisia and Egypt. But there might be many who would dispute it by saying that in fact it was brought about by the Libyan people themselves. They were fed up with this regime, its corrupt practices, and its dictatorial behavior in suppression of freedom of the common people. They had their own aspirations of freedom. They were long seething under his oppressive regime. So they brought about the downfall of the government and not the people of Tunisia and Egypt. They had nothing to do with it. However, those disputing my claim would not be right in doing so. They are conveniently forgetting that this regime, corrupt as it was with all its nefarious practices, has been there for over four decades. People might have felt disgruntled, disillusioned, and dissatisfied all along. There might have been smaller incidents of rebellion against the regime too at times. But the real spark of the revolution that brought about the change was the events of Tunisia and Egypt, which inspired the people of Libya to rise against the dictator in a decisive way. One might argue that the Libyans drew their inspiration from Che Guevara, or Mao, or Fidel Castro, or the American revolution, or events in Soviet Union or in other East European countries which resulted into the overthrow of the long entrenched communist dictators, or any other of the long history of revolutions in the world -- from any one of them or from all of them. And this could have been partly true. But I can yet claim that the real factor, the real inspiration which brought about the change in Libya, was the recent events in Tunisia and Egypt, for which credit goes directly to the peoples of these two countries who instinctively rose against their rotten dictatorial regimes. This does not mean that the Libyan people could not rise on their own or that there is no contribution from them at all. They did their part. They could have done anything and everything to get rid of the dictator, but it was insufficient to make their resolve powerful enough. They could not really do it in the past. Their own resolve had been insufficient to overthrow the autocracy. But the real decisive thing that did the trick was the people’s revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. It was the immediate, real, and decisive cause that brought about regime change in Libya.
In precisely the same way, I could say that Obama could have drawn the inspiration of his "anti –war" argument and "change" points from anywhere, or could have conceived them on his own; but he got its real and immediate inspiration from my book. That allowed him to defeat Hillary; and that eventually made him the president of the United States .
I can explain it in a still better way through the example of Obama himself. Millions of people had spoken out against the Iraq war. It was not Obama alone. You might have spoken against it, as millions of americans did. Even millions of "foreigners" had spoken out against the war. But what made an impact upon the mind of the Iowa caucuses (and the American people in general) was Obama's opposing speech, since attention was drawn to it by him through the campaign speeches. It was the campaign speeches that made the impact.So why not argue the following: Obama had spoken back in 2002. Everyone knew it. So what was new that Obama was saying at the end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008? Nothing. How could this impact the mind of the caucuses in January 2008? But it did impact them. It impacted them because Obama drew attention toward it through his campaign speeches in 2007 or 2008. You might argue that it was the earlier newspaper reports or his speech back in 2002 that impacted the Iowa caucuses. But I will contend that none of them did the trick. It was his speeches during the primary campaign, drawing attention towards the earlier speech, that did the trick. Precisely the same way, the book did the trick and it made the difference. I cannot give any better example.
On the contrary, I claim that my drawing the attention of the American people NOW, at the beginning of April 2011 and onwards, toward Obama's use of my book back in 2008 is likely to impact the American electorate in 2012 -- this time, I'm sorry to write, ADVERSELY for Mr Obama. Nevertheless, it is now time to put the question to the readers, and for them to decide who is right.
Here is one more way I can explain this puzzling quiz. When the athlete Obama announced he was starting his journey from his home in Chicago to gatecrash into the White House, I read it with interest, and sent to him a parcel with something inside it. He started walking, he took a taxi, he took a flight, then another taxi, and finally, a few hundred yards from the White House, he began to run on foot to beat his competitors there. While he started his journey he, while walking, opened the parcel sent by me and discovered there were two little rodlike objects of steel wrapped inside a cloth bag. He opened the bag and found that they were two keys. He pocketed them and continued his journey. Upon reaching the periphery of the house, he discovered that it was surrounded by a 15-foot-high compound wall. After having scouted all around, he located what could be its main gate. But he found that not only was the gate bolted from outside, but it was locked with a heavy, solid-steel lock. He knew he could not scale the wall. He examined the lock carefully, and suddenly recalled the two keys in his pocket. He applied his mind to, depending upon the size and make of the lock, which of those two keys could fit in. It was purely through his own talents that he chose one of the keys to apply. He applied that one key --“anti-war” -- which he guessed would fit well, and the lock just came off the hook. He opened the gate with his hands and walked the remaining distance to the main building of the house on his feet. Again, he found it bolted and locked from outside, the existing occupant lurking in the “bush” around, just waiting and watching him with a great curiosity and interest. This again was a lock of different size and make. He already had a key – the remaining one from the duo. He applied it, turned it, and the lock came off as easily as the earlier one and the lurking man – the previous occupant - came running towards him clapping and cheering him to the gate. He (the occupant ) hugged Obama, greeted him warmly to the house, and with a gesture of his hand asked him to occupy the house and sit in the Oval Office chair.
This is what has happened. And I am claiming that if it were not for me to send the parcel, Obama simply could not enter the White House. He could so easily enter into it because of my two keys in that parcel I sent.This is what I am claiming.
But my critics are just calling me a cheat , a hypocrite, a thug and a crook bent to undertake publicity for myself and for my keys. They allege that I am unduly trying to take the credit of Obama’s entry into the White House. They are bent upon turning their deaf ear to my cries and pleas. I say I did not prompt Obama to start from Chicago. I did not give him either the idea or the courage to start the journey. Nor did I provide him with the legs on his body to do so. It was all done by God or Obama himself. I did not pay him the taxi charges and the air ticket either. He bore it all from his own pocket. It was all his own. I gave him only the 'keys' to open the gate. Even the “turning the keys” part was done by himself. All other things related with this whole operation were done by himself. I only gave him the keys. But this gesture was “key” to his entry into the house, without which he simply could not have done it. Now this simple thing others are unable to understand.
The cynics say that it is an absurd claim, that Obama would have entered the White House any way. He would bring a staircase to get over the wall and break open the lock of the main building with the help of a rod or a hammer; after all, he had made all the journey to this point from his house back in Chicago. He would have gatecrashed a vehicle or something into the compound and the building itself. He would have done anything, but using the keys provided by poor ME. They go so far as to say Obama could himself make such keys acting as a blacksmith since he knew the technique to make it or he could have got it made through somebody; but why should he have used the keys gifted by me?He should not ,according to these thinkers . Now it is for you to guess which was the most naturally way or the easiest way to enter into the house for Obama.
I cannot give a better example to prove my point .