Sky

Wendall -- every other Thursday

The world is in such turmoil at the moment that it seems quite hopeless. So, I am sharing one of the small but powerful things that is keeping me going here in Los Angeles.

The sky.

 

 

Although we live in a stupidly urban area, surrounded by concrete and power lines and overlooking a busy LA freeway, we are lucky enough to have a balcony where, every day, I see something in the sky that is gorgeous and restorative. 

 

 

So I’m sharing some of the photos I’ve taken from our balcony over the past year, in hopes the images might be a balm to all of you as well.

 

 

Take care of yourselves out there and hope to see some of you at Left Coast Crime. You can find me here:

Speed Dating with Matt Coyle Thursday March 13  9-11am

"Been There, Wrote That" panel Thursday March 13 3:45-4:30pm Confluence C

Moderating the "Best Novel" panel Friday March 14 11:00 -11:45am Confluence C 

--Wendall

Corporate Media Keeps Smoothing Over Trump’s Wreckage

Wed--Kwei

 

A Blaze of Euphemisms

If you’ve been following the mainstream media’s coverage of Donald J. Trump, you’ve probably noticed a strange phenomenon. News outlets that should be calling out blatant lies and destructive policies are instead tiptoeing around with language that paints Trump as “muscular,” “bold,” or “unconventional.” That is a full-on sane-washing of an administration whose actions have repeatedly undermined democratic norms.

To understand why mainstream outlets keep sane-washing Trump’s most destructive actions, we need to look at who owns these media empires. The Washington Post, for example, is controlled by Jeff Bezos through Amazon’s vast influence. The New York Times, while still family-run, relies heavily on billionaire investors and hedge funds that thrive under political stability—meaning their editorial stance often leans toward keeping the establishment intact, even if it means sanitizing an authoritarian.

Corporate media exists to protect the status quo the ultra-wealthy have built. It’s no coincidence that newsrooms increasingly adopt centrist, or even right-centrist, toned-down language when discussing Trump’s policies. Billionaire owners have no interest in radical pushback—whether against Trump’s tariff chaos, environmental rollbacks, or outright democratic erosion—because instability, not justice, threatens their bottom line. That’s why we keep seeing “muscular” instead of “destructive” or “bold” instead of “reckless” and “controversial” instead of “dangerous.”

The legacy press is not failing; it’s functioning as designed—keeping billionaire interests safe while the rest of us deal with the fallout.

 

The New York Time’s Sugarcoating of Trump’s Executive Orders

In his NYT piece, Chairlie Savage wrote, "On Monday, as Mr. Trump took the oath of office to begin his second term, he asserted a muscular vision of presidential power." There’s nothing “muscular” about slamming the door on refugees, rolling back environmental protections, or flirting with outright unconstitutional travel bans. "Punitive” or “draconian,” is closer to the mark. “Muscular,” as if Trump is flexing his biceps rather than acting like a wannabe strongman.

Here’s why that matters: words shape perception. When these moves masquerade as displays of strength, the actual impact—people losing crucial protections, fragile international alliances on edge—gets blurred. It shifts public discourse from “Is this policy ethical or lawful?” to “Isn’t the President showing leadership by being so decisive?” One of these questions holds Trump accountable; the other gives him a free pass.

 

Ezra Klein’s Muddled Arguments in “Don’t Believe Him”

In The New York Times, Ezra Klein penned a piece titled “Don’t Believe Him.” Frankly, the title alone deserves a second look. Here’s the thing: we actually should believe Donald Trump precisely because he’s so bizarrely transparent about his intentions—even when those intentions are harmful or self-serving. He floated punitive tariffs against our closest allies, cozied up to tyrannical regimes like Russia, and took pleasure in upending decades of diplomatic norms. If his statements seem fantastical, that’s because they reflect the very real fantasies he has—and the terrifying part is that he’s got enough power to make some of them real unless the courts or Congress manage to block him.

The real problem with Klein’s piece isn’t that he questions Trump’s honesty. How he hides the urgent truth in a cloud of scholarly-sounding language makes everything feel ambiguous. Instead of sounding the alarm, Klein sometimes slips into academic dissection, as though unable to pin down Trump’s ever-shifting claims. But come on, sometimes Trump’s flat-out lying or steamrolling ahead on yet another misguided crusade. It doesn’t need couching in paragraphs of theoretical framing. We should believe what Trump says because it’s usually a preview of what he’ll try to do for better or (most often) for worse.

 

The GOP’s Lockstep Support, Despite Grassroots Resistance

It’s not just the so-called liberal media that keeps giving Trump a pass. The Republican Party itself has lined up right behind him, no matter how off-the-rails his policies get. Sure, we’ve witnessed some spirited town hall protests in deep-red districts—voters voicing concerns about healthcare, government overreach, and reckless foreign policy. Yet most Republican lawmakers seem more terrified of Trump’s Twitter wrath than they are concerned about representing the very people who elected them. They may occasionally mumble disagreement, but in the end, they fall in line, backing Trump’s judicial nominations and rubber-stamping his executive orders with a shrug that abandons any semblance of checks and balances. The GOP used to pretend at least to care about fiscal conservatism or moral values. Now, they’re backing a president who tears down allies and coddles authoritarian regimes. These are not the principles the party claimed to champion for decades, but apparently, fear of Trump’s ire—and fear of losing seats to primaries—has overridden any sense of principle.

 

Why Language Matters More Than Ever

Let’s be clear: We live in a time when democracy can feel precarious. When influential outlets downplay authoritarian behavior as “unconventional” or “muscular,” they do more than tone-police the conversation—they normalize a political style that shreds democratic norms. Suddenly, the fact that a legally embattled man is the sitting president doesn’t feel alarming; it becomes part of the background noise.

We rely on the press to hold leaders accountable. When that press gets timid—choosing gentle or indirect words to critique blatantly oppressive or illegal policies—it fails in its responsibility. Sure, journalists may harbor bias, and that’s the nature of the beast. But “bias” against authoritarian power grabs isn’t a flaw. It’s called doing your job.

 

How to Combat Sane-Washing

So, what do we do about all this sane-washing? First, recognize it for what it is. Pay attention to how reporters and commentators describe Trump’s actions. If the words “unprecedented,” “chaotic,” or “dangerous” mysteriously morph into “assertive” or “muscular,” call that out. Second, stop trying to parse Trump’s statements for hidden meaning. He usually says what he wants—whether it’s feasible, moral, or even sane. Lastly, remember that democracy works best when we stay engaged. If the media doesn’t ring the alarm bells loudly enough, we’ve got to do it ourselves. Write letters, show up at town halls, and support independent media that call things by their real names.

No, Trump’s policies aren’t “muscular.” He’s vindictive, impulsive, and willing to steamroll constitutional boundaries if it benefits him politically or financially. Without the press using clear, forceful language to describe that, catastrophic actions are too easy to pass as mere “experiments” in governance. Words matter, especially when democracy is at stake—and it sure as hell is right now.

We must do it ourselves if the legacy press won’t do the job. Our democracy might depend on our ability to cut through the euphemisms and speak out about the stark reality. Don’t settle for sanitized headlines and hedged takes. Demand honest, unflinching reporting—and spread the word yourself if that’s what it takes.

 

The Shortest War in History

Tomorrow I leave to return to NYC after 2 1/2 months in my other home city.  Getting ready is onerous.  And lots of people here are wondering, given the political situation, why I want to go back.  I know why.  But that's another story.

I also am in a place in my WIP where one of my characters is about to go into a dangerous battle in WWI, and I am worried about what will happen to him.

I am hoping that WW III will  not be breaking out soon and also that my character will not be...  I can't even type it.

The best I can today is go back to this post about another war that I first offered 11 years ago. 

It will take longer to write this post than the duration of the war.  Much longer.

The combatants were the British Empire and the Sultanate of Zanzibar.  Want to guess who won?

We will get to that, but let’s start further back.

Though I knew nothing of Zanzibar’s location on the map or its history, the very sound of its name was synonymous with “romantic and exotic” in my mind when I was a child.  Its story has proved my young imagination correct.  Its position and its protected, defensible harbor made it a base for voyaging traders from time immemorial.   Arabs, Indians, and Africans had used it as such for millennia when the Vasco Da Gama arrived and assumed control of it in 1499.   It took the Ottomans two hundred years and at least two shooting wars to unseat the Portuguese for good in 1698.

Sultan Seyyid

Afterwards, under the control of the Sultanate of Oman, the island became a center of agriculture and an important post for trading ivory and slaves.

During the 19^th century Scramble for Africa, the British set their sights on Zanzibar. Its main potential uses: it would give them a leg up in their competition with the Germans for control of East Africa AND they could claim it as key to abolishing slavery.   The Empire’s progress there came in diplomatic fits and starts until 1856, when the Brits recognized Sultan Seyyid Said, who in return gave their East African ambitions his support, favoring them over their German rivals.

But… and since this is about a war, there must be a “but.”   Said’s heir, the pro-British Hamad bin Thuwaini, died on August 25^th 1896, whereupon Hamad’s nephew Khalid bin Barghash took over in a coup d’etat.

The treaty between Her Majesty’s government and the Sultan Seyyid had given Britain the right to approve of who ruled Zanzibar.

The Brits saw that Khalid threatened their favored position and would play the Germans and the British off against each other.   They were most seriously  displeased.  They much preferred another heir, Hamud bin Muhammed, who would be their man.

The game was afoot.

Khalid had 2800 men with him in the fortified palace and an armed yacht anchored in the harbor.  The rest of the regular Zanzibar Army was elsewhere on the island and under the command of General Lloyd Matthews, formerly a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy.  Needless to say, Khalid was not getting any help from that quarter.

On August 26^th, the Brits moved in with five cruisers.  They also landed a few platoons of Royal Marines.  They delivered an ultimatum to Khalid: Stand down and give up the palace by 9 tomorrow morning or you will be toast.  Khalid ignored the order.  Big mistake.

On August 27^th, at 9:02 in the morning, Rear-Admiral Henry Rawson gave the order to open fire.  That volley set the Sultan’s palace afire and destroyed the defenders’ artillery.  The British sank the HHS Glasgow, the Zanzabari royal yacht.  Khalid’s retreating troops fired a few desperate shots at the Brits.  At 9:40 AM, a final shot from the HMS Thrush’s 12-pounder brought down the Sultan’s flag at the palace and the war was over.

Khalid absconded to the German embassy and eventually escaped to German East Africa on the mainland.  The British puppet, Sultan Hamud took the throne.

Five hundred of Khalid’s men—largely composed of civilians and slaves—were killed or injury.  One British sailor was wounded.

And the way was paved for the Brits to gain hegemony over British East Africa (now Kenya).  You can meet some of those Brits—real and fictional—in my Strange Gods, which will launch on June 24.

Annamaria - Monday

I Asked This Question Three Years Ago: Is Our World at War?

 

Jeff–Saturday

  

Three years and two days after Russia INVADED Ukraine on February 24, 2022, I wrote the following introduction to a post titled, "Is Our World  at War?":

 

I think everyone would agree that the world is a very different place today than it was one  week day ago. 24/7 news coverage of Russia invading Ukraine [and live coverage of yesterday's White House confrontation] has driven that home to American audiences. But how do Europeans see the war?  For that I turned to Ekathimerini, the newspaper of record in Greece, and found three interesting stories directly bearing on the topic. The first is an opinion piece by Nikos Konstandaras, titled,“A Geopolitical Earthquake:” 

 

History’s tectonic plates are shifting. No one knows the magnitude, depth or duration of the earthquake caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Thursday. What is certain is that our world is changing. We will either see a strengthening of the system of global government and Russia’s retreat (and consequent loss of great power status), or we will enter an era of absolute fluidity and danger, with neither laws nor principles. February 24, 2022, did away with the illusion of a collective understanding, in which powerful countries maintained balance with each other, kept to certain rules, avoiding confrontation even when they disagreed over important issues. 

 

When a nuclear power and permanent member of the UN Security Council invades a neighbor, with arguments that are aimed more at convincing its own citizens than the international community, this is a direct threat to the global system of governance and to the principles of behavior that developed after World War II. The Russian president is fully aware that his actions can open the gates of hell, issuing a direct threat that “anyone who would consider interfering from the outside… will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me.” It is clear that, after this statement, there is no return to the world that we knew. Either the international community will get its act together and stop Vladimir Putin, or we will enter a period of instability and barbarism, where those who can will tread all over international law at the expense of the weak. The last time such circumstances prevailed, Europe was led to 1939.

 

The last decades do not inspire optimism. The United States often set a bad example with unilateral actions, autocratic regimes have taken hold in many countries, liberal democracy is under fire, the UN has been weakened. But disaster is not a given. Putin faces two insurmountable obstacles: His country, with a population of 144 million and GDP of 1.5 trillion dollars, is not as powerful as he considers himself to be; the only great power that could support him, China, has invested in stability and development. With the United States and the European Union putting on a united show, with China looking after its own interests, Putin – though always dangerous – will be on his own.

 

Picking up on that point is Stathis N. Kalyvas, Gladstone Professor of Government at the University of Oxford, with his observation on what Greece’s stance on the Ukrainian crisis should be:

Russian aggression is justified with geopolitical excuses: It feels surrounded after losing a large geographical zone over which it once held complete sway. Such analyses usually also contain some reference to the catastrophe that befell Russia with the collapse of communism and the trauma that caused.

But a closer look at the situation in Russia reveals that it is less at risk from being surrounded than it is from other factors: Its economy is overly reliant on energy (with the production of oil and natural gas accounting for some 40% of its economy), its demographics are nosediving (its population shrank by a million between 2020 and 2021 alone), and its young and educated people are migrating in droves. Politically, it is a combination of an old-school autocratic regime that openly stomps on individual freedoms and an oligarchic economic structure with all the traits of a mafia.

 

The real threat, therefore, lies within its own borders. Regardless of the mistakes made by the United States from 1990 onward, Russia could have chosen to take a different path, similar to that of the European countries that were once part of the Soviet bloc, just as Ukraine is trying to do.

 

So, the real issue is about politics and principles. On the one hand, we have an autocratic power that is employing methods harking back to Austria or Czechoslovakia in 1938 and behaving toward its neighbors like a colonialist. Vladimir Putin himself even wrote that the Russians and Ukrainians are one people, a position rejected by the vast majority of Ukrainians. On the other hand, we have a nation that is trying to get ahead and threatening nobody in the process, by adopting modern political and economic practices. The situation is crystal-clear and there should be no hesitation whatsoever about what stance Greeks must take.

In reporting on the Greek government’s position, Ekathimerini wrote:

Greece’s Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis told an emergency summit of NATO countries on Friday that Revisionism is the main threat to world peace and should not be tolerated, no matter where it comes from. 

The Prime Minister stressed that Russia’s aggressive actions violate international law and are a blow to European and international security and stability.

 

He reiterated the Greek position on respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of all countries, and condemned in the strongest possible terms the Russian revisionist actions that run counter to those values.

 

With so much of the sane world of the same mind…albeit each nation facing differing potential political and societal consequences, the question on everyone’s mind is simply this: NOW WHAT?

 

Two years have passed without my finding an answer to that question. Perhaps well have one by next week. But don't bet on it.

 

–Jeff

South Africa's "very badly treated people"

 

Michael - Alternate Thursdays

I thought of calling this “Setting the Record Straight”, but no one even tries to do that anymore. Also, most people are sick to death of Trumpian politics (even some Republicans are starting to feel that way apparently), so I just want to make a few comments about the South African situation. Not that South Africa is blameless or perfect, but there really is no factual basis to any of the anti-South Africa claims that Trump has spouted.

Zapiro's take on expropriation without compensation

Apparently, “South Africa is treating some people very badly”. Well, you could argue that, but very few of the people are White. No, Whites are not being driven off their farms by organized murder squads aiming to take over their land. That there are farm murders – and far too many of them - is beyond question. Generally, these are gangs interested in stealing things they can sell or use – guns and cash being the top of the list. Violent crime has decreased over the last year, but it’s way too high in South Africa. Unfortunately, certain right-wing White organizations at home and abroad like to put their own spin on this.

Much has been made of expropriation of land here. Every country has a procedure for expropriating land that is required in the national interest, and there are various steps involved in establishing a fair price. But a recent, and perhaps not very well-advised piece of legislation, allows expropriation without compensation in certain specific circumstances. The circumstances are quite restrictive with clauses such as “where an owner has abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so”.

However, this was a marvelous gift for the said right wing organizations. “It’s the start of a Zimbabwe style land grab,” they trumpeted. (No, Jeff, that’s not a pun. But they certainly did make sure that their fellow travelers in the US heard all about it.)

No land has been expropriated without compensation. The willing buyer/willing seller model is the norm here. The fact that land redistribution is way behind where it ought to be is largely due to the cumbersome process and slow progress of negotiation and court cases. Nothing could be further from the Zimbabwe model.

So, who are these “very badly treated” White people? Maybe people who find it hard to get jobs because there are equally or better qualified Black people who may get preference. In the previous regime, low-skilled jobs of various types were reserved for Whites only. That made it easy to get jobs if you were White. People were “treated very badly”, but they were Black people. I don’t recall the US offering a fast track route to refugee status for those people. Or did I miss something?

Another Trump grievance is that South Africa has joined with the BRICS group of nations. He has fulminated about BRICS trying to create some sort of currency to challenge the dollar. This is while he supports cryptocurrency to do just that. BRICS has denied any intention to create a currency. It's an alternate block attractive to South Africa in case the US loses interest in influence in Africa. Not such a bad idea. It just did. On the other hand, as one of the founding members, Russia is apparently fine in BRICS although South Africa is not. Vladimir Putin is entitled “to defend himself” against an unprovoked attack from Ukraine, after all. 

So what will the Trump approach to South Africa actually do to South Africa? Well, the destruction of US AID – a largely well-managed and valuable aid agency – will hurt. Its main contribution here was subsidizing medication for HIV positive individuals. SA will have to find the money itself, money that could have been used for other development imperatives. We can’t complain about that. It’s our problem. The loss of AID will affect many third world and developing countries very much worse than that. No doubt southern Africa’s favorable trade deal will be the next to go. We’ll have to live with that too. Probably Europe and the East are more realistic markets anyway in this US-isolationist era. Will it hurt? Certainly.

Apparently, all this may produce a DOGE dividend of a dollar or two to every man, woman and child in the US. May I be so bold as to suggest that it could be donated to NGO aid agencies trying to prevent people starving in Somalia and elsewhere around the world.

Finally, will all these White “badly treated” people be flocking to the US? I doubt it. But if, against the odds, a few are allowed in through Trump’s back door, I wish them Bon Voyage.

 

Strolling Bengaluru, India's City of Gardens

 Sujata Massey

Coming back from India about a month ago, I was hit with the reality of an upper respiratory virus so I laid low. And then there was all hell breaking loose in government--which continues. It took a while for me to take a deep breath and want to share the pleasant interlude of my two-week trip to Karnataka, Maharashtra and Goa. Because right now--I think we all need a vacation.

My story starts in the city of our arrival, Bengaluru. My traveling companion, the trustworthy Tony, and I arrived on New Year’s Day at 2 a.m. It took about an hour to get luggage, cash, and out the door at the airport, and then a 45-minute journey by car to the ITC Windsor Hotel, a place I had chosen because the pictures online made it look so old fashioned—the opposite of the sterile, high-tech hotels for which the city is famous. As our driver slowed to pass an old wall and gate and then up long, tree-lined driveway toward a wedding-cake-white building, my spirits rose. We passed through the usual metal-detector security to a round marble lobby with a busy front desk, where I was pleased to see clerks were present at the difficult hour of 4 a.m.

As I was handing our passports to the desk clerk, a drama was unfolding next to us between his colleague and a cluster of teenage boys, all in black T-shirts and jeans.

“I’ve booked a room. My friends are being told they can’t come up. Why’s this happening?” one boy asks, leaning over the desk, holding his American Express Gold Card like a magic wand.

The clerk, perhaps six years his senior, makes a tense reply about hotel policy limiting numbers of people in rooms to numbers of beds, but the kid won’t accept it. He’s paid for a room; he has a right to have his friends there. 

Security comes, and so do more staff. The kid softens his tone and says “Look, we’ll just go into Dublin.” And although it was not said aloud—but seemed very clear—the youths would eventually leave the Irish pub and transit upstairs to the room.  A number of signs—the card, the clothing, the attitude, the type of English spoken—cause me to suspect the boy came from a wealthy family, perhaps in IT. 

“Very sorry about that,” the clerk murmurs after the boys are gone and we are getting our keys. A rush of late reservations meant that the hotel overbooked rooms and thus is surprise-upgrading us to the Lord Auckland Suite. Sounds fancy, I thought—and wow, it certainly was. THANK YOU!

The Windsor Hotel is built inside and out like a British colonial relic, but because it was built in 1980, it couldn’t have hosted Lord Auckland, who was Governor-General of India from 1836-1842. Opening the door, we found a 75-square-meter suite, the size of a nice one-bedroom apartment, with a large drawing-cum-dining room, and a separate bedroom with a king-sized tester bed draped in silk, and a large marble bathroom. New Year’s Eve in a hotel can be noisy, but nothing got through the walls of this room, and sleep between smooth cotton sheets on a thick mattress was paradise. Yet before I got into that bed, a mystery struck me: a plaque on the drawing room wall celebrating the room as the Duke of Cornwallis Suite.Which lord's room was it: Auckland’s or Cornwallis’s?  

I didn’t know until later that Cornwallis was the general who led the East India Company in 1790 to conquer the city and topping local ruler Tipu Sultan. For British names to linger on any kinds of marker in India is very unusual. In my mind, Britain’s 250-year exploitation of India’s resources are the reason India dropped from being one of the world’s very richest countries to among its poorest. I wondered if Bengaluru/Bangalore, which never was technically British India but stayed part of the princely state of Mysore, held less resentment about colonialism than other parts of India I’ve visited.

 

Just looking at the history of the Windsor Hotel --and the artworks hanging that show horses an colonial people--brings up its own story of Indians, Persians and British, Muslims and Hindus and Christians, all finding ways to make money and gain power. 

The hotel stands in the place where there once was a fine Bangalore estate known as Baqarabad to some and Bedford House to others.  It was built by Aga Aly Asker Shirazi, a Persian horse merchant who emigrated as a 15-year-old alongside two brothers—and their prize property, two hundred horses. The brothers brought the stable to breed and sell, an offer greeted with delight by the British military setting up a cantonment in Bangalore and also selling to the local royal family. The Askers never returned to Persia but settled in Bangalore where they found the wealthy had plenty of business offers for them--not only with horses, but also as contractors for building residences.  Aga Aly Asker rose in stature and built properties for the British while buying land for himself. In late years, he bequeathed Baqarabad and its four acres to a family foundation who could monetize it as they wished. According to an article in the Bangalore Mirror, The foundation leased the property, starting in 1973, for 3100 rupees per month (about $45) to an Indian hotel company that later sold it to another company, ITC. The foundation went on to try to raise the ground rent over the ninety years of its term--but the leases were written in such a clever way that the raises have been miserly in an exclusive area of the city where apartments rent for sums comparable to New York City. I imagine that fifty years ago, the Asker family could not have imagined that there would be such a thing as a teenager with a credit card. But this is the new Bengaluru—the city that leads India for job creation, economic growth and foreign investment. 

 

The first time I visited this city was 1973, the very year the family foundation was making its fateful decision that led a house to become a hotel. The city was still called Bangalore, the British appropriation of its name, which is still hard for me to shake. I mainly remember eating dosa for the first time and staying in a simple university apartment with friendly neighbors in the building and walking through fields nearby in the evenings with my father telling us to look out for snakes. I also remembered how calm and quiet the city was, how cool the weather, and the very tall trees with lush canopies stretching over the streets. Coming here fifty years later, I worried that all that would be gone—but to my delight, 100-year-old-plus trees still arch over streets and shade parks and gardens. 

Later on New Year’s Day, we roused ourselves to go out for dinner at a cute café downtown called Toast and Tonic. I’d emailed many times and had an Instagram live conversation with Harini Nagendra, author of the Bangalore Detective Club mysteries. However, this was the first time we were meeting in person. Harini brought along her husband, Suri Venkatachalam, a biotech pioneer who’s now pursuing conservation research. 

Harini’s day job is as a professor of ecology and sustainability at Azad Premji University. And between her mysteries, she’s just published a nonfiction work: Cities and Canopies, Trees in Indian Cities. Harini gave us great sightseeing recommendations for Bengaluru and Mysore and Coorg, our future destinations within the state of Karnataka. She even told us about Bookworm, a great city bookstore where she’d had events (and they promptly sat me down to sign stock) Tony and I departed back to our hotel that evening with a second wind of energy and excitement. It was undeniable that we had made a quick, but hopefully long-enduring, friendship. 

During January 2 and 3, we set out with a local guide to see some of Bengaluru’s most celebrated sites. The Nandi Temple is the home of a large granite statue with an interesting history. Back in the 1500s, a farmer was frustrated that a particular bull kept eating his groundnut crop. The farmer struck the bull with a stick in the hopes it would go away. But no—instead, the bull transformed to a big granite rock. Not going anywhere!

The farmer and everyone who saw it was amazed. The stone was subsequently carved to look more bullish and a temple was built around it. Now the bull is seen as a protector. Our guide insisted that the bull has grown longer in length over the years and is still growing. It’s a phenomenon nobody can explain and that we were not about to argue with. 

From there we passed on to see the modern Bangalore Legislative Assembly Building, and close to it Tipu Sultan’s summer palace.

Tipu Sultan, the son of King Hyder Ali, assumed rule after his father was killed in battle against the British. Within the state of Mysore (now named Karnataka), Bangalore has an unusually cool microclimate throughout the year. This made the perfect place for a summer palace which Hyder Ali had started, and Tipu Sultan had finished during his own reign.  Walking through graceful arches into dim wooden halls of the modestly sized palace, I could only imagine the medieval sultans and their family and followers flitting through the halls. Some places have a very strong aura; this is one of them.

 

Just outside the palace was a Hindu temple completed in the late 17^th century by a during the time Mysore was ruled by a Hindu dynasty. The Kote Venkataramana Hindu temple has many flourishes special to architecture of the Vijayanagar and Dravidian empires of medieval South India. I was struck by the grace of a Hindu temple and Muslim palace to sitting alongside each other without disturbance for so many years. 

 

We rounded off the day with a long walk through Lalbagh Botanical Garden, a vast green space laid out by Sultan Hyder Ali in the 1700s and completed during the British colonial years. There are conservatory structures and topiaries and a stylized design very common to Indian gardens. I experienced a similar formality in the small enclosed garden on an upper storey at the Windsor Hotel. So much greenery around that place! One of the nicest experiences I had on my own was taking a short walk from the hotel past hedges of bouganvellia to Raintree, an old Art Deco villa that now housed upscale shops and a coffee shop where the lattes are dusted in edible gold.

A few weeks later, I found myself amidst the greatest concentration of trees in Bangalore. I was standing in the Kempegowda International Airport, waiting to send off my luggage, and I looked overhead to see ceiling above was filled with live shrubs. From my perspective below, it looked like several hundred of Christmas evergreens, but an airport employee proudly explained that I was seeing just a fraction of 150,000 hanging plants of various species. The terminal also had 450,000 other plants growing on walls and throughout its space. The airport also boasts a plant museum and a plant-lined walking path based on the legend of the Ramayana. 

Such a combination of technical innovation and rain forest habitat is totally unexpected . . . but as I’ve learned, very Bengaluru.