UlteriorMotive

2008-03-16T23:43:00.000-07:00

Tibetan Trouble - What India should do

Protests have erupted around the world against the ‘occupation’ of Tibet by China including in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, where anywhere from 30 to a 100 protestors have been killed by Chinese forces. This year marks the 49th year of Chinese occupation of Tibet, which is currently designated as an ‘autonomous region’ of China. India, due to geographical proximity and as host to the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has always been seen as a player in the ongoing struggle between the exiled Tibetan authority and the Chinese government. This latest flare up is seen as the most severe in decades and will certainly see the pressure on China increase. As the exiled home of the Dalai Lama, there is increased domestic and international pressure on India to take a more proactive role on the issue that has now snowballed into a major crisis for China.

The media coverage and user generated content on the internet has given a graphic visual on what exactly is going on in the ‘roof of the world’. Armored vehicles and heavily armed Chinese army and security forces conducting door to door checks are reminiscent of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 where hundreds, some say even thousands of activists, students and labor union groups were killed, the memories of which have become hardwired into Chinese history. China has for long laid claim on Tibet and has considered the region as integral to Chinese territory. However, the indigenous Tibetans see themselves as a separate genealogy from the Han Chinese that forms most of Chinese population. The Tibetans consider the Dalai Lama as their spiritual head and he along with thousands of Tibetans were forced into exile in 1959 after the Chinese invaded and ‘reclaimed’ Tibet. Then Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru, offered moral and political support for the Dalai Lama and ever since he has set-up bases at Dharamshala and McCleodganj in Himachal Pradesh. The Tibetan community have periodically raised there voice on the occupation of Tibet and their message has been accentuated through Hollywood movie stars and western politicians that have raised the stature of the Tibetan struggle to an international level and appeal. However, pragmatic politics from India has ensured that in order to settle the decades long Indo-China border dispute a quid pro quo now exists where in, we recognize Tibet as an “autonomous yet integral region of China” while the Chinese recognize Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of India. It is another thing that the Chinese have not lived up to their side of this understanding; nevertheless, we have maintained our side of this tacit understanding. With the Tibetan crisis now brewing India has taken a moderate approach on the crackdown. Much like our nuanced reaction to the violent crackdown by monks in Myanmar, India is wary of not wanting to be seen as muddling in China’s internal affairs.

Whatever be the merits of a hands off approach on the Tibet issue, there is no denying the fact that India will be a stakeholder in the outcome of any move to find a solution to the Tibet issue. India must accept that though, Tibet is an integral and autonomous part of China, the protests and uprisings by Tibetans in India is an issue of concern. The proposed march by Tibetans and monks to Lhasa could lead to a dramatic showdown if the marching troop reaches the Indo-Tibetan border and presses to cross the Line of Actual Control. India must come out strongly in support of the Dalai Lama and his claim that China is indulging in ‘cultural genocide’ in Tibet. The world over countries that have offered asylum to refugee populations either ensure that the migrants ultimately return to their homeland or offer open support for their plight. Palestinian refugees that had to flee the Palestinian territories in the aftermath of the 1967 war were given asylum in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, all countries that recognize the need for a Palestinian state and fully support their right to return in any solution that comes out the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. A similar offer has to be professed by India, as we do offer asylum to the Tibetan community on Indian soil. While we remain gracious hosts, our opinion on the issue of a free Tibet has slowly waned to accept the Chinese stand on the issue. The cordial relations we share with China may get strained if we do take a strong approach vis-à-vis Tibet, but then this is a step that we must take for the Tibetan community that accepts as much from the Indian government. The other alternative mentioned is direct face to face talks between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities, an idea which remains fanciful given China’s rigidity on the issue.

The Tibet issue is bound to remain in the headlines given the scrutiny the world has thrown on every aspect of Chinese existence. From levels of pollution, to dealing with dictators in Africa, to poisoned toys being exported, the lack of free speech and media and their crackdown on religious freedoms are all issues that have gained increased space in the public domain in the past year. The Chinese have been quick to dismiss all such claims as Western propaganda and biased international press coverage. The Olympics in August this year will only ensure that the Chinese have to adopt a twin pronged approach. On the one hand they would want to welcome the world and the international press to showcase the economic might that China has become, with its fantastic stadiums and breathtaking architecture and infrastructure while at the same time black out questions on the freedom of speech and religious freedoms in the country. Given this dilemma the Chinese will find questions on Tibet even tougher to answer. China will have to realize that globalization and the fruits that come with it, have also an important caveat. The more one opens to the world the more the world will scrutinize your systems. The dissent that China sees is the result of that sobering lesson that globalization has to offer.

2008-03-03T21:56:00.001-08:00

Russian Elections: Putin's Marketing Ploy

Russia has elected, some say selected, a new president to take over from incumbent Vladimir Putin. Dmitry Medvedev, a long term ally of Putin and first deputy prime minister under him, will take the reins in May after a landslide victory in the March 2nd polls. As predicted, the candidate that enjoyed the backing of Putin found it easy to take the country’s top job, in elections that the West has cast doubts on counts of fairness. The objections of the West aside, analysts feel that these elections will not dramatically alter the power structure in Russia, with Putin slated to become Medvedev’s prime minister in May. Medvedev himself, in his victory speech, pledged to carry forward the path shown by Putin, who enjoys a larger than life status in Russia. Putin, with the help of the United Russia party will be easily installed as prime minister and in all likelihood still decide policy and direction for his country. In so far as relations with the West may be concerned the reaction from Western countries has been mixed. While the Germans, French and European Commission have welcomed the new president, hoping to solidify their relations with a rising former superpower, the United States has not overtly congratulated the president elect and has voiced concerns over the state of democracy in Russia.

Putin has described his country’s version of governance as a ‘managed democracy’. A strong executive in the shape of a president that controls the government and its various arms and where free enterprise is allowed to flourish as long as they remain loyal to ‘national interests’. This understanding of democracy has led many to believe that Putin is a direct throwback to the Communist era where dissent is not an option and where a fair electoral system is present only on paper. Putin has argued consistently that the turmoil his country has witnessed after the break up of the USSR required a tough approach to get the country back on track. And he has numbers to back him. Russia is today the world’s eighth largest economy and its economic upturn has ensured a rising middle class. While the economic boom has got with it rising costs and inflation, Russians do claim to have regained a sense of pride in their country steadily climbing back to its erstwhile status of a superpower to match the United States and other European big wigs. Coupled with the massive reserves of natural gas and hydrocarbon reserves that the country holds on to, the Russia of old seems to back. This rise of Russia has left many in West worried. This worry materialized when Russia played up its gas diplomacy to the hilt in the last two years by stopping gas supplies to Georgia and Ukraine, both formerly in Russia’s sphere of influence but seen as moving closer to the West and the European Union. Russia asked for a fair price for its gas and signaled to the West that Russia’s natural wealth will no longer be ‘exploited’ by the West. These strong arm tactics were carried by Gazprom, the Russian hydrocarbon’s giant that is under the direct control of Russian government and by that extension under Putin. Interestingly, president elect Medvedev has been the chairman of Gazprom and European governments would therefore be familiar with the man.

The United States and Russia also share a tenuous relationship. What started off as bonhomie between George Bush and Vladimir Putin, both men were elected in 2000, soon turned sour over Russia’s role in crushing the separatists movement in Chechnya and failing to toe the American line. The independent minded Putin further crossed hairs with the West by curbing down heavily on free speech and on the oligarchs, the select group of Russia’s richest men who made billions in sell of state property after the fall of the Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin. Yukos owner, Mikhail Khordokovsky’s case was highly reported in the United States. The West saw this as Putin’s attempts to curb a man who wanted to be Russia’s president. Yukos, the billion dollar oil and gas firm was nationalized and sold to Gazprom and Khordokosky was sent to a Siberian prison for a decade. Putin, in the face of the West’s disapproval showed to the world what the definition of a ‘managed democracy’ actually is. More recently, Russia and the United States squared off over the US’ plans of setting up military bases and missile silos in Poland and Georgia, which met with strong disapproval by the Russians. Last month, when Kosovo declared independence, the US sided with the Kosovars while the Russians backed the Serbs. Taking opposing views, keeping in mind respective national interests, be it on Iran or on issues in the UN, has become the norm between the two countries, thereby further straining relations.

With his second term ending this year, and a third not possible under the Russian constitution, Putin began the hunt for his successor. Amongst the many names that came up, Medvedev’s candidature best suited Putin. An old hand from Putin’s native St. Petersburg, Medvedev is a known loyalist and a moderate. Putin’s selection for his successor seems to be two fold. He chose a loyalist to ensure that he continues to call the shots as the prime minister, and it is entirely possible that Medvedev is keeping the seat warm for Putin to return as president in 2012. Also, he has chosen the 42 year old lawyer with no secret service experience so as to ensure that he does not create an alternate power base inside the Kremlin. The old guard of the former KGB and the present FSB secret service will remain loyal to Putin, from whom he derives maximum power. This will ensure that Medvedev remains reigned in. Putin will not make the mistake of his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, who chose Putin as his successor imagining the ex-spy to be a puppet under him. Putin managed to get the security and military establishment to back him and ultimately became the new power centre in Russian politics. Second, in choosing Medvedev Putin has also sent a signal to the West that he has installed a more moderate and liberal figure as president to perhaps begin some sort of rehabilitation of ties between Russia and the West. The new face of Russia is young, moderate and in keeping with the times. This while the real power continues to be Putin, albeit behind the scenes. It seems that Medvedev will act as the perfect marketing tool for Putin, whom the West found impossible to deal with. In light of this Putin may have created the perfect smokescreen for the West. Medvedev, at 42, marks a generational shift from the Communist days and his love for liberal talk and Deep Purple may just win him brownie points in popularity in the West. This while Putin can get on with the job of running his country.

2008-02-05T22:49:00.000-08:00

Inclusive Nationalism not Regionalism

The pathetic and outrageous display of thuggery by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena cadres on the streets of Mumbai against north Indians marks another shameful chapter in the unending tryst of the ‘senas’ with their understanding of regionalism. Whatever the provocation for the display of brute force, the actions of Raj Thackeray’s party men does not bode well for a country that should be tackling pan-Indian issues like Islamic fundamentalism, secessionism and Naxalism as a strong united country rather than narrow minded regionalists that alienate and isolate people further and become root causes of civil unrest in the country. The role of migrants in Maharashtra and in economically developed states has been raging for decades. Punjab and Delhi are other examples that have witnessed high migrant populations along with development hubs across the country. The approach of regional parties and the upper echelons of civil society has been twin pronged. The regional parties ask for more representation of the “locals” and natural “citizens” of a particular state over the migrants that often claim a lot of jobs in these economic hubs. The other approach is the elitist one, where the migrants, often poor and low on the socio-economic ladder, are treated as eye sores and the root cause of all ills in society. Both arguments are specious and counter productive in the lager national perspective.

While one would not usually agree with the sentiments of the likes of Samajwadi Party’s Amar Singh, however, he made a valid point with regards to the Mumbai unrest. He said that the migrants from Hindi heartland do not come to metropolitans like Mumbai to beg, but to actually earn a decent living and carry an important role in the day to day lives of most middle class homes. While it is also true that mass migration not only puts pressure on the resources and infrastructures of a city or state, it has also led to increased crime by the migrant population. But that is a law and order issue and in no way does it take away from the economic contribution the migrant population contributes to the economy of a state/city. The elitist argument is especially specious. Proponents regard the migrants as an eyesore, these people are willing to use the services of these very migrants to drive their cars or clean their homes and contribute to their economic upliftment, but they do not want them to live in the same city as them! It is proponents of this same argument that also rue about the political class, but seldom realize that they do not even vote while the migrants are a more democratically inclined and aware lot. The other issue the unruly scenes in Mumbai have brought to the fore is the discriminatory nature of our perspective towards migration. Take for instance, an executive in a big corporate firm. If he or she is transferred to another city, he is more than welcome to be part of the culture and ethos of his migrant city. Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkatta and Chennai are full of private sector employees who hail from across the country. How is it that outfits like the MNS never raise a hue and cry about these “outsiders”? Is the quest for economic prosperity only the preserve of the rich and middle class and not of those who often leave everything behind to find a better life in the big cities?

Our nation faces numerable challenges in this new century, our young population will increase the workforce but will also require more jobs in the process. Concurrently, the infrastructure and resources are failing to meet the challenges of this promising future. Coupled with the rise of extremism and internal security issues like Naxalism, the challenges are complex and daunting. What is the need of the hour is inclusive nationalism, where every citizen of the country must meaningfully contribute to make India realize her true potential. Issues like regionalism and casteism are an impediment to this potential rise of the country. The leaders of our country need to get over the narrow considerations of caste and coalition compulsions and ensure that the State and state policy does not become an impediment to this enviable future of the country. Regionalism brings with it a deferential attitude towards the nation as a whole. It is only at times of war, like in Kargil, when the nation truly pulls together to fight an external threat. For local issues within the country most citizens are happy to live in the cocooned comfort of their state or region. Most people feel far removed from the threat of Naxalism or even bird flu as long as it doesn’t affect them. These are issues that require a pan-India resolve and change in attitudes and unfortunately for too long have we chosen to look the other way. It is time that we think of the country as a whole and not in bits and pieces. The rising importance of regional parties underlines the rising threat of regionalism. With national governments dependent on regional outfits, a pan-India vision gets myopic to state considerations. While the importance of regional parties will stay for the foreseeable future, we desperately need our national parties – the BJP and the Congress to not shy away from issues of national importance and more importantly not sacrifice issues of national interest at the altar of regional and coalition compulsions. One may take a dim view given the pandering that is on display by both national parties to woo regional allies, but the hope remains that ultimately for the larger good of the country, where the stakes are unmistakably high, the national parties will stand up and guide India to her true potential.

2008-01-29T02:29:00.001-08:00

A Rudy Shock?

Florida goes in for its crucial primaries today to elect its Republican nominee for the November US presidential elections. The Republican fray is wide open with four candidates vying to win the delegate rich ‘Sunshine State’ with the hope that a win in Florida will propel them to win the February 5th 24 state Super Tuesday election night. National frontrunner John McCain along with Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are contesting this contest which can have far reaching implications. For the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, this contest holds the most significance. The Giuliani strategy has been to forego the contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina and focus on Florida to propel him to a win on Super Tuesday. This strategy is one which is brave yet inherently risks the former mayor to be all but out if he loses the state. This all or none strategy has taken many analysts by surprise and elucidated chuckles from his rivals.

The Giuliani camp is ruing the fact that in a matter of a month the focus of these elections has moved away from national security and the war on terror, to the domestic issue of the economy. Giuliani was always quick to tout his national security credentials. As the “9/11 mayor” he told voters that he had the experience, resolve and courage to take on Islamic fundamentalism and protect the homeland from future attacks. The war in Iraq was the initial focus of many traditional Republican voters, considering they had put their neck on the line backing the current commander in chief, George Bush to invade Iraq. With the military surge bringing the desired peace, albeit with little in way of political reconciliation between the Shia and Sunni law makers, the Republicans were keen to project Iraq as a plan that faltered initially but has stabilized in time. But unfortunately for Giuliani, good news rarely makes headlines and so was the case in Iraq. Take for example, the largely peaceful Shia festival of Ashura, marred by violence in preceding years, barely made it to the headlines in the mainline news organizations, and very soon Iraq has now taken second position as an issue to the faltering US economy for voters. And in the economics sweepstakes Rudy cannot match the experience of Mitt Romney, a career business man and governor or John McCain a veteran of many economic and national reforms on various issues as a senator.

The other major disaster to hit the Giuliani camp has been his ceding of the top spot in national polls to John McCain and Mitt Romney. Till the beginning of the primaries in January, Giuliani enjoyed broad based support from the Republican base, although even at the time social conservatives had sworn against him. By the time the primaries in the four states finished, Giuliani finds himself at fourth position behind McCain, Romney and Huckabee. What a month can do in politics! Then again, the Giuliani strategy is based on the fact that he will gain momentum in Florida and use his national name recognition to win Super Tuesday. However, what works against this strategy is the fact that the Republican voters have been able to understand over the past month where a candidate stands on the big ticket issues in these elections. By concentrating on Florida, Giuliani has forsaken national standing for a narrow state consideration. And even in the likelihood of a win in Florida, it seems unlikely that the win will suddenly give Giuliani the momentum to win dozens of states come next Tuesday. The past primaries have shown that both on the Republican and the Democratic side, the balance remains even after four contests. The best Giuliani can achieve after a win in Florida is become “a” contender rather than “the” contender. Giuliani must feel the heat and if he can beat the rest to take Florida, he will become the comeback kid of these elections. At the moment, one feels that Giuliani might just be preparing to pack his bags and check out of the presidential race.

2008-01-24T21:41:00.001-08:00

US Presidential Elections Update

New York Times endorsements

The influential New York Times newspaper has endorsed Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party and John McCain from the Republican Party as their preferred candidates from the primary race. The endorsement marks a clearing of the race, which though, is far from over, as Clinton and McCain have shown an upward trend in their national appeal to voters, which ultimately will decide the final showdown between the two parties. Although, the New York Times can sway many undecided voters, the 2008 elections are an internet event. With most candidates taking their campaign to the World Wide Web and the explosion of online news media, blogs and think tanks, the undecided voters may just make up their minds on the internet rather than from what the traditional media tells them. That said, it does not take anything away from the importance the endorsements gives to the two candidates. The endorsement will be a body blow for Barack Obama, who after a string of editorial and celebrity endorsements would have got a definite fillip if the New York Times had helped him. But as most political analysts argue, the world will be a precarious place after the Bush administration leaves office. Externally, terrorism, the war in Iraq, North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear talks, relations with Russia, the Middle East peace process and the record oil prices will all need political acumen, experience and leadership that only McCain and Clinton seem to offer given the current fray of candidates.

The Obama “hit job”

Former US president Bill Clinton is currently campaigning for his wife, Hillary in the politically sensitive state of South Carolina that will hold its primaries this weekend. The former president has been in the news more often than his wife and that too for all the wrong reasons. First, it was Clinton taking on Obama’s record and rhetoric regarding the war in Iraq, where he called the idea that Obama was consistently against the war in Iraq as a “fairytale”. The Obama camp latched on to this comment and highlighted that Clinton had brought race into the campaign, by calling the Obama candidacy a “fairytale”. Following a vitriolic to and fro between Hill-Bill and Obama, Democratic leaders had to step in to tone down the temperature a few notches. Ultimately, the fight is between Democrats and the Republicans and not between two candidates of the Democratic Party. The fear is that the Democratic frontrunners have got so embroiled in a verbal barrage that who ever wins will find it difficult to expect the losing camps’ supporters to vote for him or her. Then again, Obama is breaking new ground by appealing to fence sitters and some centrist-Republicans. A feat few Democrats can boast of. If these new supporters see the manner in which the Clinton camp decimates Obama’s message for “change” and bipartisanship, they might just go back to their traditional party and vote Republican.

As if the tone of the verbal duel between the two Democratic front runners was not bad enough, Bill Clinton launched a fresh salvo at the Obama camp. He accused the Obama camp of plotting a “political hit job” against him and his wife and twisting facts to sensationalize the media. He accused the media of highlighting the fight between the two candidates as the main election issue, when actually the people of his country were more concerned about the war in Iraq and the economy. While Clinton’s message has resonance, once again the media picked up on the “hit job” part of the statement rather than what he said after that! So much for tutoring the media!

Thompson and Kucinich drop out

Republican candidate Fred Thompson and Democratic contender Dennis Kucinich announced the end of their quest for the White House. Thompson, the former movie and television star, was touted by many Republicans and conservative media houses as a potential winner. But his lackluster campaign proved to inspire no one and his relative laid back style of campaigning saw little interest from voters. Thompson vowed to run a different type of campaign. He did live up to that promise but in a way that his campaign managers did not foresee.

Dennis Kucinich was always a long shot in these elections, and he failed to get into double digits in any of the primaries that voted for a candidate. He was recently in the news for asking for a recounting of votes in New Hampshire, which unfortunately for him, became the butt of jokes in the late night comedy shows in the US.

Dates for the Race

Democrats

South Carolina primaries – January 26th
Watch out for who takes the honors between Obama and Hillary in state with 50% African American voters and a traditional Clinton vote bank.

Republicans

Florida – January 29th
This primary will decide the fate of former New York Governor Rudy Giuliani who has put all hopes in the Sunshine State. He chose to ignore the primaries in all other states to concentrate on this state which if he could win will help him gain momentum for Super Tuesday on February 5th. If he loses, he can count himself as a has been for all practical purposes. Latest polls show him trailing in third place behind McCain and Romney.

Maine – February 1st

2008-01-22T00:47:00.001-08:00

The UPA's Legacy Year

This year marks the final lap of the UPA’s dispensation at the centre. With elections scheduled to be held anytime in 2009, the UPA is busy planning to make 2008 a legacy year of sorts. It will use this year to highlight its policies and initiatives taken since it came to power in 2004 while pushing pet schemes that have not had the desired outcomes. The script for what this year might look like, at least the planned script, is evident from the noises coming out of Manmohan Singh’s cabinet colleagues. The UPA is keen to project its ‘aam aadmi’ tilt and will want the electorate to focus on schemes it has come out with for that important constituency. Also, given the fact that elections are in the offing for big states like Rajasthan and Chattisgarh, where the Congress fancies it chances of winning the popular vote, it would like to use its four year reign as a vote catcher. This legacy year will also see the BJP-led NDA highlight the UPA’s shortcomings like its pro-minority policy approach, minorityism, terrorism and the failure on foreign policy fronts.

The UPA kicked of the year with talks of setting up the 2nd States Reorganization Commission to initiate the process of creating smaller states much like the NDA did during its tenure. The much debated issue of the formation of the state of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh was highlighted in the media. Then again a delegation of the UP Congress made a presentation to Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to carve out Harit Pradesh and Bundelkhand from Uttar Pradesh. This move was a calculated step to not only stem the tide of popular support from Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, it was also brought to the fore with the idea to use the issue in the coming elections in 2009. The Telangana issue has been a contentious one which found no solution during either the NDA or the present regime. While coalition compulsions in the NDA could not see the rise of Telangana, the UPA’s main constituent, the Congress which rules the state currently, was not too keen on the issue which ultimately saw the Telangana Rashtriya Samiti walk out of the ruling coalition. The UPA will face uncomfortable questions on Telangana, if it does raise the issue, from the opposition as to why it could not carve the state out in its years in power. In Uttar Pradesh, bereft of any significant issues to raise and the virtual decimation at the hands of the BSP has ensured that the Congress will use the 2nd SRC as its main election plank in the general elections. However, the Congress will have to contend with the fact that UP Chief Minister Mayawati has already welcomed the idea of carving up smaller states, blunting the Congress’ ‘small states’ campaign even before it began in the state.

The Congress, through the Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, raised quite a storm on the issue of minority quotas and the implementation of the Sachar Committee findings. As usual, Patil found himself in a quandary with the Human Resources Minister’s contradicting his stand on the issue. The Home Minister further tied himself up in knots by acknowledging that the quotas cannot go beyond the Constitutionally binding 50% but that the government will have to look at ‘ingenious’ ways of working around that limitation. The Congress had to distance itself from the Home Minister’s statements but the indication was clear that the government and the Congress would like to push the implementation of the Sachar Committee’s report and like to highlight its ‘pro-minority’ credentials. The UP has also been keen to highlight the rather ambitiously titled “Bharat Nirman” ad campaign. The campaign highlights the government’s infrastructure initiatives but has been careful of not repeating an “India Shining”. How this plays out in the electorate’s mindset is debatable, but the UPA has taken to the virtues of talking about development after the Modi campaign used it effectively in the Gujarat elections of 2007. There is also talk about highlighting the National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme, seen as the brainchild of Mrs. Gandhi, which has been hijacked unfortunately for the UPA by state governments who are claiming ownership of the project. A clever change in the name of the NREG by the state dispensations has made it look like a state wide initiative in many states, much to the chagrin of the Congress. A news story that did not make it to the headlines was on the Finance Ministry and PMO’s initiative to look at ways to make credit available to minorities on a priority basis. While currently, no mechanism exists to give credit on the basis of religion, the government does seem keen to bring about a mechanism to this effect. If the government does venture on this political landmine of an issue, the opposition will raise it as another example of minority appeasement sponsored principally by the pro-minority Congress party. Nevertheless, this scheme along with the rural health insurance scheme will find much focus in any future national campaigns.

The UPA has also been keen to keep its flock together. With the AIADMK making overtures to the BJP through Narendra Modi, the Congress would want to keep its Tamil Nadu ally the DMK in good spirits. This approach has ensured that the UPA will now see a new minister in DMK supremo’s daughter Kanomozhi taking the environment portfolio that was with the prime minister after A Raja moved out to the Telecommunications ministry. Also, the DMK has been allowed by the UPA to make supportive noises towards the plight of Sri Lankan Tamils and the LTTE, not wanting to roughen the edges of a somewhat steady alliance. However, the Congress has taken a baffling position vis-à-vis UP Chief Minister and BSP President Mayawati. The Congress and the UPA have been particularly accommodating towards Mayawati even in the face of a verbal barrage by the fiery chief minister, who even alleged that certain Congress leaders were out to have her eliminated. The Congress has helped Mayawati in the Taj Corridor case and the disproportionate assets case currently lodged with the CBI. However, their return on investment has been negligible and even damaging. BSP will and continues to push the Congress out of many national and state constituencies by appealing to the traditional Congress vote bank. This is evident in not only Uttar Pradesh but across the Hindi-speaking belt. By strengthening the hands of the BSP, the Congress seems to relying on the fact that she will not ally with the BJP in 2009. However, knowing her quest for power, Mayawati might not only eat into the Congress’ vote bank but also switch sides in 2009. By keeping her in good humor, the Congress is only feeding a monster that could turn on them.

On the foreign policy front, the UPA had put all its hopes on the Indo-US nuclear deal. With moribund talks not making much headway, the UPA is now looking for an honorable face saving exit from the deal. The chips are firmly positioned against the UPA on the nuke deal, with the Left clearly intend on forming a third front and not budging from its “deal or government” line and with talks with the IAEA going into extended sessions the deal may have to be buried unless the prime minister can find wiggle room to maneuver the passage of the remaining levels of negotiations quickly. If the deal does not go through, the prime minister will have to personally face a two sided attack for this foreign policy failure that he himself has nurtured. The Left will declare it a victory of sorts having stood firm on its position and bringing the government to do a volte face, while the supporters of the deal will highlight it as a missed opportunity to mend fences with the United States and the nuclear club. Though foreign policy has never really become a general election issue, the nuclear deal, which has the potential to break the UPA, will become a focus on the personal leadership of Manmohan Singh and on the UPA’s surrender to the Left.

The interesting aspect to this legacy year will be the timing of the elections. Most analysts suspect that they will be held in April 2009 or maybe even the end of 2008. The factors on which the timing depends are varied and non-linear. The future of the Indo-US nuclear deal, elections results in Rajasthan, Delhi and Chattisgarh, the Congress’ ties with its allies and the inter-party politics within the UPA will all decide the timing of the polls. Also, if the elections were to be held in early 2009, the election commission will have a new Chief Election Commissioner. With the current incumbent N Gopalaswami making way for either Navin Chawla or S.Y. Quereshi, both UPA appointees. Mr. Chawla has been at the receiving end of the BJP’s wrath with allegations of a bias towards the Congress and using his contacts within the Congress to help his foundation. If Mr. Chawla was to be appointed the Chief elections Commissioner, the BJP will raise this issue at all possible forums which could lead to further embarrassment for the government and may also alter the timing of the polls. But for all the punditry one still has to wait and watch how this year progresses and what surprises it holds.

2008-01-15T23:59:00.000-08:00

India - China : Static Movement

The prime minister concluded his visit to China, where amongst other dignitaries he met with President Hu Jintao and his premier Wen Jiabao. The high profile delegation included the commerce minister Kamal Nath, foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and the National Security Advisor, M.K. Narayanan. The visit was broadly a three pronged approach that included – economic and trade relations, security and strategic relations and energy security. For all the hype that surrounded the visit and the quest to improve the decades old cold relations between the two countries, this visit was not particularly looked at a summit that would or could solve all outstanding issues. At best, this visit was to signify the importance of a continued dialogue between the two countries not only to resolve all outstanding disputes but also to seek common ground for co-operation. However, for all the rhetoric and positive bonhomie that the joint statement issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and premier Wen Jiabao reflected, there is no denying the fact relations between China and India remain at best cordial and more or less static. India seems to have conceded far too much in this process and has gained little economically or strategically under the UPA’s “Look East” and “One China Policy”. This visit can at best be rated average for the outcomes it failed to achieve, but promises, nevertheless, it got attested on paper.

The economic and trade relations between the two countries seems to now overtake all other matters between India and China. The two sides have made an ambitious target of achieving $60 billion worth of trade between the two countries by 2010. The current projected levels are at $40 billion at best by 2010 by most economic analysts. Then again the $60 billion target is not adequately transparent, as it does not signify the share ratio between imports and exports between the two countries, and also does not factor in the under valuation of the Yuan which hits both Indian imports and exports. The trade deficit between the two countries is in the negative for India and with India increasing cheap imports from China manifolds, the deficit will continue to rise. In that case, the Indian side needs to step up the pressure on China to remove trade barriers between the countries that are currently set unfavorably towards India. The joint statement also touched upon working out a Regional Trade Agreement between the two countries. This too must not be rushed into without adequate safeguards to ensure that India does not become a dumping ground for Chinese goods at the cost of the Indian manufacturing sector. Also, the Regional Trade Agreement must include a product safety clause between the two countries. Last year, the United States was flooded with Chinese products that were produced using poisonous substances like lead which caused an outrage and forced China to review its manufacturing policies and quality control standards. Surely, this issue must figure strongly in any future Regional Trade Agreement. The cause for concern vis-à-vis trade remains in the ambivalence towards action by the Chinese. So while India readily agreed to give licenses for Chinese airlines to carry cargo and flights within the Indian airspace, the Chinese never reciprocated the same with Jet Airways, making only conciliatory noises to the effect.

Security and strategic relations has been the thousand pound gorilla in the room for any move towards friendly relations. The border issue and the breeches on the Line of Actual Control seem to go on endlessly. China still does not recognize Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India and remains ambivalent on Aksai Chin. There again, India seems to have given the Chinese a long leash, with the prime minister trying to divide border disputes on ‘populated areas’ basis. This sort of differentiation will hurt India in the years to come, as China may ask for a quid pro quo to settle the Arunachal issue by demanding Aksai Chin to become a part of China. We made the same mistake with the “One China” policy. By making Tibet an undisputed part of China, we not only stepped back from the overt support given by successive government’s right since Nehru to the Dalai Lama, we never got anything in return for this recognition. The understanding for Tibet to become part of China was to ensure that Arunachal Pradesh too became a part of India, however, China till as late as a few months ago still keenly contests India’s “claim” over Arunachal. The Tibetan faux pas was cleverly exploited by China and they connected Lhasa to the Chinese heartland and pumped in goods and materials that the desolate area had never seen. And by dangling the carrots the Chinese establishment effectively made the residents of Tibet move away from the message of the Dalai Lama. The joint statement did make some positive noises about India’s aspirations for the United Nations Security Council. This on its own is a welcome step, but will need a concerted effort by India and other aspirants to see the light of day. The Chinese help, though welcomed, does not go far enough and for India to find itself at the high table anytime soon, seems fanciful. Terrorism too finds a notional mention in the joint statement and here again the Chinese have not done much to help India’s cause by coming down strongly against Pakistan’s state sponsored terrorism. The Chinese are a crucial ally of Pakistan and have for decades now passively watched the ISI and Pakistani army indulge in the promotion and protection of terrorism. It might have suited the Chinese to watch India embroiled in fighting terrorism, but with an unstable Pakistan possibly affecting Chinese interests in Pakistan, the scourge is a matter of concern for both sides. The Chinese also did not take too well to the joint military exercises between India, Australia, United States and Japan last year and an alarmed government decided to initiate military exercises with the Chinese late last year. Such shifting of strategies seems to represent a knee jerk reaction approach towards military policy. India must weigh in the pros and cons of military exercises with multiple nations and formulate a comprehensive and contiguous policy on how it approach military co-operation.

Energy security and climate change are the only two issues that see the two sides speaking virtually the same language. Both are an area of concern. A growing economy and a richer middle class have put pressures on India and China to ensure energy supply and security to fuel this growth. The result on the environment has been a reflection of this economic spurt. Both sides need to address both issues together, since whether we like it or not, India and China both feature hyphenated in climate change talks as being the major culprits behind global warming. It is in the best interest of both countries to work on this key issue together. Here too India needs to take a lesson out of Chinese foreign policy. The effective security of fuel supplies by investing in Africa seems to have paid off, and today the skyscrapers in Shanghai and Beijing owe much to sub-Saharan Africa for their existence. There is a lesson in the advantages of being the first mover in energy security, where limited resources have many suitors, India being the one of the biggest.

So, at the end of the three day visit, the prime minister can look back at his trip and be moderately optimistic about what he has achieved. He did not set out to solve all the problems; he went to China to make sure both sides keep talking. But then relations between the two countries under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have remained just that – talk.

2008-01-10T00:54:00.000-08:00

Hill pulls a Bill!

Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton regained her front-runner status by proving her detractors and pollsters wrong by edging past Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primaries. The win will reinvigorate her quest for the White House and makes the Democratic race a two horse affair between her and Obama. The run up to the New Hampshire primaries saw Clinton trailing Obama by 10 points according to pollsters, who were proven wrong rather emphatically. Many analysts, after the Iowa caucus defeat had predicted the end of the Clinton campaign, but she managed to win a state that her husband won in 1992 and was dubbed the ‘comeback kid’ in those presidential elections. Pundits who had predicted the end of the Clinton campaign did spell out their predictions much too soon in a race that is just beginning to gain momentum. With the second place finish, Obama will now look forward to the Nevada primaries, wanting to regain some composure and momentum, lost due to the New Hampshire setback. The race now seems poised for a fight to the finish till February 5th, when 24 states go to the polls. Barack Obama was quick to reemphasize the fact that he never was or is the frontrunner but sees himself as the perennial underdog. The Obama strategy is to lower expectations, even though he is poised to do well in Nevada and South Carolina, so as to claim a even larger victory if he wins the two states. The Clinton campaign is now looking to continue is first place position, knowing fully well that the daggers will be out again, a la post Iowa, if she loses another state. The campaign also saw John Edwards finish second in New Hampshire, and though he will fight on till the South Carolina primaries, his home state, the chances of Edwards winning the candidature seem remote. Also, it is likely that the fourth place will end Bill Richardson’s campaign, and in that likelihood there is a high certainty that Clinton might offer him to become her vice-presidential candidate. While a Clinton-Obama Democratic ticket sounds too good to be true, it remains outside the realms of immediate possibility. Obama, Clinton and Edwards have taken position far diverse from each other and their coming together to run on a democratic presidential and vice presidential ticket seems remote. Richardson, who served as Energy Secretary and at the UN under Bill Clinton, will seem like a handy candidate for Hillary Clinton to win over the crucial Hispanic vote in politically important states like California, New Mexico and Texas. The battle for the democrats is clearly in South Carolina. The top three candidates have a lot at stake in the state. The state has a large African American population that can sway the result for any candidate. Bill Clinton enjoyed the support of this politically vital community during his two presidential races and his wife would want to retain those votes. For Obama, it will be an important test to see the type of support he enjoys amongst his own. And for Edwards, fighting in his home state will mean more about a show of strength and honor and also an indication of where his race is going.

The Republicans seem to be in the undecided mode. Without giving a clear signal, all four frontrunners continue to battle on. While John McCain made a predictable comeback, New Hampshire has been his focus and the state has been particularly kind to him, though, he still figures below Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in the national polls. Mike Huckabee won third place in New Hampshire and would like to continue his momentum to South Carolina, a state which has a large Christian evangelical population, a segment which has been the bulwark of the Huckabee campaign. Mitt Romney, who invested a lot of time and money in New Hampshire, finished second. Sounding upbeat, he said that he had won one gold and two silvers, with victories in Wyoming and second place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, he has vowed to carry forward his campaign. His test will come in Michigan, his home state, where if he fails to do well he might just see his candidature fizzle out. While a favorable win in the state will give him the momentum to carry on the fight. Also, after a loss in Michigan to carry out the fight in South Carolina given his Mormon beliefs might just seem untenable. As of now, it does seem that Michigan will go to McCain, who enjoys support amongst the automotive unions that make a big chunk of voting blocks in the state. The mysterious campaign of Rudy Giuliani continues to defy logic. Not fighting in Iowa and New Hampshire has thrown his campaign out of the national debate. By wanting to put his political eggs in the Florida basket, the self proclaimed “mayor of America” might be putting up too big a gamble. However, he still remains a strong contender who might just win the candidature.

So with two states having thrown out two different results, this race is still too early to be called. However, it is emerging clearly that the fight is narrowing down to a two or three candidates on either side and who knows like New Hampshire, the coming primaries might alter who remains on top and for how long.

2008-01-04T23:01:00.000-08:00

Caucus Kickoff - Obama, Huckabee first movers

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee registered big victories in the debut caucuses in the state of Iowa. The margin of victory for both candidates was handsome considering the poll predications envisaging a tight race. Barack Obama, the first serious African-American candidate in the race for decades, proved too good for the frontrunner Hillary Clinton and contender John Edwards. The predictions had held that Clinton would just scrape through Iowa and Obama would finish second. However, in a dramatic turnaround Obama beat both Clinton and Edwards to claim top spot and rather poignantly said “they said this day would never come”. The fact that Obama is on top of the heap is no surprise. An engaging speaker with a good network of volunteers, supporters and money, Obama has harped craftily on being the agent for change. The Iowa vote will ensure that he carries that momentum for change into New Hampshire where the primaries will be held on Wednesday.
The loss was indeed a setback for Clinton, who claims to be the best prepared, experienced and pedigreed for the top job. A third place finish will surely invigorate her campaign to ensure victories in the upcoming state primaries in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina. The New Hampshire vote should go to the Clinton kitty given the fact the East Coast liberal establishment would want the sailing is smooth after the Iowa jolt. The Iowa loss meant that two democratic candidates dropped out of the race. Foreign policy heavyweight Joe Biden and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd declared the end of their bid for the White House. That leaves only four serious candidates in the fray – Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson. The rest will eventually drop out in the course of the month or latest by February 5th or the adequately titled “super duper Tuesday” when 24 states go to select their candidates.

The Republican race is open with Mike Huckabee winning in Iowa but not enjoying much approval across the country. The assumed frontrunner former New York Governor, Rudy Giuliani did not even take part in the contest, expecting a defeat, he finished a dismal sixth. Mitt Romney continues to remain at number two with 25% of the vote. He should go on to win New Hampshire on his fiscal conservative, pro-business policy approach. Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, carried Iowa based on the Christian evangelical vote which forms a large majority in the mostly rural state. How he fairs in the rest of the country is debatable. He would like to see the victory’s momentum help him pick up the coming states especially South Carolina, where the religious vote forms an important constituent. Giuliani meanwhile is targeting Florida, which carries a huge chunk of votes to gain momentum for super-duper Tuesday and ultimately get the candidature. However, his strategy may rebound, by not taking the Iowa and New Hampshire states seriously and thereby losing out on the first mover advantage. Romney for all his drawbacks on policy flip-flops and his Mormon religious beliefs appears to be a strong candidate and could just pip the rest to get the nomination. At worst he remains a strong vice-presidential running mate for the man who ultimately gets the nomination. The Iowa vote will also end the lackluster campaign of former “Law and Order” star and Senator Fred Thompson’s campaign. The much touted savior of the republicans fell flat with policy gaffes and a clear lack of depth to stand for the top job. So the Republican race narrows down to three realistic candidates – Romney, Giuliani and McCain. The Republican race, though, is wide open.

The X-factor in these elections remains former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. A seasoned Democrat, he quit the party to become the Republican candidate for mayor in 2001. Bloomberg has the money, pedigree and political experience to turn the presidential race on its head. If he does join the fray as an independent, he will cut into the Republican and Democrat votes given his centrist position. He could become the Ralph Nader of 2008 and that prospect will ring fear into strategists on both sides. However, as recently as a couple of days ago, he has ruled out his candidature. But the lack of a clear frontrunner in both or either party’s may just tempt him to jump into the race.

Too much hype has been surrounded on the Iowa vote, it must be pointed out that neither Bill Clinton nor George H.W. Bush won Iowa yet they went on to the win the White House. The ultimate date to watch out for is February 5th. The results of the day will more or less decide who wins the nomination and from then onwards it will become a Democratic versus Republican battle. The election fever has only just begun.

2008-01-03T02:38:00.000-08:00

When Truth Hurts - Conspiracies Abound

The Benazir Bhutto assassination has joined the long list of news stories that have a legion of conspiracy theories attached to them. Some theories are plain silly, like the 9/11 conspiracy theory that the building was brought down by the Bush administration by a series of internal explosions. Some are more thought provoking like the truth about Area 51 and so on. Then there are others which have lingered for over decades like the Kennedy assassination and the Zia plane crash. Most of these incidents have plausible explanations but have some loop holes that can help an industry of conspiracy theories to flourish and even make money. Of the most famous of these theories is on the man landing on the moon. Many allege that NASA faked the entire incident and actually Neil Armstrong’s small step was very much on earth rather than on our nearest satellite. Then again, the conspiracy theories about age old myths and legends continue till this day. Was the Mona Lisa a man? Was Mary Magdalene actually the wife of Jesus who was abandoned by the patriarchal church that followed after Jesus? Does the Ram Sethu really exist or is it the figment of a fertile imagination? All these questions may never get reasonable answers or worse still theorists choose to overlook the explanations either because of a genuine sense of doubt and over questions over a governmental cover-up or worst still just to make petty cash in the process.

Some conspiracy theories which involve religion are especially troublesome. Many lives have been lost over the years over differing theories on the subject of religion. Be it the differences between the Shias and Sunnis in the Muslims, or the various theories put forth in Christianity over Jesus’ succession and the role of Mary Magdalene apart from the various offshoots that hold different beliefs over their religion. Then there are the various theories based on ethnicity and Semitism – the ever existent Zionist conspiracy that holds much currency on the Arab streets. Closer home there is a clear industry in the field of conspiracy theories on the role of the ISI in just about everything – right from terror strikes to food shortages and maybe even the entry of big retail to India!. A quick hop across the border reveals the other end of the spectrum. In Pakistan anything and everything that goes wrong has a Zionist-American theory attached to it. But the subcontinent pales in comparison to the United States not only in having a fertile imagination, but also in terms of the number of believers. Every major incident in the US has thrown up as many conspiracy theories. The Kennedy assassination, the Apollo missions, Area 51, Watergate, 9/11, the Obama candidacy, Gulf War 1 and 2 and the list goes on endlessly. Much of it has to do with a certain sense of paranoia that exists amongst many towards big brother. Big Brother has not done itself too many favors by selectively hiding and selectively leaking information that not only plants the seeds of nagging doubt but also discredit the official version of any event that may have happened. This is more so true in the post-9/11 world with the expansion of the internet to nearly every household in the West and the burgeoning media offering different aspects of a story from ‘reliable’ sources. Much of the conspiracy theories that exist today are a direct fallout of this intense sense of competition and opportunity that interplays between the media and the new media of the internet. Mush of it though, is just plain silly and holds mere entertainment value.

So why are we intrigued with the whole idea of conspiracy theories. Much of it has to do with the fact that often the truth is rather pale in comparison to a competing conspiracy theory. Did Hitler, the greatest villain of the twentieth century actually just shoot himself in the head? Sounds rather dull for a man who achieved so much notoriety. While a competing view that he escaped and lived somewhere in South America holds certain romanticism and adds to the legend. When Saddam was on the run, he was reportedly on a virtual world tour, with some opining that he may be actually be in US smoking cigars with the President, he was thought to be anywhere in world except a spider hole where he was eventually found. Osama too seems to be a frequent flier having potentially been in Africa, Central Asia, South East Asia and now has settled somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Romanticism aside, some incidents actually need more prodding to reveal the truth. Many times, governments choose to become more economical with the truth in order to save their own skin. And it is the credible work of theorists, independent investigators and journalists that ensures that truth sees the light of day. Pop culture too seems to play on that notion well. The award winning series X-Files harped on that very aspect by claiming that the ‘truth is out there’. And so, till the time spectacular incidents take place and till the time governments continue to cover their tracks, conspiracies will continue. And so shall we all revel in talking to each other about our own ‘explanation’ on how things happened. Truth can wait.

2007-12-28T00:53:00.000-08:00

Benazir Bhutto : 1953-2007

Two time prime minister and the scion of the Bhutto dynasty of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was brutally killed by assailants after a campaign rally in the garrison town of Rawalpindi. Her assassination further complicates the already tumultuous and precarious state of affairs in Pakistan. It also throws the country into further chaos, uncertainty and a period of undemocratic rule for the near future. Bhutto, the charismatic leader of the Pakistan People’s Party, was seen as the only credible moderate leader that could end the recent chaos witnessed under the Musharraf regime. The entire world had anticipated that the January 8th elections next year would herald Bhutto in for her third term as prime minister and in doing so bring some semblance of elected democracy in Pakistan. That hope was cut short by the fateful events at the Liaqat Bagh in Rawalpindi, ironically the very place where another former prime minister of Pakistan Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951. The complex political history of Pakistan seems to be going into another tailspin, with one half of the famed democratic duo of Sharif and Bhutto, falling tragically to the assassins bullets. How does the death of the charismatic Bhutto change the course of political history of Pakistan and what will be the short term implications of this assassination?

Musharraf’s options
President Pervez Musharraf finds himself painted with blood to a corner. His deliberations with Bhutto since February of 2007 had ensured that they reached on a consensus on Bhutto’s return to fight elections. Today, Musharraf finds himself fighting one of the two charges – of either complicity in planning the attack on Benazir or a failure to provide her with adequate security. Musharraf will always battle either of these two charges in times to come. Also, with Benazir dead, Musharraf finds himself without any credible non-partisan politician on his side. Pakistan Muslim League (N) leader Nawaz Sharif voices a hard-line approach towards Musharraf, calling for the boycott of the upcoming elections and wanting Musharraf’s removal from Pakistani politics. Musharraf only enjoys the support of the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), whose candidate for the prime minister is former chief minister of Punjab Pervez Elahi. It is the PML (Q) that has accorded Musharraf the political legitimacy since 2002 to continue in office as president and in such a circumstance are seen as complicit with the regime. Their victory in the elections will be seen as a farce by Pakistanis and will further play on the conspiracy theories of Musharraf’s involvement in Bhutto’s murder. Either way, holding elections in January seems untenable with the All Parties Democratic Movement wanting to boycott these elections. Musharraf will not risk holding elections to elect his allies again as that will mean a continuation of status quo ante in the country. If ever Musharraf needed to impose a state of emergency it is now, rather than having imposed it in November to settle political scores by putting Bhutto under house arrest and jailing lawyers and civic activists. Musharraf should postpone elections till March or April of 2008 to ensure smooth and participative elections. The current uncertainty and turmoil will witness namesake elections with large sections of the Pakistani electorate choosing personal safety over the ballot box. By giving a few months to ‘secure’ Pakistan Musharraf not will ensure some sort of legitimate elections, it will also help the PPP in choosing an alternative to Benazir. However, the postponement of elections comes with a rider, any delay may see demonstrations and a move to oust Musharraf which may enjoy the blessings of Washington and could further plunge the country into chaos. But it is time that Pakistanis decide whether they want elections under Musharraf or to charter a new course sans the dictator.

US’ Dilemma
Having put all its political hopes on Benazir Bhutto, her death brings uncertainty over US policy towards democratic change in Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif remains a persona non grata over his links to the Islamic fringe of Pakistani society and his hard line view on Musharraf’s continuation in office. The Bush Administration will view Musharraf as its only reliable ally in Pakistan, no matter how bitter a pill it maybe to swallow. It will have to support the ex-general; for without him the US’ war on terror will be shaky and the country’s new leadership after Musharraf will not toe the American line. The Americans will realize the political liability they have become to the politics of Pakistan, where backing a candidate means effectively eliminating them from the political scene. From today, Pakistani politics will shift more towards a more anti-US approach rather than allying with them. In such a scenario the US will need to keep Musharraf on their side. The Americans might just initiate direct contact with the new army chief, General Pervez Kiani, to take a stronger control over the army and thereby reduce American dependence on Musharraf. If the situation worsens, Kiani might topple his ex-master to take over the country. The US might trade democracy for stability, but its wish would be to see Musharraf continue in office and conduct some form of elections that they can tout as a positive way forward for Pakistan.

Impact on India
While the Indian establishment has been quick to voice its shock and horror on the events of the past 24 hours with the prime minister condemning it as a ‘heinous act’, there is no denying the fact that the assassination of Bhutto might strengthen India’s case in Kashmir. With the army and ISI having to battle its own demons within the country, the export of terror may not be high on its agenda or more pointedly in its control. The political turmoil in Pakistan gives India the legitimate right to strengthen its borders with Pakistan and thereby help curb infiltration. Pakistan will continue to battle its internal security rather than adopt a vigorous foreign policy on Kashmir. The past few years are a testament to this fact. The internal situation in Pakistan has become so tenuous that Pakistan has not had the time, energy or resources to pursue its twin pronged approach towards India – peace talks through Confidence Building Measures or turning on the tap of infiltration into Kashmir. While the situation in Pakistan will concern India, there is cautious optimism that the spotlight is now on the Pakistani establishment in fighting extremism in their own backyard. Any push to infiltrate terrorists into India will be strongly highlighted and dealt with by both the West and India. India may have lost a friend in Benazir, ironically it came on a day when in her last election rally she gave a strong nationalist speech and spoke at lengths on India’s nuclear program and how her father helped Pakistan acquire the nuclear bomb to counter India. While it may be political rhetoric it does belie a popular notion that she was a friend of India. If anything, the Kashmir insurgency and the rise of the Taliban has been attributed to the Bhutto, though on both counts, the Kashmir insurgency and the Taliban, could not have been possible without the ISI or the army. This does take away the fact that out of the many faces in Pakistani politics, Bhutto did emerge as the most moderate and modern voice and India will rue that fact that they will now have to deal with less hospitable leaders or continue to deal with the wily President instead of Bhutto.

Pakistan’s static political movement
The past two decades of Pakistani politics have failed to throw up credible leaders in the Pakistani political constellation. Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were the only leaders that enjoyed a credible national following. The pretext of overthrowing Sharif in 1999 was to usher in real democracy in Pakistan. In the intervening near-decade old Musharraf rule, he has failed to propagate a democratic movement that would nurture political leaders. He like all dictators before him strengthened the control of the army over Pakistani society and followed the time tested disaster of promoting yes men as credible political leaders. By bringing in Shaukhat Aziz from the World Bank to serve as the country’s premier was to show to the world that Musharraf was bringing in change with technocrats given the job to run the country. But Aziz enjoyed little support from the political parties in Pakistan and was at best a stop gap arrangement. Without a sound political backing his attempt to stand for elections came to a naught. All this while Musharraf remained in the illusion that he was ushering in 'true' democracy in Pakistan. Unfortunately for him, democracy does not work from top to bottom; it is in fact the other way round. And this year, he was forced to bring back the same two people whom he proclaimed to be detrimental to Pakistan to stand for elections. The move-to-real- democracy myth that Musharraf played for the past decade seemed to have been unravelled and the true extent of the lack of grass root politics is on display in Pakistan today. It was left to the lawyers and human rights activists to oppose Musharraf’s stranglehold on power, and in doing so they have been at the receiving end of the regime’s baton.

The ISI and the Taliban
Musharraf initiated the doctrine of ‘enlightened moderation’ for Pakistan. Whereby he wanted to make Pakistan a modern democratic state with a free market economy and one where religion only in its moderate form would be allowed to flourish. The Pakistan of 2007 could not be further away from that doctrine. The Lal Masjid siege in the heart of Islamabad in July 2007 and the two assassination attempts on Musharraf and then on Benazir’s return has amplified the rise of Islamic militancy in Pakistan. The war that Pakistan is fighting is its own doing. The ISI tacit support for the Mullahs and militants has turned to become Pakistan’s worst nightmare. The ISI is still seen as hand in glove with the Jihadi elements. The Pakistani army bears its origin to the notion of an Islamic army. The infiltration of hard-line Jihadi elements in the army is well known and that will not change anytime soon. Generals have come gone as have political leaders, but the symbiotic relationship between the ISI-Army and Islamic radicalism remains strong since the formation of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal
The future of Pakistan hangs in the balance, the nuclear weapons state remains the most volatile out of the entire nuclear club. While there has been talk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, the notion is far fetched, though an important one to consider. The army will maintain control over the nuclear weapons program and any democratically elected civilian government can only make noises about the bomb rather than having any operational control over them. The concern remains over the blurring lines between the ISI-Army and Islamic radicalism. The complex relationship between the two is a cause for concern, for if a hardliner General were to take over the country, safety of the nuclear weapons will remain an alarming concern.

At the moment Pakistan marks the end of an era in Pakistani politics. The country has lost a truly charismatic leader who held much promise and the chance to bring in stability. Her funeral and burial will take place in the Bhutto home town of Larkana and she will be laid to rest next to her father. And with her many wonder has the chance for peace and stability also been given a decent burial. She may not have lived long enough to see a truly democratic Pakistan but she will be remembered as a courageous politician who gave her life for her country and for the cause of democracy.

2007-12-24T06:14:00.000-08:00

Jeet Ka Saudagar

The emphatic victory by the Narendra Modi led BJP in Gujarat has shaken Indian politics forever. The implications of this two-thirds majority will resonate in the years to come. Most notably, this election victory certainly has changed the dynamics of the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, with the BJP led NDA looking to make a comeback, or at least present a united front against the UPA. However, this staggering victory will also profoundly change clichéd politically correct definitions in the political lexicon, while also bringing credibility to the concept of inclusive nationalism. While one must not get ahead of one self in terms of the impact of a state election on national polity, the changes this election brings about are hard to shake off. In a single day, Narendra Modi has turned the tables on the Congress and the UPA, he has done so by bringing in a unique mix of development with nationalism, which if used judiciously can yield great dividends for the BJP.

These elections have become the proverbial Waterloo for the New Delhi elite, be it in the media, intelligentsia or political commentary. Narendra Modi has proved that most opinions put forth by the English speaking upper crust of Indian society do not decide whether he rules or not. He has proven that regardless of the relentless battering he received by the liberal elite, by providing transparent and effective governance, he could get what he called a ‘positive vote’. This also marks a turning point in how political lexicon has been and now should be used in the country. He has turned the entire communal-secular-pseudo secular argument on its head. By claiming to be working in the interest of all Gujaratis irrespective of religion, caste and creed, he envisions to inculcate the true meaning of secularism in his public policy. While this may not be entirely accurate, given the severe indictment he received from one and all in the aftermath of the 2002 riots, it does hold merit in terms of not wanting to differentiate any person from his state in terms of religious or caste persuasions. Then again, the pandering on display by the Congress, spearheaded by Sonia Gandhi, towards the Muslims not only gave Modi the wiggle room to play the nationalist card, it once again proved that the Congress is neither secular nor is it pseudo-secular, at best it can be called a pro-minority party. Given the fact that the Congress has chosen to appeal only to the minority section, be it as an electoral strategy or through public policy of the UPA, the Congress has some serious charges to answer in terms of minority appeasement and paradoxically communalism. For if communalism means appealing to a particular section, then the Congress’ polices seem to fit the bill. It is high time that the political lexicon of the day change its definitions from communal or secular to pro-minority and anti-minority, for they adequately reflect the policies of the major political forces of the day.

The second reason why these elections have the potential to change political discourse of national politics is the fact that the message carved by Modi has the potential for mass appeal. The nation deserves and wants governments at all levels that is tough on terror and on the causes of terror. For far too long have we have suffered the bane of terrorism and for even longer have we have shied away from discussing the root causes of terror in our quest to remain politically correct. A tough on terror message is welcome and Modi figured that this message has sound resonance with the entire population of the country. It is important to separate terrorism from religion. This is the crux of the doctrine Modi has brought to the fore. He argued that when he talks about and Afzal Guru or a Sohrabuddin, he talks about a terrorist and a criminal, not about a Muslim. While it may remain the inconvenient truth that most terror attacks in the world are carried out by Muslims, it is a statistic that one must not shy away from. No one advocates harassment or victimization because of the actions of a radical few in any religion, but being politically correct should not make us naïve enough to look the other way. This message has strongly resonated with many in these elections and Modi tapped into its potential for success with this message with great élan.

India is poised to lead the world in the 21st century; there is a sense of anticipation towards a better future for our country. The youth in this country today show a confidence that is a welcome relief from the glum and frustration of the license raj years, Narendra Modi’s strong message of nationalism along with national pride can resonate well with a large section of the youth provided it is without the anti-minority aggro. This message to achieve India’s potential at all costs can help the BJP galvanize a new generation of followers, while it can creditably lay claim to the fact that whenever the BJP has come to power it has sown the seeds of development and pursued inclusive nationalism. If this message were to be crafted well and proven repeatedly, like in Gujarat, the BJP is poised to change the perception of being a party of the ultra-right wing RSSwallahs. And that brings to the third most important change these election results have brought. Centre-right political ideology has been a much maligned force in Indian politics. While it was and still is fashionable to be a Leftist, with an inclusive outlook that was pro-poor and mostly anti-government in nature, being on the Right of the political spectrum was treated with much disdain. As Modi has proved in these elections, it’s not necessary to be a Rightist in policy while having to be in bed with the likes of the ultra-right of the RSS and the VHP. There is a credible and viable space to be in the centre-right of politics with a pragmatic approach towards development, minority and majority rights and nationalism. This paradigm shift will give due credit to the centre-right movement which has been much slandered by all in sundry for years, and though much of the fault lies with the centre-right movement itself, there seems to be broader acceptability towards the right of centre in the political space.

After all is said and done with, ultimately it is the remarkable victory that Narendra Modi has delivered that these elections will be best remembered for. While it was also amusing to see that the post election result so baffled many in the world of television punditry, that anchors for the first time were seen grilling the victors on why they won rather than ask the relevant questions to the losers on why they lost! That aside, it is without doubt Modi’s moment and while the political analysts and his detractors in his own party may scratch their heads on what it’s in store for Modi, his stock has certainly risen and the BJP would hope that they can piggy back to power on his message in 2009.

2007-12-16T23:13:00.001-08:00

Who will blame Sonia?

The exit polls in Gujarat seem to suggest that the Narendra Modi led BJP government should make a comeback to power albeit with a reduced mandate to govern. The predictions range between the 90 to 110 range for the BJP while the tally reads 75-85 for the Congress. While exit polls have become as predictable as the weather, there is no doubting the fact that it does seem that Modi will return to power for a fresh five year term. If the exit polls are taken as true, then it will signal a major reversal of fortunes for the Congress, for whom the loss will surely hurt. Given the fact that most political analysts believe that the polarization of the Hindu vote one saw in the 2002 elections would not be repeated in 2007, and given such a scenario, the likelihood of a fragmented Hindu vote seemed to be on the cards. With the breakaway faction led by Keshubhai Patel causing some damage to the BJP’s numbers and given the anti-incumbency mood in South Gujarat and Saurashtra, this indeed was a fight to the death. However, if the exit polls are to be believed the contest, though tougher than the walkover of 2002, is set to be won by the BJP. In such an eventuality it is imperative on the Congress to introspect and ask where they went wrong.

A man like Narendra Modi did not need negative publicity, what with the national media and social activists of the day vilifying him for his role in the 2002 riots, his negative image was sealed by the Supreme Court calling him a “modern day Nero”. The elections of 2002 were considered forgotten and 2007 was taken as a fresh challenge for the Congress. They set out to debunk the ‘Vibrant Gujarat’ theme for the elections, spiritedly pointing out to the lack of development of many rural areas in Gujarat. They prepared dossiers to counter the incumbent’s talk of development and up till recently it seemed that the BJP might face an ‘India Shining’ redux in the elections. The wiggle room to get out of the development agenda to more emotive and vote catching themes was presented on a platter by the Congress President Sonia Gandhi. Her now famous ‘merchants of death’ comment provided Modi with the tactical opening, and he used with great élan. Hitting back at the Congress for being soft on terror and supporting a person like Sohrabuddin who was a known criminal, Modi sensed the road to victory might just be sealed through the “maut ke saudagar” remarks. The notice to Modi by the Election Commission further served to the BJP’s interest, who loudly claimed a biased commission working at the behest of Sonia Gandhi. With the EC issuing notices to Gandhi, the BJP won round two of this battle. The Congress further spoilt it chances by not projecting a credible alternative to Modi. Knowing fully well that this election had been reduced to a plebiscite on Modi, they failed to put up an opposing candidate. Bharatsinh Solanki, the poster boy for the Congress, fought valiantly, but without him being projected as the face of change, his appeal was limited. The Congress should have put aside the factionalism within the Gujarat unit and ensured that they were not adequately represented in this David versus Goliath contest. Unfortunately, the David will be sorely missed by the Congress in these elections.

Given the fact that the entire reversal of the agenda for these elections was because of that fateful speech by Sonia Gandhi, the Congress party will find conducting a post-mortem finger pointing exercise a trifle tough. Will anybody in the Congress stand up and question the wisdom of speaking words that nearly sealed the party’s fate that too when things were going in its favour? One thinks not, but in the ultimate analysis, that single phrase may have well cost the party an election that they could have wrested out of Modi’s control. The election results, if we assume the exit polls to be correct, will also speak poorly of the new Congress troika of Sonia Gandhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Rahul Gandhi. All three, touted as the face of secularism, development and a secure future, fared poorly. All their speeches proved lackluster or worse still played into the enemy hands. With the Congress’ show in UP giving nightmares to the party’s think tank, the Gujarat showing might put even more pressure on Rahul Gandhi and his advisors on his future in politics. When will the heir deliver is the question on everyone’s mind. Then again, in 2004 the NDA rode high on the exit polls and faced a leader-less Congress (though Sonia Gandhi was unofficially the de-facto prime ministerial candidate) only to be humbled by the electorate. It may happen again, but the chances remain remote and one thinks the psephologists have become more cautious since then. A third successive term will ensure that Modi will triumphantly declare himself the ‘merchant of victory’ for the time being, while it will be back to the drawing board for Congress and the first family.

2007-12-09T23:28:00.000-08:00

Bush Administration…..no….Regime

The Oxford dictionary defines regime as:

regime
• Noun 1. a government, especially an authoritarian one. 2 a systematic or ordered way of doing something. 3 the conditions under which a scientific or industrial process occurs.

— ORIGIN originally in the sense regimen: from French, from Latin regimen ‘rule’.

While it defines and administration as:

administration

• Noun 1. the organization and running of a business or system. 2 the action of administering. 3 the government in power. 4 chiefly N. Amer. the term of office of a political leader or government.

So when does an administration become a regime? How many times have we heard that the Bush Administration is advocating regime change in North Korea or Iran or as in the past Iraq. By labeling even democratic or semi-democratic administrations as regimes like in Venezuela or Russia, does one man’s regime mean another one’s administration?

The Bush ‘administration’ has been in power for eight years and over the years has faced countless charges of high-handedness, secrecy, unilateralism and authoritarianism over its domestic and foreign policies. The invasion (or is it occupation!) of Iraq, the domestic wiretapping controversy, Guantanamo Bay etc. have all the potential to make this administration fit the ‘regime’ definition. But can we ever call it that? I think not. Then again, do democratically elected governments, and more so re-elected governments, ever become regimes? Why is that in Russia the Putin administration, which held out the olive branch to the US in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, is now labeled as a regime curiously once ties between the two countries have considerably cooled? Or for that matter the previous Khatami government in Iran, considered moderate by Iranian standards, was considered an administration, even though American data now suggests that it was under that very regime (?) that Iran was building a nuclear weapons program! The current Ahmedinejad administration, which going by the same intelligence estimate is now nuclear weapons program free is labeled a regime. Confusing isn’t it?

But then in this naïve argument over regime over administration, one cannot overlook the fact as to where the source of a story one reads emanates from usually decides the regime-administration debate and outlooks change from country to country and from one media form to the other. American and Western media will always like to call the Bush government (thank God for a neutral word!) an administration, never mind the fact that they will paint it as a copybook regime. The reverse is true for unfriendly countries like Russia, Venezuela and Iraq, so a definite pattern does seem to emerge. The media in the Middle East, though never known to call a regime a regime, still refer to all its governments as administrations. So as you move from country to country a clear pattern of what defines a regime and administration changes with glaring alacrity. Then again, electronic media like Fox News in the US, for wanting to create sensationalism love words like regime and dictatorship at the drop of the hat (or is it mike), while more sober outlets like the New York Times would still prefer government and administration.

The other equally intriguing question that emerges is can a regime become an administration or vice versa? Is it just semantics or does a rational system to label a government actually exist? Pakistan is a curious country in a bit of a pickle. As President Musharraf ruled valiantly for the past few years, the Musharraf administration was hailed as a frontline ally against terrorism, the cowboy of the East as it were. This year though, his ‘administration’, now enjoys the tag of a regime. Never mind the fact that authoritarianism was the hallmark of the Musharraf government right since the beginning what with a crackdown on democratic parties and the free media. But it was never the West’s concern to call a dictator just that as long as he was on their side. With the administration now getting out of hand, the curse of the regime is now solidly attached to Musharraf. Then again now that he has taken off the uniform, a loaded term on its own, and assumed the role a civil ‘administrator’ does he warrant a change from regime to administration again? A regime change if you will!

In India too, the regime-administration tug of war continues. So as soon as the word Modi comes up, regime and dictator follow. And strangely, his new found friend in that exclusive regime club is West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee. But in India we face a curious problem; it is not rocket science to imagine that the Manmohan Singh government is an administration and not a regime. How can we call his government a regime, when let alone authoritarianism, the Prime Minister does not even have authority to shuffle his own cabinet. Here we have an administration which is being run by the Congress regime and the regime of the regional parties. To each is own I guess. So, to get around this regime-administration business, why not start a colour coded regime to administration chart, much like terror alerts in the West. Green could mean an administration while red could mean regime, with yellow, orange making up the transformation. It would be a great ready reckoner for all of us who get oh so confused with the regimen of calling a spade a shovel and vice versa.

2007-12-07T22:57:00.001-08:00

Gujarat Polls - Rhetoric over Realpolitik

The war of words as it were seems to go on unabated in the run up to the crucial Gujarat polls which are due in a little over week’s time. The ruling BJP and the opposition Congress seem at logger heads with each over the ‘slugfest’ that has become this election. After the fiery rhetoric from Chief Minister Narendra Modi and salvos from Sonia Gandhi and Digvijay Singh, the prime minister too has now entered the fray to make himself heard. The intense wordplay underscores the importance of these elections, with the BJP realizing that the development plank alone cannot win them the elections and the Congress, wanting to reduce the margin the loss, wants to make gains in areas like Saurashtra where the BJP is on a sticky wicket. The Congress, in its exuberance have not only made obvious mistakes like not projecting an alternate to Modi in this election which has largely become a personality driven affair, they have also handed out a propaganda victory of sorts to Modi on the issue of minority appeasement, terrorism and nationalism.

The Congress party finds itself in an unusual quandary while facing Modi. When Modi went about town talking about development, the Congress instead on harping on the lack of it unleashed Sonia Gandhi, who instead of rebutting the development agenda switched tracks by calling Modi and the state government the “merchants of death’. Sensing an opportunity to break away from the development plank, whose usefulness is limited in terms of appeal and re-election, Modi lashed on to Gandhi’s comment and hit back by justifying the Sohrabuddin encounter. The BJP argued that they did not speak about Sohrabuddin the Muslim, but Sohrabuddin the criminal. They further point out that while the Congress would not want to convict a criminal if he were from a minority community, the BJP goes after criminals and terrorists regardless of creed and religion. While that is a comfortable nationalist though on terror position to take, it knows fully well that terrorism is now linked to the minority section of the population. The Congress should have ideally attacked the government from the get go on the riots and issues like fake encounters from the start rather than at the near end of the political canvassing process. By bringing out these issues at this stage was only playing into Modi’s hands. Then again, once the Congress chief had made the “maut ka saudagar” comment, the Congress should have backed its leader to the hit rather than flip flopping on the issue. For if the Congress is truly secular, and minority rights figure high on its agenda, it should not worry about what the reaction would be from the extreme right of the majority community. By reigniting the subject of riots and Sohrabuddin only to backtrack at the slightest insinuation does grave injustice to the cause of the riot victims and smacks of pseudo-secularism of the worst kind.

The Congress is trying to play the game of realpolitik but finds itself only venting hot air and rhetoric rather than winning over the moderate sections of voters from across the religious divide. The Congress should have brought into the open the lack of development in Gujarat, with prosperity bringing cheer to only a select few. The Congress in an attempt to do so did bring out the prime minister, who argued that the development in Gujarat is not due to the policies of the Chief Minister and is not limited to the state, but is a pan-India phenomenon. Little did Dr. Singh realize that the elections being held are for the state and not for the centre. The referendum in question is of the Modi government not the UPA in New Delhi. He went on to say that, if anyone dares to oppose the current incumbent then only God can help him. The rhetoric aside, the statements are in poor taste. The prime minister is the supreme political authority in the country. And if under his watch such ‘unconstitutional’ conditions exist then why did he not do anything about it? Why is it that the prime minister is so concerned over the conditions in Gujarat and not West Bengal, where the CPM operates like an extra-constitutional authority, or in Congress ruled Andhra Pradesh where the writ of the Naxals runs larger than the state governments? By pandering on Narendra Modi, the demon, the Congress is making him the agenda, which they should have avoided in the absence of an alternative that could be projected as the moral face of opposition to Modi. In this David versus Goliath, David is missing in action.

The Congress has instead invested in backing the BJP rebels, who were sidelined by the Modi faction. Many of these rebels, like Goradhan Zadaphia, who played a crucial role in the riots of 2002, find themselves being accommodated by the Congress who has issued tickets to their proxies. The Congress may aim to gain a dozen odd seats from the BJP by backing the rebels, it will lose the moral argument it keeps harping on against the vicious ‘communal’ forces. For the moment it seems that Modi will win these elections, albeit with a much reduced majority. If the Congress does make the arithmetic neck and neck, it will be an admirable comeback after losing two straight elections in the state. But even in doing so, it has only helped eulogize Modi rather than demonize him, falling into the Modi trap of 2007 much like its previous version in 2002.

2007-12-05T01:20:00.001-08:00

The Iranian Bombshell - Intelligence nukes Bush

The United States came out with its delayed National Intelligence Estimate, a distillation of intelligence inputs from the US’ 16 intelligence gathering agencies, which have the potential to further isolate the Bush Administration aggressive policy towards Iran and its nuclear program. The National Intelligence Estimate is a biennial report that comes out with strategic intelligence pointers on key trouble spots for the United States. The National Intelligence Estimate in 2002 became controversial and contentious as it was held up by the Bush Administration as the basis to go to war with Iraq. The NIE report of 2002 was disputed by many in the intelligence setup, most notably by the former US ambassador Joe Wilson and his under cover CIA operative wife Valerie Plame and the ensuing drama that unfolded gobbled up Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby on charges of leaking Plame’s secret identity to journalists. The 2005 estimate became the Bush administration’s holy grail for ratcheting up the pressure on the US’ other bete noire in the ‘Axis of Evil’, Iran. The 2005 estimate stated that “it assesses with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite international obligations and international pressure”. This estimate not only helped the US in rallying allies against the Iranian covert nuclear ambitions, it also made fence sitters on the Iranian issue, like India, stand up and take the potential of an Iranian bomb a reality in the coming years. The United States ensured that three rounds of sanctions were put on Iran, with a fourth round in the offing. The Iranians have consistently fought back and have insisted that their nuclear program is for energy purposes only and have accused the US of being tough on Iran because of their testy past. The confidence on display since 2005 on part of Iran is not surprising. Being a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, they do not violate any international law in seeking nuclear energy. Further, the help the Iranians get from Russia and China on the UN Security Council ensures that tougher sanctions will not see the light of day. Lastly, Iran has met all the requirements including inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s global nuclear watchdog. With the 2007 intelligence estimate now judging “with high confidence that in the fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear program….the halt lasted at least several years” the Iranians can consider themselves off the hook, thanks ironically to the United States’ intelligence agencies.

The new intelligence estimate is a massive body blow for the United States. The Bush Administration is tethering under attacks from all fronts. Iraq, though better now, has been Bush’s albatross since the invasion, Afghanistan is becoming increasingly violent, North Korea is now a nuclear state, the US has lost key allies in the war on terror, Pakistan continues to be an enigma of confusion and domestically a hostile Congress is testing the President with each legislation and high profile exits from the Bush’s inner circle like Rumsfeld, Rove, Alberto Gonzales and Francis Townsend only add to Bush’s woes. That he can still smile at press conferences and public engagements is a wonder by itself, however, with Iran now using US’ own Intel estimates against Bush’s policy towards it, the smile may not last for long. The influence of the neo-conservative movement on this administration is as much a fable as a reality. The neo-con agenda to take out Iraq, Iran and North Korea was diligently followed by Bush after 9/11. On all three fronts Bush seems to be fighting a losing battle. No matter how good the progress in Iraq post the surge in troops, it remains a quagmire and the war has now gone on for longer than the US’ involvement in World War 2 costing over 3000 lives. North Korea, though now on the path of reconciliation was touted as an example by the US where diplomacy made the despot relent. However, Kim Jong-Ill relented only after testing his bomb to ensure that the West remains wary and frankly scared in future discussions. Much to the dismay of the American allies, South Korea, the US is making peace with the North after the country became nuclear, thereby, seeming to reward the hostile North for developing nuclear weapons. Iran was the other cause for concern for the United States. The Iranians under President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad have taken a hard-line view on the nuclear issue and have actively encouraged groups in the Middle East that are known to be anti-US and anti-Israel, like the Hezbollah, Hamas and countries like Syria. The United States on the other hand, has made the interests of its key ally Israel the guiding star for its Middle East policy. And in doing so, the Iranian bomb was not only a threat to Israel but by virtue of partnership, a threat to America.

The United States ensured that it raised and kept alive the prospect of the Iranian mushroom cloud alive at international forums and to its domestic audience. Many are convinced that the invasion or a limited military strike on Iran is not a question of if but when. The United States was keen to portray the Iranians as trouble makers in Iraq and in the Israel-Palestine peace process. The just concluded Annapolis peace summit was an exercise in weaning away the Arab states from the non-Arab Persians. While this may have received limited success with Syria joining the talks but Hamas boycotting it, the ‘isolate Iran’ tactic was in full swing. The United States was keen to get the European Union on its side with diplomacy and by presenting the threat of a nuclear Iran. United Kingdom was a follower and more recently French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the prospect of Iran attaining nuclear weapons as “unacceptable”. With all the machinations at work the Bush administration would have never thought that trouble would come from within. For all the rhetoric aside the Bush administration is exposed on how varied its policy is from facts. The intelligence and its corresponding foreign policy directive are tangentially apart. While it emerges that Iran actually is not after the bomb, and it hasn’t been so since 2003, the Bush administration still is harping on the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

The Bush administration will need to calibrate its response on the entire issue based on the facts and must alter policy based on newer revelations it receives. Not wanting to change policy in the face of changed circumstances is not only untenable it can seem as a witch hunt against Iran. Iran will use this as not only a vindication of its stand but also as victimization by flawed US foreign policy. George Bush, sensing the fallout of this report, has changed the goalposts. Instead of talking about developing the nuclear bomb, he now wants to talk about the “potential” and “knowledge” to develop nuclear weapons. This change in tack is detrimental to the United States and will further isolate the Bush administration. It would be better served for them to break from the past and start serious negotiations with Iran on its nuclear plans. The National Intelligence Estimate claims that Iran would “technically get enough Uranium….for a nuclear weapon sometime during 2010-2015” this should give the Bush his successor ample opportunity to change tracks and meaningfully engage with the Iranians for its strategic interest. If it fails to engage Iran, it will further isolate itself in the Middle East and amongst its allies. For the moment, it is the National Intelligence Estimate that is acting like an auto-immune disorder going against George Bush and his administration that finds itself boxed in and snuffed out.

2007-11-28T00:39:00.000-08:00

Annapolis Peace Talks - Futility in motion

The peace and future of the Middle East has taken centre stage with the summit of Palestinian and Israeli leaders along with representatives of Arab states and other players with a say in the conflict taking place in Annapolis, Maryland under the aegis of the United States. The summit, or as the Bush Administration downplays it as a meeting, will be to give fresh impetus to the unending six decades old conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The run up to the meet has been dimly viewed by most analysts, media houses and by Arab and Israeli populace; nevertheless, it does mark a shift towards some movement towards trying to solve the contentious issue that has been sidelined thanks to the war on terror and more pointedly the war in Iraq. While it would be fanciful to expect any major announcements let alone a defining path to peace, in US President George Bush’s view it does mark a first of many steps needed to bring an end to a conflict which is emotive and necessary to bring stability in the region and the larger world order. So just what should one expect from this conference?

For starters, there is no denying the fact that at the moment the three key leaders who are involved in the peace talks are weak politically both at home and abroad. President Bush enjoys approval ratings that hover at an all time low of close to 30%. The war on terror seems to go on unabated even as there is some genuine progress in Iraq after years of mindless violence brought about by the occupation and internal wrangling amongst Iraq’s ethnic factions. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also finds his authority diminished and low approval ratings over a series of scandals that have wracked his administration and have raised questions about financial impropriety by the prime minister himself. The political crisis reached its nadir earlier this year when Olmert and then Defense Minister Amir Peretz where blamed directly by a government investigation over Israel’s humiliating standoff against Hezbollah last year. The calls for his resignation may have receded but challenges remain for the prime minister to regain the confidence of his political allies and Israelis in general. The case of Palestinian Authority chairman and president Mahmoud Abbas is the most tenuous, having lost the elections in 2006 to Hamas, his Fatah faction has lost hold of the Gaza Strip which is home to close to one third of the Palestinians. With Hamas virtually rejecting the Annapolis peace talks, any agreement that he may sign onto will be largely rejected. Also, his position as a man of peace and moderation is likely to be seen as bending over backwards to the West, whose backing he clearly enjoys. So the Annapolis peace talks are more about photo-ops and a check on the things-to-do list for Bush rather than any meaningful solution that all parties publicly envisage. President Bush has talked about his legacy and the how he will be remembered after his term ends in 2009, fearing that Iraq might take up to much space in his post-presidential resume, he seems keen to show a diverse role he played in world affairs while as president. Also for the president who is widely seen as a man of war, the peace conference will seem to downplay his image as a war monger. But then again, while changing stripes maybe the attempt of Bush personally, there is a larger design behind holding this peace conference now.

The New York Times had correctly pointed out a few months ago that the renewed impetus given to the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not only to achieve peace, but rather also to ensure that the Palestinians do not go over to the ‘other’ side. The other side being that of the Iranians. The War in Iraq and the recent war of attrition between Hezbollah-Hamas and Israel have only strengthened the hands of the Iranians, who now seem to enjoy more inspirational support than even the Saudis. The Saudis many have the economic might, but they are seem hand in glove with the US be it politically, economically or geo-politically. It is Iran that has emerged as a nation that has stood up for the pride and rights of the Palestinians and as a country that does not dither from calling a spade a spade. The Iranian nuclear issue had in the past few years isolated Iran amongst its neighbors and the West. But more recently, the right of Iran to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes has become an emotive issue amongst many in the Middle East, who see it as another example of the West trying to meddle in the progress of the Middle East. The sense that America favors only those it is friends with, while punishing any country that chooses not to ally with them is a popular rallying point that has seen Iran turn the tables on the diplomatic front. So much so that while all countries do not want to see Iran attain nuclear weapons they are chary about unleashing sanctions on Iran in its pursuit for nuclear energy. The potential economic benefits of nuclear reactors and the nuclear industry seemed to have put sanctions on hold for the time being. This renewed vigor has given Iran the legitimacy to speak as a major force in the Middle East. The active help the Iranians extend to the Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia factions in Iraq and to Syria means that there is an active Iranian club in the Middle East juxtaposed with the old American club which includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan and Lebanon. The fear that the chance to broker peace might be left to the Iranians was alarming enough to ensure that America did all it could to fill a flight full of Middle Eastern leaders and bring them to Maryland. Had the Americans dithered now, the much acclaimed “road to peace” would not be through Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Washington but through Teheran.

Given the complexity of issues at hand and some red lines that neither side wants to cross including stated positions on the final borders of the two state solution, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the halt to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the contentious future of Jerusalem all of which have the potential to end the process even before it begins. But then for all the negative speak on the peace progress and whatever maybe the intentions to hold the conference now, there is no denying the importance of achieving peace in the Middle East. Most conflicts in the region bear their origin to either the formation of Israel or the treatment being meted out the Palestinian people. The endless cycle of violence and the aggression by both Israel and Palestinian extremist groups has ensured generation after generation of hatred and bigotry. The issue of Palestine has been spoken of by tyrants like Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein to justify anti-Americanism. The peace between Israel and the Palestinians should have been the starting point of the war on terror. When Bush wanted to eradicate the “root cause of extremism” it should have closer to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv not Kabul and Baghdad. For the sake of peace in the region Annapolis must become more than a photo-op, in order to do so it will take courage and understanding by all parties. Only if Teheran and Damascus thought as much too.

2007-11-13T01:31:00.000-08:00

Beyond Musharraf

The eight year reign of General Pervez Musharraf seems to be coming to a tumultuous and uneasy end. Whether the latest order to impose emergency will make the General last in office for a few more months is not important in the larger context of where Pakistan is heading under the General. While in the short term the General may continue in office, it is unlikely that he will still remain president in two years time or even less. The inevitable end of a dictatorship is in the offing no matter how bitter a pill it may be for the General to swallow to realize this awakening. Eight years in power have seen the charismatic army man come to the top riding on the back of a coup that most Pakistanis welcomed to go on to become an “able” ally in the war on terror and win the support of the West. His media image was that of a moderate who wanted “enlightened moderation” to be the guiding politico-cultural ideology of a nation that tilted towards Islamic extremism. While making the right noises he was also able to wrest the initiative from the traditional two-horse party system that exists in Pakistan in the form of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) under Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan People’s Party under Benazir Bhutto, and shift it to a new political movement backed by the powerful Chaudhary brothers of Punjab. The new breakaway Pakistan Muslim League gave the General the necessary executive backing so desired by the Pakistani constitution to remain as President and Army Chief. But with the war on terror in Afghanistan not doing well and in the light of the famous spring offensive against NATO forces by the Taliban came calls for Pakistan to do more in the rugged borders it shares with Afghanistan. The rise of extremism within the country and the Lal Mosque siege seemed to have significantly cooled relations between the West and Musharraf, who started seeing him as being soft on the elements propagating terror. The standoff with the judiciary seemed to be the last straw and the lawyers managed a mass movement against Musharraf that he does not seemed to have recovered from. His discreet and then public meetings and discussions with Benazir finally indicated that Musharraf was looking for a way out of the political and constitutional mess he found himself in. The media in Pakistan did well to highlight the rise of extremism in Pakistan along with mentioning things the general would not have wanted to be seen on print and on air. And so with the emergency came a heavy hand down on free press and the lawyers – the fight against extremism that Musharraf talks about seems to be on the people with microphones and black coats rather than with AK 47’s and IED’s.

The end of the Musharraf days, which seem likely, should have, as in most popular revolts against dictatorships, brought along a single political figure or person of civil society behind whom the country can unite under. And therein lies the uncomfortable reality of Pakistani politics and civil society. The options on offer are worse than or as bad as the regime currently in charge. Bhutto and Nawaz have done themselves no favors in the manner with which they carried out the affairs of state as its heads. One can easily calculate the money and resources that were milked from the State by the two by just adding up the cost of living in exile in expensive cities for years. That is the biggest indication than any on the corruption that existed during the 90’s. Then again, the reason a large section of Pakistani society welcomed Musharraf was the hope that his regime saw the end of the Bhutto-Nawaz days of cronyism and corruption. By having to strike deals with the same people once ousted, Pakistan seems to have come full circle. The lack of a credible political leader or a coherent social movement have prolonged Musharraf’s reign. Then again the options available for the West seemed limited, if Musharraf does make way for some other General, there could be gains for the war on terror, but democracy will remain elusive in the country. By backing either Bhutto or Nawaz there runs the risk of unpopularity against the candidate as the people of Pakistan may see them as puppets of the West. And no one within or outside Pakistan is ready for an all out revolution which could prove disastrous or worse still. With the military influencing all aspects of Pakistani policy and with a lack of credible political leadership the options for Pakistanis and the outside world remain limited and therein lies the tragedy that has become Pakistan.

The larger war on terror should also be under severe scrutiny for the havoc of going to war has caused in Asia and the Middle-East. The Bush doctrine of wanting to fight terror before it reaches American borders has devastated the region with profound consequences. The allegation of this being a war against Islam aside, the six odd years since the war on terror was declared has brought about growing xenophobia both ethnic and sectarian apart from the obvious inter-religion tensions. The war in Afghanistan against the Taliban was seen as anti-Pashtun by the tribes in the area. And since tribes exist beyond man made borders, the collective Afghan-Pakistan border rose up against the NATO and the Pakistani Army. This has not only led to tensions between the two countries, it has also led to desertions by army troops who relate better to tribal affinities rather than a national identity. The rising suspicion between Pakistan Army’s Punjab faction against the frontier faction seems to be disturbing the unity of the Army. Across the border in Afghanistan, their President Hamid Karzai is described more as the Mayor of Kabul rather than the president of a country that identifies itself more on tribal lines. Not to say that this new tribal affinity didn’t exist before the invasion, but the war has certainly accentuated those feelings. The war on terror therefore, does play a role in destabilizing nations that fight as allies, all this so that the American remain safe and secure. Some might argue that is a high price to pay for Americans to enjoy a sense of safety.

Closer to home, India seems to have become surrounded by a ring of fire, with all her neighbors facing turbulent days. But as much as that should worry the establishment there is no denying the fact that in the darkness of South Asia, India seems to have become a beacon of peace and democracy. With our stand on the perils of extremism having being vindicated without reasonable doubt, it is now imperative on us to take a more aggressive stand in promoting the values of peace and democracy to the world through a more concerted foreign policy that should help in highlighting what we have achieved in a region where so much can go wrong.

2007-10-17T03:51:00.000-07:00

The Congress' Complete Surrender

What was supposed to be the Manmohan Singh’s day in the sun has turned out to become the albatross that will mar his CV in the years to come. The Indo-US nuclear deal was championed by Singh as a policy initiative that would have addressed India’ energy needs while at the same time give it parity and due recognition in the emerging world order. Having backed the deal to the hilt the prime minister faced down the entire opposition and the Left in a sincere show of his ‘progressive’ credentials. Ultimately, the turn of events has not only left the UPA in disarray, with the allies becoming more powerful than the principal Congress party, it has dented irreversibly the standing of Singh on the Indian political sphere. The rhetoric that caught the nation’s fancy turned out to be little else but rhetoric. The nation thought that here we have a sincere man ready to forsake power and the prime ministerial position for the larger national interest. However, forcibly or consciously, the prime minister has left a nation amazed and disappointed and a government that is looking like a lame duck regime.

The virtual U-turn by the prime minister has been projected as pragmatic politics by many sympathetic analysts. They argue that Singh gave up on the deal in order to salvage the government and thereby ensured that India did not get rattled by a mid-term election. It is the same analysts who till recently lauded the prime minister for being a technocrat rather than a seasoned politician, which they argued added to his appeal and marked a break from the wheeling-dealings of power politics that we have become accustomed to. While the argument holds certain merits, there is certainly no arguing the fact that by backing off from the deal, Manmohan Singh has proven himself to be just another politician. One who does not want to shake the boat unnecessarily as long as the continuity of his regime is ensured. That the deal has its demerits is well documented and appreciated, however, if these demerits were so important that it meant a public reversal from backing the deal, then why did the prime minister back the deal for the past year? If he was genuinely interested in the concerns of the Left should he have not taken a more conciliatory approach to the matter in public? If deals of supposed national interests can be sacrificed at the altar of coalition dharma, was it not prudent on the government to make the nation aware of it prior to having signed on the dotted line? And lastly, if indeed the decisions of this government are taken at 10 Janpath and not by 7 Race Course Road, does the prime minister not worry about what sort of sycophantic legacy he is leaving behind?

The UPA wanted to prolong the life of the Manmohan regime to ensure that some of its policy initiatives for the aam admi show impact before calling for elections. This is why a slew of initiatives have been launched for the rural sector which includes life and health insurance for the unorganized sector along with packages for drought affected farmers. The UPA allies fear that the public may not take to the ineffectual three and half years of the UPA too kindly. Scams like Bofors and the great Quattarochi escape, Volcker and the wheat import fiasco coupled with the charge of minority appeasement and being soft on terror will not show well on the three year report card. While the markets maybe booming, inflation and price rise have hit the public psyche negatively. Ram Sethu, Sonia Gandhi’s power behind the throne charge amongst issues like tainted ministers will definitely bolster the opposition’s UPA chargesheet. The UPA knows this and they had no option but to sacrifice a deal that seemed to be opposed by the majority of parliamentarians in order to devote the time till 2009 for showing some results on the ground. The Congress has already given the credit for the National Rural Guarantee Scheme and its further expansion to the Gandhi clan, further they have made the Right to Information sound like the brainwork of Sonia Gandhi, that left only the nuclear deal to the prime minister’s credit. Since there is no backing from the deal that bears the stamp of approval of 10 Janpath, the nuclear deal was the convenient scapegoat. The Congress realizes that by backing the deal and thereby the prime minister they are putting their hopes on a leader who will have no political standing post 2009. And in such a scenario losing a government on the basis of a compromise candidate prime minister seemed foolhardy. And hence, one saw the complete capitulation of the Congress on the nuclear deal. What Manmohan Singh was left with was brickbats and ridicule.

Can the good doctor redeem himself to the nation or is his political epitaph all but written. One feels that the prime minister knows that he has lost all moral authority over this government. Any initiative that he takes today may not enjoy the support of a skeptical nation, who might fear a repeat U-turn on any new initiatives that may come under criticism from its allies. What matters in the end is that the Congress has provided its version of coalition dharma – crawl when you are asked to bend.

2007-10-08T01:01:00.001-07:00

UPA - Left: The gloves are off

The game of ‘blink’manship that has paralyzed the UPA coalition is gathering pace with both sides hardening their stance on the Indo-US nuclear deal. With only days to go before the IAEA chief Mohammed El-Baradei’s visit to India, both sides have been firing at each other, and this time no one seems to be calling it a case of friendly fire. The Congress party’s stand on the nuclear deal seems to have considerably hardened with Sonia Gandhi’s two public comments both in India and in the US. Gandhi, while addressing a gathering of NRI’s and PIO’s in New York, made it clear that the government is more or less clear on going ahead with the deal and more crucially, the opposition to the deal by the Left should not be given too much weight age. Clearly, while she was addressing a different audience and a global audience at that, she also must have calculated the impact her statement would have in the national political scenario. Her New York address cleared two things. One, she indicated to the Bush administration that the deal will go ahead and two, that once back home the stand will remain unambiguous, even if it means a head on collision with the Left.

Sonia Gandhi’s other statement while addressing a rally in Haryana was sharper and more confrontational. She termed those opposed to the nuclear deal as enemies of development and progress. The target here seems to be the Left more than the BJP, who have played down the issue post the Ram Sethu controversy. The BJP is watching the nuclear deal from the sidelines, hoping, that the internal contradictions between the allies will ultimately lead to the end of the Manmohan Singh led government. The Left was equally scathing in its reply and this sharp hardening of the Left’s stance doesn’t bode well for the life of the UPA. The UPA-Left’s committee to thrash out the differences on the nuke deal is a farce. Both sides know this, yet both sides want this committee to play out this charade hoping the other side will blink first. This sort of inertia that has set into this government is highly avoidable, with uncertainty only acting as a more destabilizing influence for the country, this while the political parties are looking at personal electoral interests.

The internal contradictions on the nuclear deal are beyond repair. The Left will settle for nothing less than an end to this deal. While the Congress, wants the 123 agreement and the safeguards agreement to be passed as thrashed out by diplomats on both sides. The Congress formed this committee with the pretext of buying time so that they could get a safeguards agreement with the IAEA and an exempt from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) of countries. Congress’ media machinery have adamantly stated that the time for this deal is running out and with a new US president to be in the White House by early 2009, the deal might get stalled forever. Congress Party’s Kapil Sibal has made the media rounds vocally advocating the supremacy of the 123 agreement over the controversial Hyde Act to allay the fears of the Left. But this attempt too proved futile. The Left has not budged from its opposition to the deal and in such a scenario Sonia Gandhi’s statements seem to signal a “knives are out strategy”.

The only thing that is truly holding back this alliance from coming apart is the fact that neither side wants to be seen as having handed the Indian electorate a mid term election. The Left would secretly welcome Gandhi’s statement as it indicates to them that Gandhi’s patience is running out and if she pulls the plug, they can claim to be the innocent lambs who wanted to save the country from US imperialism. The Congress is testing the limits of the Left by actively wooing the IAEA and seeing when exactly the Left will call its bluff. And herein lies the tragedy of this entire farce. The nation is waiting for a clear view on where this government is heading. And if indeed this alliance is over, then the country needs an adequate notice to make up its mind on whom to vote for in the event of an election. The Left and the UPA would want to buy more time at least till early next year when it can see electoral results in Gujarat and with a safeguards agreement in place. Either way, the bottom-line is clear, the days of this asymmetrical alliance are over and elections are now months away. It also could well mean and end to the nuclear deal and thereby cooling of relations between the US and India. To that account it’s a win -win for the Left. But one gets the feeling that in the event of a mid-term election the Left will not be laughing for long. The UPA is dead, long live the UPA.

2007-09-28T00:58:00.000-07:00

Burma Burning - India must do more

India’s volatile neighborhood just got more complicated with the mass protests by Buddhists monks in Myanmar against the military junta. Myanmar has long remained isolated in the eyes of the world and the military dictatorship has maintained its only contacts with India and China both for trade and counter-terrorism alliances. New Delhi’s association with Rangoon goes back decades with prominent pro-democracy advocate Aung Sang Su Kyi residing and studying in India for many years and more recently with the pact between the two countries to counter terror outfits that have led the insurgency in the North East. The latest protests, which have claimed nine lives officially, seem to be heading for a showdown reminiscent of 1988 when students took to the streets asking for an end to the military dictatorship. Recent media reports showed the military leader Than Shwe’s son’s wedding ceremony which was lavish even by Western standards and which further outraged the citizens of Myanmar, and helped in precipitating the protests we see today. The United Nations along with the EU have out rightly condemned the heavy handed actions of the junta and more significantly urged India and China to play a larger role in influencing the military to back down. However, this is as far as the UN and EU have gone without spelling out what exactly they expect of India and China as mediators in the fragile state of affairs in Myanmar.

India’s response to the Burmese crisis has been muted and rather ambiguous. The foreign ministry’s spokesperson only spoke of the need for “national reconciliation” and a return to peace without stating what India would like to see as a logical outcome. As highlighted, India finds itself in the same Tibet syndrome and more recently in the Katmandu syndrome where it wants to please all players in the crisis without taking sides and in this process of egalitarianism lose out to the Chinese or worst still lose the faith of the people of the crisis ridden country. In the case of Tibet, India had given shelter to the Dalai Lama and fought for a free Tibet for many years. This policy was retracted as a quid pro quo with the Chinese to settle the border dispute, whereby we would recognize Tibet as an “autonomous region” in exchange for China’s recognition of Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin as part of India. What we got was a clever ploy by the Chinese, who still seem to dispute the Arunachal and Aksai question while we merrily recognize Tibet as part of China. We not only lost the confidence of the fledging free Tibet movement, we virtually surrendered our Tibetan trump card against the Chinese.

Then again in Nepal, the removal of the King was received guardedly, while at the same time Indian Communists were welcoming the Maoists as the savior for the Himalayan kingdom. Our backing of the Nepali Congress while at the same time the desire to see the King as the ceremonial head of state, sent mixed signals to the Nepalese. Not only were there street protests against India, unprecedented in living memory, but many native Nepalese opening targeted the Madhesi’s and people of the Terai region for their pro-India views. This unfortunate turmoil in India’s sphere of influence has been due to our weak leadership and even weaker foreign office. While we put all our eggs on the nuclear deal basket, we keep forgetting that if India were to truly emerge as a superpower it will need to play a leadership role in own backyard before we set out to conquer the world. India has never indulged in the internal affairs of other countries (though others point out to Nepal and Bangladesh as examples of India’s meddling ways) this mantra for foreign policy has gone too far, and now has reached such a stage that no neighbor considers our views seriously. We seem to repeating the same mistake with our myopic view on the Myanmar protests.

The generals of the Junta in Myanmar recognize that India needs their support to eliminate the insurgency in the North East. They use that as bargaining chips to ensure their continuity in office. But it is also true that the tacit recognition India is providing to the junta gives it some semblance of recognition in the world. If India were to strengthen its borders and then actively support the pro-democracy movement the junta will feel the heat, as will the Chinese. With a strengthened border, the junta will have to deal with the insurgents on their home soil rather than exporting them to Indian territory as has happened over the decades. But for this to happen, India will need to be bold. We have already missed by the bus by not taking an active role as soon as the crisis broke out, now with the UN and EU asking us to intervene; it seems any toughening of India’s stand will seem forced upon us rather than India taking a leadership role to resolve the crisis. That said it is till not too late for us to act and to ensure that the demonstrations end peacefully and with a move towards democracy. China will bargain before it comes down heavily on the junta, but if India were to show its seriousness on resolving the issue, the Chinese may feel compelled to do its bit. It’s a long shot but the current passivity doesn’t bode well for India. India has been a champion of democracy and peace and there is no better opportunity to prove that tenet than to help relieve a deprived nation from the heavy hand of a junta.

2007-09-25T04:44:00.000-07:00

Does Ahmedinejad have a fair point?

The United States reluctantly allowed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to come to New York to attend the UN’s annual general assembly meeting this week. The Iranian president was, however, not allowed to visit Ground Zero, where the twin towers once stood, as there was a general consensus on it being inappropriate. What the US officials could not stop was the invitation Columbia University sent to the President to lecture and interact with students of the university. This at a time when Iran-US relations are at their lowest since the Iranian revolution nearly three decades back and with open talk of a possible military strike by the US or through an Israeli proxy on key Iranian nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan and maybe Tehran. So what one witnessed made for interesting TV viewing while at the same time spoke highly of the freedom of speech that the US considers a cardinal pillar in its democracy.

The liberty to use freedom of speech worked both ways with the president of Columbia University using strong language to introduce the Iranian president as a “cruel and petty dictator” and Ahmedinejad returning the favor with some strong views on Israel, the Palestinian people, Iraq and the contentious issue of Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranian president spoke at length about his controversial statements on wiping Israel of the face of the earth and about the holocaust, which according to him needs continuous research to better understand its cause, reasons, extent and outcome. Out of the entire two hour rambling that was the president’s speech and lopsided views on global affairs, two points struck out very visibly. The first were his views on the Israel-Palestine issue. While it is no ones case to propagate a view to dismantle Israel, which while it needs to do more by way of reconciliation with the Palestinian people so that a credible Palestine comes into existence, is no doubt the only functioning Western style democracy in a region where democracy is a scarce commodity. But Ahmedinejad has questioned the very formation of Israel in 1948 which led to the mass migration of ethnic Palestinians from their native lands. The pretext to constitute the state of Israel is what the Iranian president is harping on. In his view, which does hold some merit, the holocaust led to a huge outpouring of horror and grief over the plight of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. Also, by the end of the Second World War, Jews had become a powerful, rich and influential lobby in countries that mattered and soon a country, as promised by God, was formed by driving out people who had lived there under British occupation. Ahmedinejad, and many in the Arab world feel that why should Palestinians and by that token, Muslim Arabs, pay the price for crimes committed by Europeans and by the same token Christians. He further argues that while the crime was committed by those in the West, the price is being paid by people who were not even remotely connected with the outrage. While this scholarly debate is immensely profound, it does hold minute merit. For sixty years Palestinians have paid the price for actions of the West and aggression by the Israeli state. They resorted to violence and terrorism which further impeded their cause for a free state. When the same Palestinians voted out a corrupt Fatah and brought in Hamas, the West hypocritically chose to isolate Hamas since it does not recognize Israel. The Palestinians have suffered enough and now stand a disillusioned lot for the failure democracy has brought them. This version of ‘democracy but only if it’s my man” has created a generation of youths who despise democracy as a front for Western domination in their affairs. The rejection of the democratically elected Hamas along with the war in Iraq will cause irreparable damage to the very institution of democracy, which is today being unfairly used as a cover for neo-imperialism in the Middle East.

The other important point raised by the Iranian President was on his country’s nuclear program. He argued that the US had no business to talk of non-proliferation when they themselves have researched and manufactured “fifth generation” nuclear weapons. He insisted that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are limited solely for energy generation and not weapons production. Scoff as much as we want to, the critical issue at the heart of the nuclear impasse is again Israel. The US has hedged all its hopes for the Middle East on Israel. By arming them with nuclear weapons, the US as not only provided a very effective tool for deterrence it has in the process accelerated the desire by Arab states to get the famed “Arab Bomb”. Many governments in the region were initially pleased with Pakistan going nuclear and called that as the first “Muslim Bomb”, but with Pakistan swaying more towards the US than on the dispositions in the Middle East, the quest by Iran and Syria to get the bomb has only increased over the years. Then again, by arming Israel, the US may have protected a friend but at the cost of initiating an arms race amongst countries in the region rushing towards nuclear deterrence. In the context of nuclear energy, the nuclear standoff between the US and Iran holds importance for India. Many countries, including Iran, are going to use the Indo-US nuke deal as an example of the US using different yardsticks for different regimes depending on their relations with the world’s sole superpower. Then again, it has never been India’s intention to wipe nations of the face of the earth.

The speech by Ahmedinejad, which precedes his address to the UN general assembly, only harped on the existing differences between Iran and the West while doing precious little in way of reconciliation. While the prospect of a US invasion of Iran seems distant and remote, given the fact that the US finds itself stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is clearly going to harden its stand on Iran with the new found support of a vocal French president and his foreign minister. The Iranian President used his US visit to raise some important points and to sell himself to the American citizens. He may not go back with a happy report card, with the American media choosing to ridicule his stand on various issues, it does not take away the essence of his message or the importance of a man who could provide for the next flashpoint of conflict in the Middle East.

2007-09-13T01:04:00.000-07:00

Lord Ram to the BJP's rescue?

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad along with allied Hindu groups displayed a major show of force across the country over the Ram Setu issue and the Sethursamundram project which had been a nascent issue at least on the national stage. The VHP succeeded in two things primarily, one, bringing the issue to the centre stage of national politics and two causing complete disruption of traffic and daily life in most cities of the country. However, the true beneficiaries of this agitation may just be the BJP which is desperately looking for an issue to raise amongst the electorate after having bungled the nuclear deal issue thanks to the infamous internal wrangling to take control of the party amongst its leaders. The BJP, by providing tacit support to the agitation, would want to bring Hindutuva part 3, having tasted electoral success after the Babri Masjid demolition and the Godhra massacre and the ensuing riots. This when the government is finding itself on the mat with coalition partners turning on the Congress and a series of gaffes on the policy front.

The BJP is in dire need of a substantial issue or issues to call its own and then to use them as the mainstay of any possible election campaign in the event of a mid term poll which seems likely in 2008. The nuclear deal issue was one cause which is now being championed by the Left more than any other party. Though part of the UPA, the Left parties have been brilliant, though highly mistaken in their “imperialist” arguments, on the nuclear issue. They have pipped the principal Opposition party by organizing a concerted campaign of road shows and rallies right from Bengal to Kerala. They have also sent their best known faces to countless TV stations to articulate the Left’s flawed point of view on the matter. The latest in this tidal red wave is the upcoming compilation of the CPM General Secretary’s articles and views on the nuclear deal in the form of a book. Though, one may not agree with the Left’s arguments, their intensive campaign is something that the Opposition camp must take note of and implement into their own strategies. As compared to the Left’s campaign the NDA’s campaign has left much to be desired. After making the right noises initially, the BJP, like on most issues in the past two years, went into self destruct mode. The internal leadership struggle once again ensured that the campaign sputtered only to be taken over by a belligerent Left. Although, the nuclear deal issue is one that nearly brought the Manmohan Singh led government down, it is just one of the many issues that the Opposition party can target the government on. The failure to make the import of wheat at premium prices by a minister who is known more for his cricket administration skills than prudent farmer related issues to the present law minister whose crony ways to please his masters has ensured that Quattarochi is a free man amongst a host of other issues where questions have been raised over his role in converting the CBI into a full fledged political body have given way to more innate issues. That aside price rise, flood relief, corruption and the growing menace of Islamic and Naxal terrorism are issues that the Opposition can capitalize on and challenge this government when it goes to the electorate. However, the BJP, through the VHP and the larger Sangh Parivar, has brought to the fore an issue on which it finds itself most comfortable – Hindutuva.

Having used the potent mix of religion and pseudo-secularism the BJP has ensured that issues like the Ram Mandir, minority appeasement and now the Ram Setu issue will help in uniting the Hindu vote which will rally behind the party. This time too the party seems to be wanting to benefit from the whole Sethusamundaram project, which according to media reports will save 30 hours of travel time between the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal, though it would mean dredging parts of a natural structure which many Hindus believe was the bridge used by Lord Ram to invade Lanka and rescue Sita. The government, with a frequent habit of shooting itself on the foot, kept up to its habit and through the Archeological Survey of India has told the Supreme Court that the Ram Setu is not a man made structure and that there is no proof of the existence of the mythological figure of Lord Ram except in some texts. This on a day when the whole country was witnessing an agitation on that very issue shows either complete political naiveté on part of the government or a deliberate attempt to push through this project in the face of religious sentiments. While the former seems the more likely reason given the track record of this government, but in doing so, the government has made the issue far more emotive than what a one day agitation would have otherwise done. The BJP will surely rake up this issue as an example of the disregard by the UPA for the largest religious block in the country and the BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad has made similar noises about how the government would have tread on a different path had it involved other religions. For the BJP this may seem like an issue they can pursue all the way to the polls, but with elections at least 6 months away, how relevant this issue will remain is debatable. The BJP will, nonetheless, add this into its kitty of political armor to use against the government as when elections are called for. It seems the largest Opposition block is looking for divine intervention for its quest for power. They have succeeded earlier, will they now?

2007-09-10T05:10:00.001-07:00

Osama "virtually impotent", really?

Osama Bin Laden dominated the airwaves with a new video message, the first to have emerged after nearly two years. Certain quarters in the intelligence community had predicted that since the elusive Al-Qaeda leader had not appeared for many years, it was likely that he was dead or severely ill. Bin Laden proved those theorists wrong with a message that showed him fit and looking like a person who still commands the largest terror movement of the twenty first century. While most of the coverage on the Osama tape figured around his dyed or fake beard or the fact that he looked younger, an in depth analysis of the content of his message took a back seat. As compared to all his previous messages, mostly centering around a call to arms or to wage jihad against the West, this tape spoke directly to the American people. The propaganda that Osama is unleashing on the world has become more complex, scholarly and part of a well thought out strategy.

The rants that is the hallmark of any Al-Qaeda propaganda aside, Osama smartly chose to mention certain aspects of capitalism that have been criticized by leftists and proponents of alternate social systems. He chose to speak about big corporations and how they run the politics and foreign policy of the United States. He talked about how the pursuit of material gains has left people unhappy, he talked about how capitalism brings ills in the form of mortgages and debt. While many may argue that this was banter that was expected from the Al-Qaeda leader, there is no denying the fact that they are concerns that do affect a large number of people. While the panacea that Bin Laden offers, a conversion to Islam may seem like a simplistic solution to solve the world’s ills and more so coming from a man who is a mass murderer, his advice is best left unused. However, it is important for the world to also realize that the intended targets of the message that Osama is preaching are probably people who end up holding the short end of the stick in the big bad world of capitalism. It is the same gullible people that the terror networks have brainwashed with their ideological jargon and converted them to suicide bombers and the like. The only difference this time being that earlier it was disenchanted youths in Arab countries, this time it maybe similarly disposed people in the West, as in the case of the July 2005 bombers in London. Most analysts and middle class citizens may disregard every word coming out of a man who forever has changed our perceptions about Islam and religious reconciliation, but his message will unfortunately resonate with a lot of people living in the West who face extreme hardships and economic disparity to actually fall for Osama’s bluff. But the reaction from the leadership of the US, the citizens of the country who are the intended audience for this tape, has been one of complete dismissal. The White House Homeland Security advisor, Frances Townsend, speaking to CNN on the Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, dismissed the tape and its speaker as “virtually impotent”. What they do not realize, or at least publicly accept, is the fact that this message may actually be a recruiting tool aimed at US citizens rather than a discourse in political history. While the intervening six years since September 11 has made Osama less relevant in the global war against terror, with new threats emerging and a spawning effect that Al Qaeda has unleashed, it is still Osama who is Al-Qaeda’s most important recruiting agent.

The Osama tapes have met with the most favored response that politicians prefer – finger pointing. With Osama mentioning the Democrats, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and a host of world leaders, politicians have been quick to pass the buck. Democrats argue that it is the incompetence of the incumbent President that has ensured that six years since the 911 attacks, Osama can spread his message of terror with ease. The Republicans have countered by saying that the Democrats have been endorsed by Osama and that a Democratic President will make the country less safe. The response, though predictable, has been disappointing. It is clearly high time that the Bush administration lays down a clear strategy to get Osama bin Laden while Bush is in office. Not only will it be a vindication on the war on terror, it will also be pay back for the attacks on the twin towers and the countless other atrocities Al- Qaeda affiliates have carried out the world over, including in India. But more importantly, unlike in other tapes where Osama calls for direct strikes and a call to arms, this tape may just lay the seeds to the formation of a second wave of sleeper cells forming within the confines of democratic nations, and here again, India included.

2007-08-28T02:39:00.000-07:00

THE FUTURE OF SECULARISM IN THE POST 911 WORLD

The post 9/11 world brought to fore many realities that hitherto remained hidden in the common conscious of civil society. While terrorism and its offshoot – religious fundamentalism was a phenomenon that was well established in the Indian psyche, to the world the events of September 11th 2001 brought this reality centre stage. Along with it came postulations like that of Samuel Huntington that talked about the clash of civilizations where religions and not countries would face-off against each other after the end of the Cold War. What it also brought to global notice was the ideals of secularism and the hardening of religious beliefs in many parts of the world. But in this increasingly divided world on the fault lines of religion and religious beliefs, what is the future of secularism – a pillar of undeniable strength for any democracy or diverse population.

The six years after the events of September 11th have unleashed two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – the former enjoying global acceptance while the latter dividing the world even further on religious lines. It is in that sort of a global environment that more and more countries are questioning the importance of religion and if so what role religion should play in this new era that will be dominated by religious extremism. The classical questions of the separation of religion from State are best highlighted by the events of the past few months in Turkey. A country that was founded on solid secular credentials by the father of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, the country finds itself divided on whether to elect a candidate for president whose wife is a practicing Muslim and an overtly visible Muslim at that with the use of the veil. Questions have also been raised about whether Abdullah Gul, as president of Turkey, will move the country towards a more Islamic character. The history of Turkey is riddled with the intervention of the army to take out governments that have moved it towards a more Islamic character. This time though, the secular army finds itself in a quandary. Living up to the country’s democratic norms the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for elections after having failed to install Gul as a consensus candidate. The popular notion was that Erdogan and Gul’s AKP party would lose the elections and that this loss would prove Turkey’s secular credentials. Opposition party’s raised the prospect of the country’s drift towards Islam if the AKP were to come back to power. The AKP party won the elections with an even better showing than in the previous elections and to secularists proved the changing nature religion is playing in the country. It is for Gul to prove otherwise whether he will take his country towards Islam in social and cultural policies but the Turkish elections have brought to the fore the importance religion is playing in politics in most democratic countries of the world. The world is indeed moving from a secular mindset to one that respects the religion that enjoys majority in their respective country.

The example of the United States is one that may not be sighted often for the role religion, and in the US’ case Christianity, plays in the country’s politics. One look at the gathering presidential elections proves the case in point. Every candidate in the fray is asked questions on faith and what stance each of them takes on social issues. Whether a candidate is a Mormon, pro-life, anti-abortion, practicing catholic or pro-gay marriages is a subject of intense debate. In fact, at times the political debate in the campaigning focuses more on religion and social standings than on economy, healthcare and geo-politics. The candidates of the Democratic Party recently held a debate on “gay” issues, a debate that focused entirely on the stand each of the candidates took on the issue. One has not heard the same focused approach on say healthcare in a country where 70 million people do not have health insurance. The debate on the Republican side is even more focused on religious beliefs and practices with the straw poll in Iowa recently had huge tents built my candidates where religious (Christian) sermons were carried out all day. Then again, the raging debate between scientists and preachers over the veracity of the theory of evolution versus intelligent design is a subject of much deliberation. So much so that Christian groups have advocated a change in school textbooks where children must be taught that evolution is only “a” theory and not the expected norm. The President of the United States (in)famously told an audience that it was God that asked him to invade Iraq. These examples are a mere reflection of the role religion is playing the world’s oldest democracy, a country which is secular and with a diverse religious makeup.

Europe is also not far behind in the debate over the relevance, importance and meaning of secularism in its society and culture. The Chirac regime in France saw the ban on display of religious symbols, a move that was hailed by secularists but condemned by religious organizations. Then again, in Britain the country has witnessed an unprecedented surge in the number of people going to temples, churches, mosques and synagogues after 9/11. There is also an increase ghettoisation of religious communities in Britain and religion based hate crimes have overtaken race crimes. This in a country that is considered the melting pot of the world with every possible religion having a representation in civil society. Similar increase in religious practices have been seen in every country in Europe so much so that there are groups and political parties across Europe that have called for an end to immigration, a comfortable byword to maintain the Christian nature of Europe. The near paranoia displayed by many EU nations to the question of allowing Turkey, a Muslim country, in to the EU belies the hypocrisy that secular Europe adopts when faced with accepting religions other than Christianity.

India presents a much more complex picture than any other country sighted above. India was founded on solid republican, secular credentials. In the sixty years since independence the country has seen many a clash of religions but none that have torn the country into fragments. The Babri Masjid demolition, the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, the Mumbai riots in 1992 and countless terror attacks by Islamic fundamentalists have bent but not broken India. But in this romanticism, it is undeniable that the events mentioned above coupled with the events of 9/11 and the years since then have divided the country on religious lines. Our political parties have been only to happy in highlighting this divide. Be it the Congress party with its pseudo-secular approach to religion where criticizing the minority community in the face of bloody insurgencies and terror strikes is a big no-no at the altar of secularism. Or the BJP which has used the Hindu pulpit to target the minority community on the premise that the country’s majority religion must be “respected” by the minority – be it by choice or by force of a rioting mob. Countless, regional parties and religious organizations have helped accentuate this Hindu-Muslim, Hindu-Sikh divide to gain politically while decimating the secular strength of the country.

In such a complex triad of religion, politics and secularism, where is secularism heading? And what is the role of religion or what role should religion play in civil society and in governance. The debate may throw up many aspects but the fact remains that in the increasingly globalized world and diffuse religious make-up of populations the world over, secularism is the only way forward. Secularism, in the true sense of the word, an outlook that respects all religions while not making religion a hindrance in the political, social and economic growth of practitioners of any and every religion is the required by all means. All religions are equal yet no religion should play a role in the matters of the State is the crying need in this increasingly divided world. Lastly, there is also a need in the post 9/11 world that an increased display of religion or the practice of one’s religion should not be necessarily taken as a move towards extremism. Sometimes, in the face of terror atrocities and the limited success of governments the world over to wipe terror from the face of the earth, religion maybe the only refuge for many. While politicians must respect that and religious members of society must also acknowledge that if one were to have a more just society secularism is the only way forward. Amen to that.

2007-08-16T04:36:00.000-07:00

The nuclear deal is about energy stupid!

The debate over whether the Indo-US nuclear deal is good for us or not, its merits and demerits, its drawbacks and potential, has been the subject of intense debate ever since the Manmohan Singh led government signed on the dotted line nearly two years back. Initially, the debate had focused on the right aspect of the deal – nuclear energy and energy independence. Somewhere along the line the crux of the debate switched from energy to non-proliferation. The US side took the first lead and US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying that through the agreement the Americans had brought a nuclear pariah into the nuclear non-proliferation fold. This instigated the Indian side with scientists, journalists and the Opposition parties raising hell at this benign attempt by the UPA to become a ‘client’ state of the US and thereby surrendering our sovereignty. While some of the concerns that came out of the draft of the nuclear deal and the 123 agreement needed a concerted effort to resolve, the UPA government has failed miserably to win back the public perception about what really this deal means for India.

If one were to leave the strategic analysts, nuclear scientists and knowledgeable journalists who have written on the subject aside, there will be only a minute minority of people in this country who truly understand what this brouhaha is all about. The political parties have tried to project this deal according to their political compulsions. So while the Left supports this capitalistic leaning government, it cannot be seen in consort with the Congress as they generously embrace the United States. The Left has displayed stupendous hypocrisy by claiming that the right to test a nuclear weapon must not be curtailed by the 123 agreement or through the actual agreement. This when the Left has been an advocate of nuclear non-proliferation as an ideology. The Left should have embraced this deal as it would cap India’s nuclear weapons program, but instead they have aroused their till now dormant nationalistic pride by pressing the government to retain the right to test nuclear weapons.

The BJP too has projected a confused outlook towards this deal. They have at times welcomed the deal only to reject it on some aspect of the draft or the other. In principle the party has always advocated closer relations with the United States and in fact, it was under the aegis of the Vajpayee government that the two countries talked about the possibility of opening India’s nuclear energy program for inspections and nuclear commerce. It has now taken a strong view on the right to test nuclear weapons while at the same time has made it clear that a principle of reciprocity in perpetuity must be maintained. The BJP made the right noises since any opposition party would want to find faults in any ruling governments policy initiatives. What the BJP did wrong was to reach out to the Left and ask for their support against the nuclear deal. It would be prudent and frankly ideologically consistent to have maintained an opposition to the deal or ask for a vote in parliament rather than go and woo the Left to corner the government. It is not a state secret that every time the Right has shook hands with the Left, the handshake is short lived and more unfriendliness invariably follows. The BJP should have advocated a hands off approach to its conduct on the deal in Parliament. It should have sought to let the Left do all the opposing so as to embarrass the government. As it is the job of the principal opposition is done by the Left and not the BJP, so why not do the same this time around.

The media managers for the Congress and the government have proven completely ineffective in handling this latest PR crisis for the government. The saving grace ironically in this case have been the bureaucrats, on both sides. Shyam Saran and his successor, Shivshankar Menon along with their opposite number the Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns have played to the media gallery well in highlighting what each side will get through this deal. Their handling of the nuclear deal has ensured that citizens have got some sort of understanding on what this deal actually means for their respective nations. The Congress’ media managers and the Prime Minister’s press managers have ensured that no sense of clarity on the nuclear deal ever came through. When being hammered on certain aspects of the nuclear deal, the media managers did the worst sort of rebuttal – answer questions which would lead to more questions rather than answers. Instead, if they would have taken a larger holistic view rather than a narrow micro view of the matter they would been on a stronger wicket. After all, the man on the street has a simple question – how does this deal affect me? Instead of answering this basic question of the electorate, the government has thrown words and phrases like the 123, the Hyde Act, the FMCT, right to return, right to reprocess, the three stage nuclear reactors, the IAEA, NSG and NPT among other toss ups. Now, it is nobody’s case to suggest that the debate on a deal of truly landmark proportions should be "dumbed down" in any way, but it is also true that by highlighting the growing energy needs of this country, the government could have talked about the ultimate goal of this initiative and its plans to secure the country’s future energy needs. Such an emotive message would have definitely hit the right spot with most people in this country. By trying to throw at the country jargon the government is finding itself in a tight spot. How easy it would have been for Manmohan Singh to say to Parliament that under this deal I have ensured that the quest for energy security, an issue of paramount importance to a growing economy like ours, has been partially addressed. But I don’t blame the doctor, he thought everyone knew the intricacies of diplomatic give and take and the constitutional requirements of India and the United States, which only a truly scholar like him would know. But he doesn’t have an election to face or win, or can, and so he can talk the jargon, while the rest are trying to collect as many brownie points as possible for 2009.

2007-08-14T03:07:00.000-07:00

The Demise of the Bush Presidency

US President George Bush’s closest ally and “boy genius” Karl Rove resigned from the Bush White House as Deputy Chief of Staff. While the official designation may not seem significant, Rove along with Vice President Dick Cheney were behind every policy initiative taken by the Bush administration. Be it election strategy, domestic policy or the war in Iraq, Rove left his mark on every issue that the Bush administration has faced up to or skirted around. The Bush-Rove partnership goes back to close to two decades when the men from Texas became a formidable force that installed George Bush as the Governor of Texas. From then on Bush political fortunes have been keenly tied with the decisions taken by Rove as his point person for policy during his campaign trails and then in the two terms at the White House.

In 2000, Bush faced a popular incumbent vice president in Al Gore as his opponent for the White House. Karl Rove quickly seized the idea to bring to the fore issues of morality and dignity of the highest office of the land. He pandered (though indirectly) the Clinton years as ones which saw an increase in ‘liberal’ mindsets and an approval of gay marriages and abortion. He was quick to highlight the fact that the President of the United States must enjoy the respect of the nation, thereby implying that with the Democrats in the White House, expect the President to be caught with his pants down, quite literally. He then went on to coin the term “compassionate conservatism” which was a centrist approach to press independents and Democrats to vote for Bush. The ploy worked and a new wave of conservatism movement, the first after the Reagan years, swept the mid-west and Red states of the United States.

The crucial war on terror and the war in Iraq were also the handiwork of Karl Rove. Rove, though not a neo-conservative himself, was greatly influenced by neo-conservative writers and the movement which prophesized that as the only superpower in the world, it was incumbent on the United States to take a leading role in the world and if it meant invading foreign countries for the benefit of the country and her allies then it was a route worth taking. The unilateralism that Bush showed as the US went to war in Iraq was a direct fallout of the impact the neoconservative movement had on the administration and the messenger advocating the neoconservative principles in this case was Rove.

But the 2004 election Bush victory will remain the greatest achievement for Karl Rove. Faced with sagging popularity figures and a war that many felt was a diversion to the real war on terror, George Bush again turned to the man he has described as the “boy genius”. Rove turned around the very question about the reasons to go to war in Iraq, which was the Democrats main big ticket issue. He instead turned the tables on the Democrats and went to the voters with the simple message, we are a nation at war and George Bush, not John Kerry is the man fit to lead. The ploy worked and Bush got what his father couldn’t – the second term at the White House. And in doing so, Rove proved that as a strategist if you can turn your disadvantages to your advantage, the race is all but yours. In 2004 he proved his worth to his detractors who were voicing their concern over the ear time Rove got with the President.

Since 2004, though, the going has been tough for the Bush administration both domestically and internationally. 2005 was a disastrous year for Iraq and the chopping and changing of the military leadership had all the hallmarks of ‘Rovism’. At home, the White House got embroiled in the Valerie Plame spy scandal which saw Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby being sentenced to prison time. Many believed that Libby was the scapegoat for Rove, but due his indispensability, Libby and not Rove paid the price. Immigration reforms which is a major issue in the border states including Texas, from where both Bush and Rove hail, was a key policy initiative taken by Bush. The idea behind the bill to introduce the guest worker program for illegal migrants was meant to move the Latino and Hispanic voter en masse to the Republicans. However, the bill got stalled by the Senate and was ultimately given a quiet burial. The illegal wire tapping of US citizens, the appointments of judges favoring the Republican cause to the Supreme Court along with the firing of judges that were not “Republican enough” all weakened Rove in the last year of his current stint. Also the fact that many from the original 2000 team left the White House meant that increasingly Rove was surrounded by newer people who were not averse to expressing their views even if it meant contradicting Rove. With Colin Powell, Ari Fleisher, Scott McClellan, Dan Bartlett, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld all exiting the Bush administration, Karl Rove’s exit was only a matter of time. While the prospect of writing and publishing the most anticipated political memoir of this decade might excite Rove, he must be circumspect about how the dream of invincibility was shattered so soon after it began. The members of the original Bush team now walk into the sunset knowing fully well that their policies and decisions did not have the desired effect they so strongly believed in. And with that grim realization, the Rove exit also marks the end of Bush’s term which will not see any path breaking policy initiatives or strategies to alter the execution of current policy. Rove just pulled the plug on a terminally ill presidency that is waiting to go.

2007-08-06T07:09:00.000-07:00

The Resurgence of Europe

International politics has been busy of late with the coronation of new leaders to take over countries that are considered the vanguard for democracy and culture. Britain saw Gordon Brown take over the reins from the decade old and war worn Tony Blair and France saw Nicolas Sarkozy taking the Elysee Palace from the septuagenarian Jacques Chirac. Last year saw the election of Angela Merkel take the Chancellor’s position in Germany and this new troika offers hope to those who despair at the thought of the current world order which has the United States at the helm of global affairs. The new leaders, though all friendly to the United States, have all taken initiatives to show that “old Europe” has got a facelift and is ready to regain its role as the voice of moral, political and economic authority in world affairs. This development has been contiguous with the decline of American power, or at least the perceived decline, due to the fall out of the war in Iraq and domestic politics. The strengthening of the UK, France and Germany is encouraging and will bode well for multilateralism in the world.

The British Prime Minister was the focus of keen attention during his visit to the United States for his first meeting with President Bush as prime minister. Many were eager to notice the change in relationship that Brown would bring and how Brown would unshackle British foreign policy from that of the US, which over the past decade seemed to be intertwined to the point of irrelevance. Those who predicted a change from the Blair years were not left disappointed. Not only did Brown assume a “business like” approach he was quick to point out the nuanced differences between American and British interest in Iraq. Bush, who called Brown the “humorous Scotsman” rather than the dour variety Brown is accused of being, tried to unleash his southern charm and hospitality but to limited success. Brown made it clear that British troops will remain in Iraq (mostly concentrated in the southern part of Iraq) till the time their commanders deemed it necessary. He further clarified that once the British are ready to hand over power to the Iraqis they shall do so, irrespective of the situation in Baghdad. This key change in strategy showed the firm commitment Brown wants to bring whereby his country’s foreign policy does not depend on the decisions of President Bush. He made it clear that it will be his commanders, and not American ones, that will indicate when to leave. But more crucially, if the British are ready to hand over power to the Iraqis in Basra and elsewhere, they shall do so, without or without American consent. So while he reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the war against extremism and on the importance of the trans-Atlantic relationship, he was careful to point out that his country will not carry out the foreign policy decisions made in Washington but rather have policy guided by his commanders on the ground and Whitehall. And with that the Blair-Bush foreign policy initiative come to a tentative end and a new Brown-Bush relationship has begun which will only mean more trouble for Bush, for he will have to now convince rather than inform the British prime minister about the way forward.

The French President Nicolas Sarkozy proved he was no babe in the woods last week when he managed to negotiate the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who were incarcerated in a Libyan prison for years on the charge of deliberating infecting babies with the HIV virus. This was a major coup for Sarkozy, barely months into his new job, not only showed his great understanding of how to deal with a dictator, but it also showed that France was willing to take centre stage in international affairs rather than remain a benign bystander as the reputation of France has become for better part of the Chirac presidency. Then again, Sarkozy has called himself a close ally of America and has expressed his high regard for the American political system and its history. In doing so he has also offered the French fig leaf to America, in a bid to improve relations that plummeted during the run up to the Iraq invasion. Sarkozy has also been insistent on strengthening the EU and he along with German Chancellor have talked about a redrafted EU constitution which would be acceptable to all members as well as to their domestic audiences. While the Chirac-Schroeder attempt at the EU constitution proved to be a zero sum game, the Sarkozy-Merkel approach to the EU has been more pragmatic, with both leaders realizing the inevitable failure in case the draft constitution was continued in the same form. Their nuanced approach towards the entry of Turkey into the EU was well received within the EU, although the wider international community was dismayed at the xenophobic approach towards a secular Turkey, which if inducted to the EU will become the only country with a Muslim majority to become part of the EU. The German Chancellor too has impressed world leaders with her stewardship at the G-8 summit in Hilligendamm this year winning her accolades and also the manner with which she managed to converge the varied interests of member states as the president of the EU.

If Europe and the broader EU were to continue to strengthen their stands on issues of terrorism and unilateralism it is possible that they can present themselves as a creditable alternative to policies of the US. With young and dynamic leaders at the fore, a resurgent Europe can actually wrest back some of its lost voice. However, the EU and Europe will need to overcome its stagnant economies if it wants to have a greater say in world affairs. It is no secret that today’s foreign policy is more commerce than politics, and the EU will never be taken seriously if it does not improve its economic influence over the world. That said, this might be the last chance for Europe to resurface as a major player in international affairs. With the rise of India and China, the 21st Century has already been claimed by the two most populous country’s in the world. The relevance of Europe has diminished, but with the Sarkozy-Brown-Merkel team in charge, the outcome is cautiously optimistic at best and status qouist at worst. It’s up to Europe to make the most of it.

2007-07-31T22:10:00.000-07:00

Chinese Checkered - The Perils of Globalization

China in the past two decades has shown a pace of development that is unmatched by any another country in the world. Its products and economy have affected every citizen on the planet and big corporate houses have been seeking ways to engage and reap benefits out a country that is growing at 10% year on year. The Chinese are the proud builders of the Three Gorges Dam, the biggest man made engineering feat in the world. There are fantastic stories on how the Chinese have removed 150 million citizens out of poverty and the prospect of a successful Olympics in 2008 will further boost China’s global standing as a giant in every sense of the word. The prosperity, economic growth and sheer dominance of the manufacturing sector are the bright spots on a country which is still plagued with questions on human rights, individual freedom, freedom of press, health and product safety and most importantly the realness of the democracy that exists in the country.

Call it what you will but the open arms policy that was started two decades ago has also raised some important issues that the Chinese must provide answers for. Couple of weeks ago two widely read and respected weekly news magazines Time and Newsweek carried stories about the safety of Chinese products and also about how food products were manufactured in Chinese factories using substandard and in some cases potentially poisonous substances which reduced cost and therefore not only increased profits but also harm to the consumer. Pet food products were found with illegal substances as were food products that have flooded the West and most of the world. There are newer allegations of the safety of non-consumable products like children’s toys and other synthetic materials as a fall out of the food product scandal. China on its part displayed quick steadfastness and threw the chief of its food product regulatory agencies to the gallows on corruption charges. This action did not however fully satisfy the millions of consumers who are wondering what their options are in a market that is flooded with products from China. Proponents of China have also argued that most Chinese products are safe and a track record of the past two decades proves their safety and fitness for use. They further argue that since the West is facing the belligerent manufacturing might of the Chinese, at the cost of their domestic manufacturing industry, Western governments and media have embarked on a hyper critical campaign in order to reduce their country’s dependence on Chinese products. The allegations and counter allegations aside, for the moment it is the mainstream media that has ensured that “label reading” has become a fashionable and important way of checking out where a product has originated from.

Globalization and the internet age have also thrown up questions about the nature of democracy and individual rights that exist in the country. China, though still officially Communist, does allow local elections and has followed the famous “one nation two systems” vis-à-vis its relations with Hong Kong. The Tiananmen Square protests proved to be a litmus test for democratic reforms in the country, an incident that lead to the deaths of hundreds of students demanding democracy at the hands of the Communist regime. Chinese governments since the incident in 1989 have tried to shake off the far reaching questions that Tiananmen Square has asked of the Chinese. There continue to remain lingering doubts about how serious China really is about keeping pace with democratic reforms or whether the Chinese want to reap the economic benefits of globalization without compromising their grip over power by ushering in democratic reforms. India has been one of the beacons of democracy in the world and the growth of India with democracy has always been compared with the growth in China sans democracy. We in India are quick to make statements to the effect that democracy is the reason why our country has not progressed well enough and also as to why corruption remains rampant in the country. We like to compare ourselves against military regimes and to Communist China where the iron-grip approach has reaped benefits for its citizens. What we are quick to forget is that authoritarianism, while attractive in short term for the quick benefits it brings, is doomed for failure in the long term prospects of any nation. Most nations that have flirted with authoritarian regimes and dogmas have only given it up to pursue the more stable form of governance – democracy. And sooner or later, the Chinese will need to do the same if it wants its citizens to grow and meaningfully contribute to the growth of their country. Then again, the Chinese model could well be used as an example where authoritarianism with kid gloves has bided well for a country of China’s size.

The Chinese currency has also been cited as being undervalued as compared to the Dollar and the Euro and this is also a reason for Chinese and American financial mandarins to lock horns over the unfairness of the Chinese approach to the global currency market. The West is also concerned over the investments China is making in Africa in return for an assured fuel supply from the energy rich though economically stumbling African nations. This reverse neo-imperialism is again under the Western media’s scanner who are blaming China for cutting deals with despots for the sake of fuelling its own economy, never mind the fact that till barely sixty years ago, the West was doing the very same thing it is now accusing China of. That aside there is no doubt that at a certain level by McDonaldising its nation, the country has also opened itself up to some tough questions, questions that China would prefer not to answer. But globalization is an all or none phenomenon. While some companies maybe willing to overlook the Chinese disregard for democracy and food safety for the billions of Yuan’s in return, it is not long before a serious backlash and lack of credibility may hit the Chinese economy if China does not open up – and not just in words but by quantifiable meaningful actions.

2007-07-23T00:43:00.000-07:00

The BJP needs a jumpstart

The Presidential elections proved to be a one sided affair with the ruling coalition’s candidate Pratibha Patil winning the elections with a convincing majority. These elections already being called the most scandalous of all Presidential elections saw both the NDA and the UPA exchange charges on each others candidates and managed to sully the whole the process that was reduced to a mud slinging match. And in doing so, the NDA successfully managed to stick the word ‘tainted’ next to the words Pratibha Patil for all times to come even though the ruling UPA was adamant to ensure that even after embarrassing revelations of misconduct by Patil’s relatives surfaced, she continued her march to Raisina Hill. The UPA, though embarrassed by some of the speeches of Patil and the allegations against her family, could not replace their candidate for it would politically have proved to be the end of the UPA alliance. In such a scenario, they continued with Patil and played up the ‘first woman President’ card to attribute some respectability to a person who was facing pressures from all political denominations. Whether the decision to pursue Pratibha’s candidature will prove politically useful only time can tell, however, in the short term there is no discounting the fact that the elation of having a woman president was thoroughly run to the ground with the allegations that surfaced soon after she was endorsed by the UPA. Now with the elections over and a substantial, though predictable, defeat handed down, it is important for the opposition NDA to analyze where it stands on the political stage with barely two years to go before the general elections in 2009.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, L.K. Advani had appealed just days before the Presidential elections to vote according to their conscience and ensure that the ‘independent’ candidate Bhairon Singh Shekhawat wins the elections. Whether the audience that Advani was addressing took his advice seriously or not is debatable, but what did occur was cross voting in favor of Patil instead of Shekhawat as was originally predicted. This embarrassing reversal speaks volumes of the piquant situation the BJP finds itself in vis-à-vis its NDA allies. Some erstwhile factions of the NDA had already formed a rag tag third front which included ex-NDA constituents like the Asom Gana Parishad, the Telegu Desam Party, the AIADMK and the Indian National Lok Dal. This grouping christened the United National Progressive Alliance was to act as a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative that has long been envisioned by regional parties and the Left front. The UNPA was assumed to vote for the NDA for regional and national political compulsions, but it decided to break up on election day and decided to vote according to their own individual party’s interests. While the NDA could take heart from the fact that the AIADMK and the INLD did vote for Shekhawat, there is trouble for the coalition for some of its key allies including the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra and some factions within the JD(U) in Bihar decided to vote according to their own personal interests. This lack of command pales in comparison with the UPA which managed to ensure that all factions voted for their candidate. This not only ensured Patil’s victory it has also reinvigorated the ruling alliance who confidently named their vice-presidential candidate barely twenty four hours after installing Patil at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. The presidential elections should not be seen in isolation and the NDA should avert calling the elections a mere formality to install the ruling dispensations candidate as the president.

There is no doubt that the degree of coalescence between political parties to form an alliance is directly related to the fact whether the dominant party is in power or not. This was amply proved by the united face that was presented by the NDA coalition under the BJP’s leadership. When voted out of power in 2004, the NDA virtually broke up and finger pointing proved to the norm – not only between parties but within parties as well. During the height of the Vajpayee premiership the Congress and other opposition parties were looked upon as has beens and their chances of winning the elections were considered laughable. By sewing up some strategic political alliances the Congress managed to come to power and today the UPA looks like a formidable foe in front of a tattered NDA. However, this perception can soon change if the BJP were to bring to the fore a manifesto of change. There are regional compulsions that can never be adequately addressed for all formations that constitute an alliance at the national level. However, there are policies and issues that can unite the erstwhile NDA constituents to form a united opposition to the UPA. For that to happen the BJP needs a jumpstart to the run up to the 2009 elections. An active and constructive role in the Parliament is the need of the hour. The BJP is perceived as the staller rather than the opposition in the Parliament today. Endless boycotts and walkouts must end and the party must take back the tag of the principle opposition ironically from the Left which props this government up at the moment. The concerted effort that the BJP showed for the Volcker and Office of Profit controversies is required to reinvigorate the party. The electoral victories of Punjab and Uttranchal were soon dimmed with the reverses that the party faced in the UP elections. It must ensure a romp in the Gujarat elections and the coming electoral cycle of 2008. The party has taken encouraging steps to that effect by appointing Arun Jaitely to oversee the Gujarat elections. Also with the Indo-US nuclear deal soon to be completed, the appointment of Yashwant Sinha as their foreign affairs cell chief is a step in the right direction. The BJP must take a cue from the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy and form a shadow cabinet (however contentious the idea may seem) whereby an individual is given a particular area to concentrate on and offer a critique of the government’s policies. By providing an alternative policy to the one proposed by the government, the electorate will know where the principal opposition party stands on various issues. Merely opposing for the sake of opposing is detrimental not only for the BJP but the entire NDA alike. This mindset of a sore loser must be replaced by that of being a responsible opposition and thereby influencing a large swathe of the electorate to gravitate towards it.

Most importantly though is the need for the famed Next Gen within the BJP to now come of age and decisively take command of the party. For that to happen the old guard in the party will need to step back. The Congress chief to her credit has made a real effort of promoting younger talents even though the Cabinet continues to have an average age well into the seventies. The BJP needs to come out of the ideological doldrums that it finds itself in. The blow hot blow cold approach to Hindutuva and the Ayodhya movement has only smacked of opportunism rather than any substantial policy initiatives on both issues. The BJP also seems to have been deeply wounded by the policies that it had taken during its regime. The India Shining campaign was a feel good campaign that has been blamed for the party’s defeat. The notion gained such currency that many in the party themselves starting believing that the reason they lost was an ad campaign. That is a simplistic argument to the more complex reasons for the loss – primarily the alliances it sought in the run up to the elections. But that aside the party needs to chart a new path on policies that it would doggedly pursue in the years to come. 2009 may seem a long time away but it is just barely long enough to change the perceptions that have crept into the minds of many voters. The time is here to go from the “has been” to the “will be” in 2009. Anyone listening?

2007-07-16T04:35:00.000-07:00

Benchmarking Iraq - When will the Iraqis stand up?

The Iraq war took centre stage in American politics with President George Bush not wavering on his administrations current Iraq policy, while at the same time giving his commander in Iraq, David Petraeus time till September to come up with his assessment of the failure or success of the troop surge that was initiated in February of this year. The critics of the current policy has now included prominent Republicans from Bush’s party with long time ally Senator John Warner coming up with an alternate bill for a troop pullout. Some Republicans are also now calling for a troop redeployment, read troop reduction, by April 2008. The US Congress had earlier passed an appropriation bill to fund the troops based on 18 benchmarks that the Iraqi government should achieve in order to enjoy further support of the US army in Iraq. In plain terms, it was a clear indication to the Iraqi government to achieve political breakthroughs in a war where the solution is increasingly not military but political. Most commentators have kept arguing on the failed opportunities and tactics of the White House while ignoring the lack of political resolve shown by the Iraqi parliament. That the decision to invade Iraq was detrimental to US strategic interests is yesterday’s news, it is paramount that a solution is now reached rather than harping on failed policies of the Bush administration. While criticizing the Bush administration is the fashionable thing to do, it is important for the sake of Iraqis who are suffering that a political solution is trashed out and the gradual troop reduction initiated in the coming eighteen months.

The eighteen benchmarks that the US Congress had set of the Iraqis have seen a limited success rate. Bush recognized that of the eighteen benchmarks, eight had been achieved; eight had not been met with while two remained in progress. The Iraqis were to have achieved success or partial success on all eighteen items by the time General Petraeus addressed the Senate in September. So with three months to go till September, the onus lies on the Iraqi parliament and government to meet the remaining requirements of the bill. The reaction of the Iraqi politicians to these benchmarks has been disappointing. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has stated that the Iraqis have done their bit and that if the American forces were to leave the Iraqi security forces could step up to the plate and secure their country. While the statement might seem far fetched, but in terms of Iraqi politics one can see why he made such a comment. Not wanting to seem cowering to American demands, Maliki wanted to address his domestic audience that he was no American stooge and that the Iraqis were capable of defending themselves. But Maliki’s statement belies that fact that most Iraqi politicians agree upon - that a precipitous withdrawal of American troops is untenable. Further contrary to Maliki’s claims, the Iraqi security forces have not provided the American led Multi National Forces with the required three brigades as part of the Baghdad Security Plan (the formal name for the US troop surge). Infact, the Iraqi parliament instead of heading towards political reconciliation has now taken a summer recess which may last till mid August, thereby, giving it very little time to actually achieve more targets laid down by the Americans. It would be unimaginable for any Parliament in the world to even think of a recess if their country were in facing a threat to its very existence. The lack of steadfastness on parts of the Iraqi politicians will go down as a greater tragedy than the invasion itself. The Iraqi parliament needs to discuss, debate and reach consensus on key policy decisions which include a review of the new Iraqi constitution, disarming of militias, policy on oil distribution and the setting up of semi-autonomous states within Iraq. All these issues are highly contentious and need deft political and diplomatic handling to achieve any breakthroughs. The more the world concentrates on the failed US policies – both diplomatic and military the more the Iraqi politicians find reason to shirk from their duties. It would do great disservice to claim that the Iraqi parliament and parliamentarians have not achieved anything since the war began. Their devotion to the cause of a free Iraq lies in the fact that they have a constitution in place and have held a referendum on it. Many Iraqi politicians and ministers have lost family members to the sectarian violence, so the insurgency has hit most Iraqi parliamentarians. Further, commendably, they have held nation wide elections which saw a large number of voters casting their ballots. However, the onus remains on them for they cannot falter at this crucial stage in their country’s history. Any failure on the part of Iraqis will give the White House and the remnants of the neo-conservative movement ammunition to charge that the Americans sacrificed their soldiers and failed because the Iraqis could not present a unifying voice.

The time has come for Iraqi politicians to set an example for the rest of the Middle East that it is possible for diverse ethnic groups to unite as a single nation. The thousands of years of violence between the Shias and Sunnis cannot end in a matter of years or over a cup of Arabian brew. However, for the sake of reinvigorating the lost Arab nationalism of the seventies and eighties it is important for the Iraqis to now stand up. For the risk of not doing so will vilify them for generations to come. The West will take this as an example where they tried to spread democracy and freedom in the Middle East only to be scuttled by in fighting and radicalism. The future Arab generations will wonder why their predecessors did not take the opportunity to change Arab history and instead preferred to maintain status quo. For all the appreciable sacrifices aside the hand of history wants to be held. It’s for the Iraqis to now reach out.

2007-07-12T05:49:00.000-07:00

Lal Masjid Siege – Musharraf’s Bluestar

The tense standoff between the Pakistani Army and clerics and suspected militants at Islamabad’s Lal Masjid mosque finally ended in blood shed with the Army using tanks and small artillery fire to storm the mosque and kill the deputy chief cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi. The total loss of life has been put at 150 with dozens of Army personnel losing their life in the siege. The siege and the trouble leading to the siege has been brewing for months with the Government exchanging terse vocabulary with the Lal Masjid clerics, who themselves had undertaken a anti-vice campaign in the capital city and were adamant on imposition of the Islamic Sharia law in the country. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was left with no clear options than to storm the mosque with the clerics asking for free passage for foreign terrorists holed up in the mosque, which was clearly unacceptable to the pro-US Musharraf regime and for Musharraf’s personal ‘moderate’ credentials. That said the fallout of the siege, though enjoying the support of a majority of Pakistani civil society, will severely influence the longevity of Musharraf’s regime and the pincer effect has finally taken a stranglehold on the eight year old dictatorship.

The genesis of this present face-off is the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001. At that time Musharraf had switched sides from being a Taliban backer to a frontline ally in the war against terror. The persuasion to shift was more because of the threat from the Americans to “wipe Pakistan off the face of the Earth” rather than a new found realization of the perils of Islamic fundamentalism. This shift in policy was however a clever smokescreen. The Taliban, while being removed from the Afghan territories, were replanted by the Pakistani ISI to safer locations along the Afghan-Pakistan border and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Some of the radicals, as it now turns out, were also accommodated to safer locations close to the power centre in Pakistan and the Lal Masjid seemed like a favorable venue for this collection of Islamic fundamentalists. Coupled with local clerics who were increasingly taking a hardline view of Islam and the present day Lal Masjid became the virtual Taliban Embassy in Islamabad. All this while Musharraf was claiming to be a victim of terror and showing his country’s active involvement in removing extremist elements from Pakistan. The overt show of support for the US’ war on terror along with the covert support for Jihadi elements has ensured that Musharraf did not enjoy the support of either grouping. In such a situation an inevitable showdown was all in the making.

The showdown between the Army and the militants and clerics of Lal Masjid has raised some serious questions for the Pakistani establishment. Were the Lal Masjid clerics not propped up by the ISI? It is important to note that the ISI headquarter is barely a mile away from the controversial mosque. This either shows a support of the ISI for the clerics or a catastrophic intelligence failure on part of the ISI who could not notice a build up of weapons and arms. A striking similarity between the buildup in the mosque and the intelligence agencies turning a blind eye is with the buildup of arms and ammunition by Sikh radicals in the Golden Temple in 1984 where the local police and law and order agencies turned a blind eye for a cause that they felt was just. If one were to take the similarities further and compare the unfortunate fallout of Operation Bluestar of 1984 with the events of Operation Silence in Pakistan of 2007 then it certainly does not bode well for Musharraf. The pressure on Musharraf has already begun, today Al Qaeda’s second in command Ayman Al-Zawahiri has called for the end of his regime. Al-Qaeda will definitely step up its activities to take out Musharraf whom they are blaming for the violence that was witnessed during the Lal Masjid siege and have labeled him as an infidel who is being played at the hands of the Americans. The US will also find it difficult to increase pressure on Musharraf to take steps towards bringing an end to military rule in Pakistan and move towards a representative democracy. The Americans will understand that the siege has made Musharraf more vulnerable to Al Qaeda and home grown terror groups who seem to have turned on the military regime. In such a state it is also likely that radicals within the Army may be convinced that Musharraf needs to go and a coup against Musharraf would then become inevitable. The fallout of the siege will also ensure that the ISI will now see this as the end of Musharraf and may even switch sides to the Islamic elements within the armed forces. Both possibilities will be disastrous for Musharraf and for the nascent movement towards democracy with assemble elections slated for October this year.

Analysts have also argued that Musharraf played out Operation Silence to not only redeem his moderate credentials to the world but also to defect personal criticism from the fallout of the sacking of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikar Chaudhary. Either way Musharraf has ended up with a far greater problem that he was facing prior to the Lal Masjid face-off. The US State department’s open backing of the military regime will further deteriorate Musharraf’s stand as terror elements will want to show the mosque siege as an American sponsored operation. So what are the realistic options that Musharraf can activate? First and foremost will be to strengthen his control further over the Army, a hint of a possible coup against him will be the end of his regime. The second most important step would be a realistic move to democratic change by which he may forego some of the absolute powers he enjoys in return for him remaining the head of state. It is also high time that the imposed exile on key political leaders like Nawaz Sharif is ended and both Sharif and Benazir are allowed back into the country to contest elections. If Musharraf manages to maintain a stronghold over the Army, he will not need to worry about the outcome of the elections in October. The Pakistani establishment since independence has been the ones calling the shots and democratically elected leaders have on most occasions - be it Pakistan going nuclear or the Kargil incursion – acted as rubber stamps or worst still been kept in the dark. In such a reality that exists in Pakistan, news reports of a possible ‘understanding’ between Musharraf and Benazir vis-à-vis the impending elections will further weaken the Musharraf regime. Musharraf turned a new leaf overnight after the US led Multinational Forces invaded Afghanistan post the September 11 attacks, the time for a repeat and to turn a new democratic leaf, which is the only way Musharraf can realistically stay in power. If he does not go down the democracy route chances are that the regime might implode or worst still Al Qaeda may just get lucky on its new man topping their hit list.

2007-07-04T05:30:00.000-07:00

Doctors on Jihad - The Deadly Prescription

The United Kingdom is witnessing tense days with terror threats reeling the capital London and Scottish city of Glasgow over the past few days. The failed car-bombings at West End and that at Glasgow airport has ensured that the UK has raised its threat perception to its highest level. The failed terror attempts have also proved to be a baptism by fire for the barely week old Gordon Brown government, with the prime minister acknowledging the clear and present danger that Islamic fundamentalism and Al Qaeda linked and/or inspired groups pose for the UK and the larger democratic world in general. The tactics used by the terror plotters are similar to those that are commonplace on the streets of Baghdad, a deadly mix of explosives, fuel and nails that come together to ensure carnage. It is hardly surprising these tactics have now been adapted to the streets of London given the exposure the internet and Jihadi networks have received over the past half a decade. Bomb making tactics and methods to create widespread lose of life and limb are easily available for any individual provided the individual or group has the audacity and zeal to follow the foot steps of earlier “martyrs”. What is surprising though, is the fact that all three attacks failed, with the Glasgow attempt being the only one causing minor damage, the failure of the attempts is more luck and perhaps a sign of first timers giving their dose of Jihad a shot rather than experienced hands planning these attacks.

The initial investigations have also revealed a new face of terror – that of qualified medical professionals being involved directly or helping the perpetrators in carrying out the terror atrocities. For long terror analysts and civil society the world over have argued that the root cause of terror is not directly religion but actually poverty, disenchantment and a sense of alienation felt by poor, uneducated youths towards their governments and society and this ultimately leads them down the path of Jihad and religious fundamentalism. Also the role of Madarassas and other religious teaching schools have come under severe international focus for the role they play in radicalizing the youth. While, it is no doubt true that all the above factors contribute tremendously towards ensuring the radicalizing of youth the world over, the plotters of the latest terror plots in London prove that the explanation may not be the case always or that the profile of the religious extremists is changing. The eight persons currently under custody of the British police and the two detained by the Australian police are all doctors. All are well qualified and from external appearances do not fit the profile usually associated with terrorists, but the police do claim that all those detained were involved in these attacks, either directly or indirectly. This remarkable change in the profile of terror is indeed chilling and a stern reminder that increasingly the call for extremism is slowly taking hold of sections of society that were considered to be moderate and democratic in belief. It also shows that the call to fundamentalism has its roots not only in poverty or disenchantment, but also because of the perceived injustices the war on terror has thrown up. While earlier generations had grown on a steady diet of Arab nationalism that included a sense of pride in being Muslim and part of the Ummah, the current crop has been more inclined to follow the words and actions of men like Osama Bin Laden, for whom the message of destruction amounts to martyrdom. As mentioned, the fact that the terror perpetrators were doctors is surprising to most people, the unfortunate fact however is that many doctors have taken the path of extremism and are high on the terror pecking order. Take for example Al Qaeda’s second in command, Egyptian born Ophthalmologist, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who spearheaded the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt and his now widely considered the ideological mastermind of the Al Qaeda movement. Closer home, the horrific 2005 bombings in New Delhi, threw up Dr. Tariq Ahmed Dar, who was suspected as the mastermind behind the attacks. Similar examples are not hard to find, however, they remained dispersed in a wide-ranging profile of current Jehadis. The truly surprising aspect of these terror attacks is the fact that the entire ring of terror plotters seem to doctors, something that is unprecedented.

This new profile of the terror cells based in UK further deteriorates the standing of the expatriate South Asian community in Britain. While the radicalization of British Muslim youths was underway soon after the 9/11 attacks, popular perception held that those radicalized were those who were unemployed or those who went astray following the words of some deranged Mullahs. However, with doctors of differing nationalities now becoming an active part of the terror planning and execution, a general backlash against the community is inevitable. Those leaning towards the right of political ideology will see this as another example of how Islam as a religion itself is flawed and is inherently violent. Doctors wanting to work in the UK and Australia will also bear the brunt of the irresponsible actions of a deviant few. That said the onus now really lies with the governments of the Western world to prove to the world that their policies and actions are not a scheme to exploit the Muslim people or to gain a foothold in their lands, but rather their policies are based in ensuring human rights and freedom for all people. Guantanamo Bay, Haditha and Abu Gharaib however, will take more time and a definite shift in policy to prove as mere footnotes in the larger struggle to rid the world of religious fundamentalism and imperial war mongering.

2007-06-26T03:04:00.000-07:00

The Elasticity of Democracy

Of the numerous forms of government and governance that have taken shape in the modern world, the two most prominent have been Communism and democracy. While the former took the world by storm in the twentieth century, it withered under some of its own ideological contradictions and due to the lack of realization of people’s free will to own property and wealth. The latter has proved to be more successful in terms of acceptability and admiration amongst most nations of the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy has become the norm to the modern world akin to what the monarchy was to the Middle Ages – accepted and unchallenged. However, if the American War of Independence in the eighteenth century is taken as the birth of modern democracy, in the intervening three centuries has democracy proven to be the fool proof model of governance, a form of governance acceptable to all races, classes and sections of society. Furthermore, is democracy a strict form of government, much like theology, or can democracy in the words of King Abdullah of Jordan mean “different things to different peoples”. There are four telling examples from the past seven years that outline how democracy has been stretched to its limits, where leaders and governments have come to the helm and governed against what could be called the people’s mandate.

The principal example of this stretch of democracy is from the United States of America, the oldest democracy in the world. In 2000, the Presidential campaign saw the incumbent Vice President, Al Gore square off against the Republican contender George Bush. Both men gave a meaty fight which polarized the country down the middle. The results from Florida were contested and for the first time in Presidential elections did the Supreme Court have to intervene and declare George Bush the winner. It was also the first election where "hanging chads" saw more airtime than policy initiatives from both candidates. While the 2000 Presidential election results have been dissected ad nauseum by political pundits, journalists and politicians alike, the majority of the American population that voted for Gore felt that democracy had cheated them. How can democracy be representative when such a major section of society vehemently opposed the candidate that was elected? The ‘first past the post’ style of democracy was truly stretched in this election and many argued whether the “majority wins” model is truly representative in such cases where the verdict could have gone either way. Proponents of democracy argue that while some of the arguments against first past the post may hold merit, ultimately it is not possible for a democratic system to fulfill the desires of everyone; rather, it is the elected leader who must unite his country. The reason why this polarization has been so exacerbated in case of the US is simple. One, George Bush failed to unite his country even in his second term in office and second, more cynically, this sort of a result in the developing world would have been labeled as a sham, but because it happened in the cradle of democracy, the debate raged rather than calls for a re-election.

The merits and drawbacks of the system aside, an important question also arises from the very source that ensures democratic norms – the electorate. If one leaves the debatable 2000 elections aside and considers the 2004 Presidential elections the role of the electorate is clearly in question. If the country was outraged by the manner with which Bush used his money and political influence to win the presidency why was he not removed in 2004? There again, the proponents of democracy argue that the Bush beat John Kerry in real voting numbers and hence democracy cannot be faulted as a system. However, if one were to again leave the 2004 results aside and blame the real threat that the US faced post the September 11 attacks and also the lackluster campaign that Kerry ran, once can safely say that Bush cannot be faulted for stretching democracy. Having said that, 2007 is a telling example of the stretch of democracy. With approval ratings being the lowest for any president in living memory and a war that has turned the nation against the White House, how can democracy be truly representative if a majority of people are against the man who is in charge. Surely, by voting out a Republican held Senate and Congress will not fundamentally change the policies of the President, as has been demonstrated recently with the Presidential veto on two important bills. The right to impeach a President too lies with Capitol Hill, but if a large swathe of the electorate have lost trust in the administration why is the Hill not moving an impeachment motion? Is there not a disconnect between the public sentiment and the policies of their elected representatives. Further, how can the people complain against the President, when a majority amongst them has voted for the incumbent?

The second example is that of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a few days time the most successful Labour Party prime minister will make way for his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Having won three elections, he finally had to make way for his closest rival Brown. But here again is there not a stretching of democratic norms. For the people in 2005 voted for Tony Blair for a full term as Premier. Infact, during the campaign Blair talked about a possible fourth term. He neither indicated a date to leave or whether he will be quitting in the months or years to come. While it would be naïve to deny the likelihood of Brown taking over from Blair, democratic openness should have allowed for fresh elections in case of the incumbent stepping down. The British media has used words like ‘coronation’ and ‘anointment’ for Brown’s succession to 10 Downing. That to most observers that seems like a leaf out of the dictionary of monarchs rather than a modern democracy. So, both examples do highlight the shortfalls inherent in both forms of democracy – the Presidential and the Westminster model of governance.

The third example is that of the Palestinian group Hamas. In an election in 2006, Hamas won with overwhelming majority in what were called free and fair elections by most Western governments. What followed was a total subversion of the mandate with the Western world imposing sanctions on the newly elected government. While for decades the West talked about the welfare, freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people, why could the West not accept the voice of the electorate? It would be dangerous to defend the actions and policies of Hamas, a known militant group hell bent on destroying Israel, but then there are countless examples of democratically elected governments that have waged wars against their neighbors. Further, in all fairness, the West never let the Hamas led government take charge of the Palestinian territories with immediate economic sanctions crippling the virtually non-existent Palestinian economy and radicalizing youths against the West. The relevant question that comes up is this – is democracy only considered credible if the person in charge is friendly with the West or a section of the developed world? Does the people’s mandate lose its significance because of the elected government’s non – conformity with the foreign and economic policies of the West? By systematically removing the Hamas government from power, the West has further reduced the chances of heralding democracy to the Middle East anytime soon.

The final example comes from our own politics. 2004 is considered a watershed for the Congress party in India. They not only strengthened their position as a party, they left political pundits red-faced by bucking the trend and coming to power in the general elections held that year. The campaign and the run-up to the elections saw a clear division of all political parties into the NDA camp and the then non-existent UPA. The NDA had projected Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the nominee for the premiership. The Congress on the other hand projected, albeit unofficially, Sonia Gandhi as their prime ministerial candidate. Today, the Congress party may deny any such move to install Mrs. Gandhi as prime minister; history though, exposes their lie. In 1998, after mid term elections, the Congress Party went to the President where Mrs. Gandhi proclaimed that she had the required 272 to form a government and become premier. The proclamation fizzled out due a variety of reasons and Sonia lost her chance to become Prime Minister. The 2004 campaigning saw the Congress actively looking to project Mrs. Gandhi for the top post in case the party came to power. Most Congress voters voted for them in the hope of installing Mrs. Gandhi as the premier. Had the debate on a foreign born becoming the prime minister not gained considerable ground as it did during the campaign, Mrs. Gandhi would have become India’s prime minister. However, her now famous “inner voice” spoke and she decided to hand over the premiership to Dr. Manmohan Singh. While Dr. Singh enjoys excellent credentials as an economic powerhouse and for his scholarly insights, his electoral campaigns, though, were a major source of embarrassment for the Congress party. In such a scenario, where the section of the population who voted for Congress wanted to see Sonia Gandhi as prime minister, did she not disrespect their mandate by installing Dr. Singh? Was democracy not stretched to its very limits with such a move? How can the Prime Minister confidently say that he is the right man for the job when not one person voted for him per se, to take over the mantle of premiership? How can such a move be called a representation of the national sentiment when the person who people voted for backs out the very last minute. More importantly, has Sonia Gandhi not shied away from the responsibility the nation’s electorate had entrusted in her?

So, where lies the solution and how can democracy become more representative and ever evolving in the modern world. While for smaller countries the luxury of a re-election is an option, as is the right to impeach their head of State or government. But for larger nations like us, the idea of having a run-off as in the case of the French Presidential election, till a single party wins a majority is neither feasible nor will it be representative. The right to recall a government is an option that is a fundamental requirement of every democracy. A referendum is the key to ensuring whether a government stays or goes. While the idea may be extravagant and expensive, it will put the checks and balances that are required to make democracy truly representative. However much tinkering that we may do with the democratic model, the beauty of the system is the very fact that we can modify and criticize it. So while there may not be solutions to make democracy truly representative, we should never underestimate the power of democracy and its ability to change nations – like ours. Democracy has ensured free speech and right to ownership, a fundamental of human nature that has not changed since the evolution of man, and one must respect the democratic model on that count, flawed as it maybe, but then so are humans.

2007-06-18T07:13:00.000-07:00

Palestine Churning - The point of no return

The crisis in the Palestinian territories seems to be nose-diving towards complete anarchy. The events of last week has left the world wondering whether we are all witnessing the partitioning of Palestinian territories even before the people of Palestine could achieve complete statehood. The two rival factions – Fatah and Hamas have fought each other to take control of their respective strongholds of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The outing of Fatah from Gaza was particularly brutal with eyewitness accounts of gross human rights violations and the unashamed execution of Fatah members by the Hamas faction. The Fatah side reacted almost immediately and has now ousted the Hamas from the West Bank in a tit for tat battle of attrition. The unity government, which was formed after the Mecca Declaration in March this year, saw hopes for peace rise with both Hamas and Fatah sharing power in order to achieve the ultimate goal of complete statehood. The euphoria was short lived, even my Middle Eastern standards, and within months the two sides were fighting street battles through their militias and political battles in the prime minister’s cabinet. That the West had completely cut foreign aid and the fragile territories energy supply led to increased frustrations amongst politicians and ordinary Palestinians alike. The stated aim of the embargo was to make the Hamas renounce violence and recognize the state of Israel. As it unfortunately turned out, the West’s sanctions not only took the wheels of the nascent Palestinian government, it further hardened the extremist outfits of Hamas, who saw this as another injustice by the West in order to arm twist the Palestinian people to recognize Israel. Ultimately, the viability of the unity government seemed vulnerable from the start and the West’s actions precipitated its downfall. As things stand, President Mahmoud Abbas, of the Fatah, has dismissed the Hamas led Ismael Hanieyah government and has sworn in Salaam Fayyad as the new interim Prime Minister. Fayyad, a former finance minister, will now pave the way for a new government that will be elected by the Palestinian people. The Fayyad premiership will appeal to most Palestinians as he is seen as a non-partisan independent belonging to neither faction.

The paramount question that faces the leaders of the Middle East and the West is how to get the defunct road map to peace back on track and how to ensure that this current crisis does not take on multi-national dimensions. To avoid this domino effect to chaos, the West, particularly the US, will urgently need to learn from its mistakes and take some crucial leadership steps to bring back Palestine from the proverbial brink. First and foremost, there is an urgent need to appoint a US representative to the Middle East. The current twin pronged approach towards diplomacy involves the use of multinational and multi body instruments like the Quartet, which includes the U.S., EU, Russia and the UN or to use shuttle diplomacy through Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Neither has proved effective, with the Quartet not making any significant progress on the Oslo accords and the inherent disadvantages of a multibody approach causing things to go nowhere. The use of Rice as an effective mediator is seen as ad-hoc and only as a fire-fighting mechanism with the Secretary of State flying into the region only at a time of crisis. The US has gained tremendously from use of its special envoy for the North Korean talks in Christopher Hill. His persistence and presence in the region has ensured that the North Koreans have taken encouraging steps to bring its nuclear weapons under international inspections. This after the first testing of a nuclear device by the North Koreans seemed to have spelt the death knell to negotiations. By persisting with diplomacy and by continuing to talk to its friends and enemies the US can expect favorable results from the North Korean talks. A similar replication of this model needs to infused into the Middle East. Cynics may argue that with only eighteen months left in the Bush administrations tenure, appointing a Middle East representative will achieve little. While that may be true, it will however, send a clear signal of America’s intent on resolving this decades old dispute. Optimistically, this step may actually help in achieving some progress on President Bush’s stated two-nations living side-by-side policy initiative. The chequered legacy that the President will most definitely leave behind will also indict him for further deteriorating the Middle East conflict rather than improving it in any measurable manner. A peace envoy may just help the Bush Administration clear the air about the seriousness with which it takes the Arab-Israel dispute.

The other key learning that the West must take out of the entire crisis is that embargo’s, travel bans and economic sanctions on most occasions hurt the common man rather than having its intended effect on the ruling dispensation of any country. The list of failed sanctions is elaborate and some notable examples include Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria and now the Palestinian government under Hamas. Closer home, the sanctions that followed the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998 had little effect on both countries and ultimately the US had to remove sanctions and restore complete diplomatic relations with both countries. In the specific case of the Palestinian territories the ordinary Palestinian has felt continuously let down by the West. They voted when the West asked for the spread of democracy in the region. They elected a Hamas government, whom they thought would bring great social change after years of Fatah misrule and corruption. Hamas, on the other hand, had done some commendable work in the field of health and education in the Gaza strip, which led the electorate to believe that this would be the way of an elected Hamas government. However, Hamas continued to rule like a militia in charge rather than respect the mandate for change. The Hamas top brass felt that their election was the ringing endorsement for a further hardening of its people’s stance against Israeli occupation. They not only upped the ante against the Israeli armed forces but also played a crucial role in opening a second front in Gaza after the Israel- Hezbollah war broke out in 2006. The Palestinian people suffered further with the increased sanctions that were put into place by the West for the actions of the Hamas government. Rising unemployment and a rage against the west ensured that the militias only gained recruits but also a sense of injustice and a crisis was all for the making. The Palestinian people are now suffering the fallout of the power vacuum that has left them wondering what the future holds for them. The destructive role of sanctions has once again toppled a government, albeit, with a residual chaos that the West will find difficult to handle. The Hamastan, as some analysts are calling the new realities of Gaza, will further witness crushing sanctions which will not affect the Iranian financed Hamas, but the ordinary man, woman and child on the streets of Gaza.

The U.S will also have to realize that the proxy war it is playing with the Iranians is only harming its interests while at the same time strengthening Iran. The West’s call for Iran to end its nuclear program has fallen on deaf ears and the Iranians are playing a concerted public relations exercise to ensure that they are portrayed as the victims and the US as the aggressor in the region. The use of Iranian manufactured arms and weapons by Shia groups in Iraq, the Hezbollah in Lebanon and by Hamas in Gaza is indeed worrying. However, the West must count its options before opening too many theatres of conflict with the chances of winning any being rare. The Israel – Lebanon conflict of 2006 was widely seen as a defeat for Israel. The Hezbollah emerged stronger and in doing so has ensured that the Western backed Fioud Siniora government is further weakened by assassinations of prominent politicians. In Iraq, the situation is clearly not under control with sectarian strife assuming the 2006 proportions with a string of bombings of Shia and Sunni mosques meant to foment tension and violence. The Palestinian territories are further witnessing chaos. In such a situation, the American ploy to ratchet up the pressure on Iran will only aggravate the problems of the region rather than alleviate them. The Bush administration will have to ease its ego over Iran and put Iran in historical context. For better part of the last two millennia, Iran’s Persian Empire had been unconquered and unchallenged. The Persians always ruled areas that included modern Iran and no other kingdom or empire came close to defeating the might of the Persians. After the Islamic revolution, Iran has now again wanted its place as amongst the most influential countries in the world. With ample oil reserves and a sizeable army it has gained influence in the region over the years. The Iranians, it must be noted, helped the United States overthrow the Taliban on its Eastern flanks and ensured that the Northern Alliance took control of Afghanistan. However, with the war in Iraq, Iran sought to gain influence in the only country with a Shia majority apart from itself. The Americans failed to take this into account before the invasion. Iran now looks to dominate all Shia areas, which include parts of Lebanon. However, history has also taught us that the Arabs and Persians have not taken to each other for centuries. In this regional fight the Americans should stay clear of hostilities that date back centuries rather than blatantly take sides. In real terms it means that the Americans should look to placate Iran in order to extract benefits in Iraq and Palestine. Fighting through Israel and western backed governments will only help Iran not harm it.

The Arab people, including the Palestinians, have also long felt the desire to break free from American hegemony in the region that exists either through US backed governments like in Lebanon or through physical occupation as in the case of Iraq. These “client” governments, so installed by the blessing of the West, are seen as western hypocrisy by the Arabs. The West selectively prescribes democracy for some states while blesses regimes with leaders of questionable constitution. The idea that “one size does not fit all” irks the Arabs into believing that the West and the US are advocating democracy only for its own Machiavellian benefits. The US and West must give up that notion as backing non-democratic, corrupt regimes will only further throw up more Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s of the region. While such a u-turn may not be possible for years, even decades, it a fundamental shift in foreign policy that the West must be ready for if it wants things to change on the ground.

So today, the world is watching Palestine return to chaos after only days of calm. Not one analyst is ready to wager on the outcome of the current churning that’s in progress. What is true is that Palestine has taken a route that will significantly change the region and the Middle East peace process permanently. For it is the first time that the West will have to contend with not one, but two Palestinian entities. The West has already shown its open backing for Fatah, and in doing so, has ensured that Hamas will further want to show the Fatah faction as being the lapdog of the U.S. The open backing for Fatah may encourage aid to come the West Bank, in the long term, however, it will also lead to a backlash against Fatah, who will be seen as siding with the West at a time of a fresh Gaza crisis. Days after the overthrow of Saddam, then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice has proclaimed that the route to resolving the Palestinian peace process was through Baghdad. With Gaza looking more and more like Baghdad, one wonders whether the ghost of Baghdad is coming to haunt Gaza.

2007-06-15T00:15:00.000-07:00

Madam President: Masterstroke?

“ I’m always rather nervous about how you talk about women who are active in politics, whether they want to be talked about as women or as politicians”
John F. Kennedy
(Courtesy TOI)

After much political deliberations and consensus building, Sonia Gandhi, the Chairperson of the UPA, finally declared the UPA’s candidate for the post of the 13th President of India. Pratibha Patil emerged as the surprise consensus candidate and the announcement also sounded the end of the Shivraj Patil and Sushil Kumar Shinde presidential campaigns. In doing so, the Congress is claiming the moral high ground – for in the 60th year of the Republic’s independence the country will have a woman President – and it is the Congress that will go down in history as having put her there. The move is tactically smart, as the Congress has pulled a “Kalam” in throwing an option that most political parties will have difficulty opposing. In Governor Patil, you have a North Indian, Maharashtrian, upper caste Thakur, stature (though as compared to Shivraj Patil and Shinde most Governors in the country could beat them on that count), a known loyalist and most of all she is a woman. That this lady existed with such perfect credentials in the national scene and why she was never considered till the day of reckoning is a mystery. It does seem that with her nomination, the brilliant career of Mr. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat seems to have hit the end of the road. There is no doubt that all the talk of cross voting will now come to naught and Mr. Shekhawat will contest as a token opposition candidate.

While the Patil nomination does serve the Congress and its UPA allies well, the fact that the woman president card was brought in so late in the discussions does indicate that the UPA was not keen to have a woman candidate right from the start. Any insinuation that it was a planned move to install a woman at Raisina Hill is specious. As the right wing media and the opposition is claiming that after Sonia Gandhi’s candidate Shivraj Patil was out rightly rejected, the Congress and Gandhi decided to fall back on the relatively safe and non-controversial candidature of the other Patil. And in choosing Patil the Congress ensured that whatever resistance the Left might put up would evaporate. For the Left having put the candidature of Captain Lakhsmi Sehgal in the last presidential elections, rejecting a woman candidate was not an option. The allies, including the DMK, NCP and RJD seem to go along with her candidature and so Patil’s moment in history finally arrived. With the position of the President more or less decided, the fight for the Vice President’s chair will soon hot up. It is highly likely that the DMK will push for their man for the post – for the unwritten understanding is that if the President is from the North, her Vice President should be from the South. While some analysts argue that the Left will stake a claim for the VP’s position, it does seem unlikely, as the Congress would not want the Left to emerge as the kingmaker with having scuttled the Shivraj Patil candidature and then installing one of their comrades in the Vice President’s post. The DMK, having just recovered from the embarrassing family soap opera, will press for their man for the job, but with the Prime Minister facing flak for having ministers thrust upon them form his allies, like in the case of A Raja for the Communications portfolio, it remains to be seen how seriously the DMK candidature is taken within the power circles of the Congress.

The main drawback in installing a woman president seems to be the fate of the Women’s Reservation Bill. With a woman at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, one feels that the call for the bill to be passed will diminish rather than gather pace. It is unlikely that in a male dominated political system the male politician will let go of the Parliament after having seen the all male bastion of the Rashtrapati Bhavan having already being breached. If the political casualty of a woman president is the women’s reservation bill, not many tears will be shed across the political spectrum.

So while many questions will continue to be raised about Pratibha Patil and her candidature, the Congress will feel that they have played a masterstroke in having virtually installed a loyalist in the Rashtrapati Bhavan. In doing so the party has once again elevated itself from the pack by showing “political morality” with respect to their power hungry foes. However, as soon as the Congress takes the moral high ground on issues, some tough questions do arise. Namely, does Pratibha Patil “fit the bill” because she is a woman or because she is Gandhi- Nehru loyalist? Secondly, is loyalty to a political family more than to a political cause the only criteria for selecting a President? Was the NDA for all its tokenism in installing a Muslim as the President, not choose a candidate that made the nation proud and who yet was not a BJP loyalist. If Sonia Gandhi was so keen to give woman their due in the 60th year of India’s independence, why didn’t she show her political resolve and declare only a woman candidate from the start? These questions will find scant answers, especially from the UPA. It is without a doubt though, that when all the talk about the Presidential polls is written and analyzed, having a woman president will make the nation proud. And the UPA knows it.

2007-06-02T03:33:00.001-07:00

Caste Clashes - The UPA's Giving?

Rajasthan and its neighboring states have experienced widespread violence and loss of life and limb over the contentious issue of extending reservation benefits under the Scheduled Tribes category to the Gujjar community. The community, currently under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) quota, has vocally wanted to move down the social ladder and be placed alongside the Meena community, as ST’s, to enjoy more privileges in education and employment. Successive governments in Rajasthan have promised the ST status to the Gujjars and have failed to live up to a promise that constitutionally no state government can promise as a certainty. Violence, however, had not erupted for quite some time but incidents of the past few days, and the perceived callousness of the Chief Minister, Vasundhara Raje Scindia, has stoked passions and has resulted in road blocks and violence against the police and the Army. The media too has played up this issue of false promises and has tried to implicate the Chief Minister, as a Marie Antionettesque figure, who couldn’t care less about the poor and down trodden in the state. While on the Rajasthan scale the issue seems to resulting in animosity against the incumbent BJP government, on a pan national scale such violence can be attributed to the ‘social justice’ being churned out by the ruling UPA and some of its key ministries.

The current violence is truly tragic in many senses. Sociologically, the incident shows the pathetic result of the quota/reservation Raj in the name of social justice. Reservations in the past two decades have only further divided India on caste lines rather than unite them by providing an egalitarian social platform. The dream to integrate castes by undoing the past injustices to the lower castes has actually turned sour and the nation finds itself in a peculiar situation. This may actually be the first time that a particular community has asked for its ‘demotion’ on the caste ladder to a much lower standing. Rather than wanting to benefit from its present standing in society, a community would actually want to be lowered to a category that may bring rejection from society, though, with benefits in finding jobs and a decent education. The mentality is particularly terrifying if it were to be repeated amongst other similar communities. Ironically, India could end up becoming a country where while we move forward economically, our people would be wanting to move ‘backward’ socially. The other danger that has played out as a severe consequence is the inter-community tension between the Gujjars and the Meenas, who are under the Scheduled Tribes category. Sensing having to share the quota pie with their Gujjar counterparts, the Meena community has clashed with the Gujjars to end their protests. Such has been the ferocity of the clash on both sides that there have been unwarranted death and destruction to public property. The fear remains that the violence may spread to other areas and between other communities, which could be disastrous. The political leadership at the state and the centre must end their blame game and maturely deal with a situation that can ultimately harm both governments, irrespective of who rules where. The third important observation in the entire conflagration has been the glaring alacrity with which the political parties have been promising the ST status to the Gujjars in their political manifestos. The BJP came to power in 2003 riding on a manifesto that amongst other things promised an ST status to the Gujjars. Knowing fully that a decision to include or exclude any community from any lists, be it SC’s, ST’s or OBC’s is a federal subject. The promise on the manifesto speaks volumes of how a manifesto has become a mere tool for populism rather than a document that is a policy compass for political parties. The BJP must take the blame for promising something that its top brass knew could not be achieved, at least not completely at their behest. The Congress too must take the blame for the manner in which its young parliamentarian, Sachin Pilot, of the violence affected Dausa constituency, has hit at the state government. Without realizing that the state government can merely recommend which communities are to be included into a particular list, and not ensure any such move, Pilot too is misguiding his constituency on the role of the state government in the entire genesis of the crisis. It would have been far wiser for Pilot to have blamed the state government for not looking out for the Gujjars and then taken the onus on himself to ensure that the UPA in the centre would do such a thing. But political myopia could make Pilot only see benefits for his Dausa voter and in doing so ensured that a battle with the state machinery was inevitable.

The analysis of the Gujjar-Meena clash would not be complete without understanding why have things come such a stage. It is without a doubt that since the UPA government has taken charge in 2004, its social engineering project, spearheaded by the Union Minister for Human Resources, Arjun Singh and helped by regional parties and ministers like Social Justice Minister Meira Kumar have ensured not only does our nation continue to be divided on caste and class lines, in fact they have helped in a increasing the gap between communities. The past two years have seen virtual uprisings by the urban middle class, the rural poor, the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority to blame the central government and its policies towards social justice. The HRD ministry did itself no favors with the OBC quota in higher education, which led to street protests by students. Then came the Muslim quota and head count issue by constituting the Sachar commission. These two decisions by the UPA have helped increase social divisions amongst various communities both in the urban and rural settings rather than helping them solve the age-old divisions. The nation had left the days of a Rajiv Goswami immolating himself towards a more socially inclusive India. However, the UPA government seems to have brought back the days of social tensions and a sharply divided India wanting to label his fellow citizen on caste and religion. While the intentions of the UPA may be noble, wanting every Indian, rather than a privileged few, to share the economic and social upsurge India is witnessing, an honest assessment of how far its policies have been able to achieve that is grim. Alienating one community or a section of populace at the cost of the other can never lead to social harmony. UPA think tanks and sharp shooters are quick to draw attention of the prime minister and his cabinet to rising prices as a possible source for any electoral reversals in 2009, they have failed to even scratch the surface of the impact their social policies will have for the UPA and the Congress in particular in the coming elections. If anything, its social policies have not only alienated voters in the urban areas, who are the biggest casualties in the OBC quota issue, they have not made any inroads in the Dalit, backward, OBC or Muslim vote bank with their populist quota policies, as was seen in the UP, Punjab and Uttrakhand elections. What they have done is to ensure that more and more people are feeling cheated by the system and by empty promises of their politicians. The Gujjars demonstration and the Meena retaliation is a manifestation of that anger and revile at the UPA’s policies and hollow promises of politicians in general. It is pertinent that the UPA government not dismiss these violent acts as mere aberrations related to a particular community, it should rightly be alarmed and introspect at the prospect of how its own policies may become the unfortunate cause of mayhem in the times to come.

2007-05-22T01:12:00.000-07:00

The Sacha Sauda Mess : Badal's Controlled Chaos

Punjab continues to roil for the past two weeks with a controversy over the Sacha Sauda sect and the provocative actions of its leader, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Singh took it upon himself to dress as the 10th Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh and also re-enacted the act of the formation of the Khalsa with the distribution of Amrit or holy water to his disciples. For a person who claims to have respect for all religions, his actions certainly betrayed his words. The outcome was for everyone to see – a virtual siege of the Sacha Sauda deras in Punjab, an edict from Sikhism’s highest body the Akhal Takht against the sect’s head and a demand for an unconditional apology for his actions. The sect has expressed regret over any action that may have hurt the sentiments of Sikhs but stopped short of an unconditional apology. The incident, which seemed to have blown over, was reignited with the Takht throwing out the sects ‘regret’ and pressing on for an unconditional apology. It remains to be seen whether the sect follows the call for an apology, which has now also come from the state chief minister Prakash Singh Badal, or does the confrontation take a turn for the worse. This present controversy has two underlying issues that need to be addressed. One, the manner in which the Sikh protests were organized seemed to indicate a tacit understanding by the ruling dispensation. It also proved that the entire protest was controlled by the chief minister as pay back for the sects leanings towards the Congress party in the state elections in February. This support for the Congress cost the Akalis many seats in the Malwa belt. Second, this incident again highlights the role, often counterproductive, played by religious sects in all religions, which seem bound by no laws, sometimes even acting above the law.

Analysts have warned that the edict by the Akhal Takht will lead be a throwback to the days when Sikhs protested and attacked the Nirankari sects that ultimately strengthened the call for an independent Sikh state – Khalistan. It also threw up radicals like Bindrawala whose actions led to tragic consequences most notably Blue Star followed by the devastating years of terrorism that affected most families – Sikh or otherwise in Punjab. However, to compare the incident of 1978 with what we are witnessing today is inaccurate. Not only have the majority of Sikhs seen the horrors that the fundamentalists in their religion can unleash, 1978 was also a different time and era in Indian politics and civil society in general. The fringe elements that sit in Canada or the US may still be adamant on creating Khalistan, but they remain detached from the realities of Punjab today. It is malls that are being created not Khalistan! At the same time the Sikhs do not feel the political isolation of the 70’s with a Sikh prime minister and the role Sikh leaders and party’s in the politics of the centre. The underlying fact remains that this incident is nothing new for anyone who has followed Akali politics. They are known to extract their revenge from those who they may perceive as threats or their enemies. The purge of civil servants and those close to the past regime was a given once the party took over in February. Sacha Sauda also seemed to be on the “to fix” list of the Badal’s. After having approached the sect for political support in the elections, the Akalis felt betrayed that Ram Rahim Singh chose the Congress over them. What added fuel to the fire was the fact that the support for the Congress ensured that the Akalis lost seats in their otherwise stronghold of Malwa. The Sacha Sauda leader did himself no favors when he went out dressed as the tenth Guru and proved to be an easy target for the Akalis. The Akalis used their Akali-Akal Takht understanding to the hilt and ensured that the state came to a virtual standstill over the issue. In simple terms the controlled chaos one is witnessing today is thanks to the blessing of Badal who is playing with fire and is proving successful for the time being. The veteran of Akali politics must however not get carried away from how things are playing out at the moment. It is likely that the independent minded Akal Takht and its Jathedars would want to show to the world that they are not mere pawns in this Akali-Congress duel, but rather are the one’s who are calling the shots. If the Frankenstein that Badal has awoken goes out of hand, not even the best political maneuvering can save bloodshed or violence in the state. Badal’s tactics seem to getting closer to that dire consequence, with the Akal Takht calling for a Punjab bandh today. Also, the deadline of the Takht to close down all deras by May 27th is fast approaching and Badal must ensure that the issue is resolved well in time before things get out of hand.

The other area of concern remains the actions of the Sacha Sauda itself. It is difficult to believe that the Ram Rahim Singh would not have envisioned the fallout of his actions. He did manage to hurt the sentiments of Sikhs and now seems to have taken a stand of not bowing to the demands of the Akal Takht. If, as he himself professes, by his actions he has caused such pain to the people of Punjab, unwittingly as it may be, for the sake of peace would a public apology not further his message of peace and harmony between different religions? Or does ego hold sway over pointless violence. The other important issue that has not been discussed is the role of some pseudo-religious and pseudo-secular sects that are part of every religion in the country. They enjoy a huge following and most leaders of such sects are considered the reincarnation of gods themselves. Huge amounts of money are transacted through these sects with little accountability. Countless cases of sexual harassment and abuse along with nefarious activities are often attributed to these sects. Our country can be proud to say that all religions are ‘regulated’ by some broad rules and regulations that do ensure sanity in governance of religious bodies. However, there exist many sects that seem to be above the law and their writ runs across all their deras and places of worship. While it would be specious to club all religious sects under the same sweeping generalization, there is no arguing that there do exist many groups that need tighter regulation. Further, its is appalling that such sects would openly flaunt their political credentials and ask disciples to vote for one party or the other. It is high time that leaders in each religion recognize this grey area that exists within their faith and find ways to tackle it before more Sacha Saudas appear on the horizon with potential for harm.

The other curious stand taken is that of the BJP. After having taken 19 seats out of the 25 odd contested, they do not want to be taken as the smaller player in the Akali-BJP combine in the state. They have held the Badal government, of whom they are a part, as being responsible for any violence or loss of life that may come out of the entire episode. The BJP’s calculation is two-fold. One, they do not want to alienate the Hindu vote both in Punjab and Haryana, who form a major chunk of the sects disciples. Second, the party does not want to have blood on its hands if things take a turn for the worse. Politics it seems was inevitable in this passion-fuelled debate. The next few days will remain tense for Punjab, will this controversy put Punjab back to the days of militancy, one doubts it. Does this incident, though, have the potential to take it back to the days of militancy, one fears so.

2007-05-12T02:35:00.000-07:00

Elephant Run : The Maya Mix Works

The most important state in Indian politics has a new Chief Minister and one which looks set to run a government for a full term. Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati stormed into history with an impressive show at the Hustings and took 206 seats in a house of 403. And with it she decimated her opponents and the pollsters in one swift clinical blow. While it was common knowledge that BSP would figure in some post poll alliance with either the BJP or Congress, an outright majority was unexpected. No government in the state has managed to do so in close to 15 years, and in doing so she will try to provide a government which will not be handicapped by the ‘compulsions’ of coalition politics and also remove any uncertainty and instability that has become inherent in the age of coalitions both at the state and the central level. However, as in past experiences in other states, a coalition government helps in maintaining checks and balances so as to assure that the larger partner does not pursue policies to improve their own party’s standing while also ensuring that a compromise on policies guides governance. Also, an absolute majority in the state does bring with it some inherent disadvantages – that of an unchecked rule by the winning side and of course corruption. However, the Indian voter seems to have put corruption behind the more important caste equations that exist in various states. Whether, the issue of corruption is no longer a priority or whether it is the lack of any candidates that are not untouched by corruption that has led to the issue being a non-issue in most states is debatable.

While all the pundits have hailed Mayawati’s dramatic transformation from the bane in the side of the upper castes to actively wooing them and come to power, this rainbow coalition formed by some deft social engineering does have it pitfalls. Many argue that quite like the Congress, the BSP has managed to bring the Brahmins and the Dalits on a common platform and win a thumping majority, albeit in a situation where the Brahmins and upper castes are playing second fiddle to the Dalits. There in lies the potential for damage for the BSP. Which way will the policies sway – towards Dalit interests or to that of the newly inducted upper caste? While winning the elections on a common social platform of upper and lower castes may have been the easy part of this wider social engineering Mayawati is credited with, managing conflicting interests is something that will truly test her political mettle. Will the upper castes that she has so sincerely wooed accept policies that are specifically in the interest of Dalits? Will the issue of reservations and quotas (though federal subjects) not hurt the upper caste voter? Then again if she does not keep her traditional vote back of Dalits happy, does she not run the risk of alienating them or worse antagonizing them much the same way that Laloo did after 15 years of rule piggybacking the OBC vote in Bihar. These amongst other issues will surely consume much of the BSP think tanks agenda. However, knowing the political acumen of Mayawati, who has managed the task of bringing two socially divergent populations on a single plank, must have given some thought on how to best manage the inherent contradictions that might face her government soon after her coronation. Importantly, if she has not, then this social experimentation maybe a one off and the next cycle of elections may be throwback to fractured mandates.

The two national parties – the Congress and the BJP seem to have diminished to the point of no return in these elections. More than the Congress it is the BJP that will have to introspect on where it stands and what it must do to regain some sort of standing in the states political matrix. The experiment to project a Thakur party president in Rajnath Singh and an OBC as chief ministerial candidate in Kalyan Singh failed to enthuse the voters. The reason for the failure of the BJP strategy are many but the important ones are that firstly, these elections marked the coming together of the Brahmin and the Dalit vote bank to reduce the growing influence of the OBC’s politics in the form of Mulayam Singh Yadav and the like. The projection of another OBC alternative to Yadav just did not gel with that thinking. Secondly, the BJP’s understanding or appearance of having cut a deal with the Samajwadi Party ensured that the voter dumped the BJP for the BSP. The voter did not seem keen to bring in the BJP that could have meant a mere continuation of the SP policies albeit behind the scenes. Thirdly, the national issues raised by the BJP pertaining to the Afzal judgment, lack of internal security etc. along with Hindutva seemed distant and irrelevant to the ordinary voter. The BJP failed to capitalize on the ills that the SP government brought with it. This acute failure on part of the BJP reinforced the tacit-understanding-with-the-SP theory. Either way, after the cheer of Uttrakhand and Punjab, the UP elections are a definite dampener. However, it remains to be seen who will ultimately become the target for this defeat – Rajnath or Kalyan or maybe both. Whatever this impending introspection may lead to, it is important that the BJP moves on from its tried and tested (and sometimes failed) leaders. The days of Kesri Nath Tripathi, Lalji Tandon, Kalraj Mishra and Kalyan Singh seem over. The party needs to rebuild from the ground up and that too within five years.

The Congress remains a bystander in the realipolitik of the state. Having lost its upper caste and Dalit vote to the BSP, it tried to gain some inroads by bringing in their heir apparent Rahul Gandhi into these elections. He too like the BJP managed to raise innate issues like the Babri Masjid and the division of Pakistan, which were non-issues in these elections. Here again, like in the case of the BJP, the voter saw the synergies of policies and vote banks between the BSP and the Congress. The voter decided that instead of voting for the Congress and make them gain a few dozen seats, it would make better sense to vote for Mayawati and get a one party rule. The Congress’ decimation shows that unfortunately even star power in the form of a Gandhi could not save the party’s fortune. The Congress too must change its team in the state. With Salman Khurshid and Pramod Tiwari sharing a frosty relationship, the outcome for the Congress was more or less decided. The Congress must also refrain from feeling elated with having “achieved its aim of ousting the SP” in these elections. For one, they were not the reason for the SP’s defeat, it was the SP itself that spectacularly sealed its own fate, and second even if they take credit for the SP’s defeat, they managed to create a bigger monster while slaying an earlier foe. The BSP has gained on the Congress’ loss, and this sign is not encouraging for the Congress. Their vote bank is now in the kitty of the BSP and the BSP is no mood to share any power with the Congress, whom she must thank for the absolute majority that she enjoys today. Then again, if Mayawati manages to keep her new vote bank intact the Congress can forget about power in a state they virtually ruled for better part of the country’s independence.

The Samajwadi Party never really stood a chance in these elections. However, for all the doomsday predictions, the party has managed to get the principal opposition party status. Mulayam will surely return to the Vidhan Sabha as leader of the opposition, but he will also wonder whether his days of playing a role in the centre and the state are over, at least for the time being. What with a hostile dispensation at the centre and an equally bitter opponent in power in UP the party will have to lay low for some time to come. The time away from power should help the party to introspect into where they stand and how they are perceived in Indian politics. The Mulayam Raj will go down as one of the worst in the state’s history and it is time the party realize that the principles of socialists like Lohia, whom they claim to represent, is mere lip-service to that ideology. Also, the Left, which claims to be a fellow ideologue of the SP, must also answer questions on how they could have supported the party knowing the manner in which business was conducted in the state for the past three years. The criminalization and bollywoodisation of politics is something that the Left is decidedly against, then in supporting Mulayam how can they still claim to have the moral halo around them in Indian politics.

But for the time being it is Mayawati who has managed a feat that most politicians of any stature could not. This victory on its own will ensure that she will go down as one of the stalwarts of the Dalit movement and one wonders whether her next dream is to conquer Delhi. Age and acumen are on her side, important attributes in politics, however, will fate and luck also come calling only time can tell.

2007-05-07T01:28:00.000-07:00

French Elections : Is Sarkozy the right man for the job?

The leader of the conservative UMP party, Nicolas Sarkozy was all but elected the next President of the fifth republic of France and to succeed the incumbent Jacques Chirac to the Elysee Palace. The two weeks prior to the two-candidate run-off saw intense jostling for votes, with both sides wanting to sway the 18% of Centrist voters of erstwhile candidate Francois Bayrou. In the end with a comfortable 53% of the votes, Sarkozy has emerged as the new leader of France. With the 52 year olds elevation to the top of the French political pyramid, France also marks a generational change in politics, as he will be the first French President to be born after the Great War. His succession as it were to the Elysee Palace also marks a deft right turn for French Politics, which had become more accustomed to the welfare-socialist state that it had become, ironically under the right-wing Chirac. The defeat of the runner up Ms. Sergolene Royal also marks a crucial chapter in the political life of the Socialist Party that has faced its third successive defeat in as many elections. How they come out of this will be something that even the party’s top brass themselves must be wondering. And how to move to more centrist policies without losing the French electorate that votes to the Left will continue to take much of the post poll defeat of the party.

The man in the centre of the action though is Nicolas Sarkozy. Having emerged as the favourite very early on in the race and in going on to win one of the most keenly contested elections in French history he has realized his dream of leading his country. For the moribund power that had become France, Sarkozy seems to be the right man for the job. The social welfare policies of the French were slowly bleeding the country, with productivity dropping and lop-sided subsidies providing artificial relief to the crucial agriculture sector of France. In international affairs too the waning of French influence post September 11 and the Iraq war was unfortunate. In standing up to the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ Chirac and France invited the wrath of the US and UK who looked to paint the picture of France being inconsequential in world affairs. But France does have a lot to offer to the world both economically and politically. The failure of the US in securing Iraq and a re-emboldened Al-Qaeda has made the US a much-hated figure in most parts of the world. Then again, in the plummeting popularity ratings of the President, George Bush, the Americans have lost out in having a definitive say in world affairs. The world community is gradually less inclined to toe the American line and more pressed to take the opinions of other countries even though they may not be part of the famed coalition of the willing. Increasingly the world community is relying on the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel to define how to take the world forward and resolve the Arab-Israel conflict and the larger “War on Terror”. Iran, a privy member of the “Axis of Evil” is now being roped into peace talks in a bid to help stabilize Iraq. The Saudis, who were sidelined by the Bush administration post the September 11 attacks, are now playing a major role in bringing Iraq’s neighbors together to solve the embattled nations sectarian divide. In such a scenario, where many voices are voicing as many opinions, the French have been missing. However, it seems that with Sarkozy in the Elysee palace, that may change. He has openly expressed his desire to mend fences with the US and UK. He has talked about a mini-EU conference where discussions on how to take the talks on the stalled EU constitution can be taken forward and he will definitely want to increase French economic presence in the Middle East and Africa, a traditional trading partner of the two regions.

But much of the change will also be internal. France needs to get competitive, what with fierce competition from India and China, the French cannot sit back and take the good times for granted. France has one of the most sluggish growth rates in Europe. The 35-hour workweek has reduced productivity. The influx of migrants from the former Soviet bloc has taken jobs away from French residents. More importantly the influx of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East have raised ethnic tensions in France and has led to social unrest. The issue of illegal migration is something that Sarkozy has made his centrepiece for these elections. He wants to tighten the law to make it tough for immigrants to come into the country. That may solve the short-term problem of illegal immigration; it will not sort the long-term problem of the social malaise that has set in French society. It is without a doubt the illegal migrants who are willing to work for longer in jobs that the French won’t do and a price that will be difficult to match. For any industrial house a combination like that is unbeatable and has been followed by every developed nation in a bid to boost productivity while controlling costs. The other mainstay of Sarkozy plans is to provide tax benefits to industry so as to boost productivity. Much on the lines of the Republican policy of a smaller government with only regulatory control over industry, Sarkozy wishes to see the same happening in France. While such a dramatic social change may take years in the making, it will no doubt help boost the French industry in the short term. Then again, trade barriers is another feather that Sarkozy has taken out of the Republican hat and has promised to protect the French farming community with new trade barriers. This will help sustain the French hold over farm and dairy products within the EU, but will be difficult to implement in the new WTO environment where developing countries are asking for the artificial import tariffs to be waived for a more globally competitive environment.

So, while the French electorate has clearly chosen its new leader. A young, energetic and straight talking individual to take their country to its long lost glory, the hope is that he can do so in as inclusive a manner as possible. For the promise of a Right wing conservative candidate in George Bush, saw the US electorate voting Republican in 2000 (an election that is still too close to call) and then again in 2004, but by 2007 they are left disillusioned with their choice for not being bi-partisan and inclusive in his policy formulation. Although, he has made the right conciliatory noises in his victory speech, it will be important to see how he takes his country forward in a united way, if he does have any doubts on how a divided nation can turn its back on a promising leader, he needn’t look beyond his new friend George Bush

2007-04-23T01:16:00.000-07:00

Fight for Elysee: Sarkozy emerges front-runner

The French electorate has spoken and in a crowded pool of twelve candidates has short-listed the right wing Nicolas Sarkozy and the left wing Socialist Sergolene Royal for the final showdown on May 6th to emerge as the next French President. The exit polls from the first round of voting gave Mr. Sarkozy, the former Interior Minister, 30% of the votes while Ms. Royal got 25% of the votes. The other two popular candidates, centrist Francois Bayrou managed a respectable 18% of the votes while the ultra-right winger Jean Marie Le Pen got 11 % of the votes. Bayrou was singled out as the candidate that could have upset Royal’s chances in the run-up to the lections, however, Royal has emerged with a comfortable lead over Bayrou who shared many of the ideological polices of the Socialists Party. French election rules now will see a face-off between the two candidates that will be held on May 6th and will ultimately install a new President in the elaborate Elysee Palace, the official residence of the French leader.

Mr. Sarkozy has long been considered the frontrunner for these elections, even getting the endorsement from the outgoing President Jacques Chirac and enjoying a good deal support from varying interest groups and the significant portions of the French electorate. While the older generation of the French population tends to go the Socialist way, the young, middle class urban voter has often drifted towards the policy initiatives of Sarkozy. Sarkozy, the 52 year old former Interior Minister in the Chirac cabinet shot into prominence during the rioting of 2005 which saw the French police coming down heavily on illegal immigrants and minority groups who were accused of stoking ethnic tensions on the suburbs of Paris, which have long become ghetto communities for these populations that see themselves as being isolated from the French mainstream. The use of the word “thugs” for the rioters drew considerable criticism from sections of the French media who painted Sarkozy as a right-winger who remained detached from the problems of the French minorities who feels discriminated against. Mr. Sarkozy has also been seen as a fiscal conservative selling the idea of a new French competitiveness in the world with lesser intervention by the State in the French private sector. He has departed from the long held French tradition of a Socialist society with the government acting as a welfare state to help its farmers and blue-collar workers. Sarkozy has insisted that free-market economics is the only way the French economy can witness a turn around in a country where a 35-hour a week work ethic is the norm. Sarkozy has also closely aligned himself with US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a bid to repair the damaged trans-Atlantic and trans-channel relations between the two countries. Sarkozy wants to see France re-emerge as a global power rather than a fading has been as has been the decline of French influence in international affairs. He could take a leaf out of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s book of thoughts, who has emerged as a key player in the European Union as well as in world affairs with her playing a significant role in EU enlargement and constitution talks and with contributions to NATO for Afghanistan. Merkel’s predecessor Gerhard Schroeder had opposed the US intervention in Iraq and along with France was referred to by the former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the “old Europe”. While one does wish to insinuate that toeing the US line amounts to global acceptance, having a say in the important decisions that will change history does require integration with the global community rather than rank isolationism. The French drift towards sullen isolationist policies need to be reversed as the country has much more to offer than the French cuisine and wine.

The other candidate who might pip Mr. Sarkozy is the Socialist candidate Ms. Sergolene Royal. Long loved by the vast majority of centre and leftist voters, she is hot on the tail of Sarkozy. She has cleverly cast herself in the role of a liberal on social issues while remaining moderately conservative on economic policies. She has asked for a new French competitiveness and has vowed to revive the French economy with a mix of reforms and protectionist measures for French farmers. Her shortcomings come in field of foreign policy where she is being seen as a policy lightweight and a series of gaffes abroad have questioned her ability to take France into the 21st century, a century that will see the rise of India and China and the emergence of the fames ‘flat world’. She has also come under criticism for wearing too many masks, become too inclusive in policies, borrowing from the left, right and centre to attract voters of all political hues. This encouraged many traditional Socialist Party voters to vote for the centrist candidate Francois Bayrou who managed a healthy 18 % of the votes. The far right ultra Nationalist from the National Front, Jean Marie Le Pen managed only 11% of the votes this time around, which is far more representative of French sentiment than the 2002 elections when he managed to make the cut for the run-off with Jacques Chirac. That vote ensured that French voters took a re-look at their politics and have put Le Pen in his place in these elections.

The Left-Right face-off between Royal and Sarkozy will now see the polarization of the French electorate. The 11% votes from Le Pen’s account will definitely go to Sarkozy who will increase his tally from 30% to 40%. The 18% of Bayrou’s votes are the real wooing battle that the two candidates must indulge in. Whichever side this 18% chunk of voters decide to vote for will ultimately decide the new occupant of the Elysee Palace. As things stand now whoever wins the elections will take over a divided country and it will be the role of the eventual leader to take the country forward in a united, all inclusive manner, if France wants to retain its prominence in international affairs.

2007-03-20T05:03:00.000-07:00

Iraq Four Years on

March 20th marked the fourth anniversary of the most controversial war of our times, the invasion of Iraq. The anniversary will be marked by grim reminders of the dangers that exist for ordinary citizens in Iraq with daily bombings, suicide attacks, sectarian and ethnic strife and the breakdown of the country’s cultural heritage. Iraq today is a sad picture of what was envisioned to be the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, an area more akin to the dictatorial ways of managing affairs. The war in Iraq has trudged on despite the popular movement against it in the US and most of the world. It will serve well to look back at the war, which though catastrophic on most counts, did manage to change the political realities of the country and the world.

It is no secret that the invasion of Iraq had no connection with the larger war on terror and Saddam was “taken out” due to the personal enmity between the Bush and Saddam clans. However, it is important to also factor in the rationale behind the attack, surely, personal enmity could not have convinced the entire Bush administration to wage war against a country and that too so soon after September 11, 2001. The neo-con think tanks argued that for Islamic extremism to be nipped in the bud required the spread of democracy in the Middle East and with Afghanistan falling into the democratic fold it was important that the Arab world follows suit. And in this pursuit of democracy and freedom the invasion of Iraq was inevitable. While the intention to spread democracy in the despotic Middle East was great on the design board, it turns out that domino effect democracy can only be stretched upto a reasonable limit. The Iraq invasion proved the point. The invasion itself was counted as a military success and images of a triumphant George Bush on board a naval carrier declaring mission accomplished soon after the fall of Baghdad remain etched in public memory. The overthrow of Saddam did prove to be the easy bit, what was to follow was something that the military commanders were not prepared for, or trained to, handle. The mission to invade Iraq was purely outlined to overthrowing Saddam, while that was achieved in weeks; the task of nation building was not on the army’s things-to-do list. The disbanding of the Iraqi army, considered by many as the single most important reason for the birth of the insurgency, along with too few troops on the ground, meant that Iraqi communities started becoming split on ethnic identities under various religious leaderships some of dubious origin. The Sunnis perceived the overthrow of Saddam as the loss of their hold on power, while the majority Shias saw the overthrow as the coming of their rule over the country. The very division of the Iraqi identity into Shia, Sunni and Kurd has proved to have dealt the death knell for the country. The lack of any unity amongst the different ethnic identities clearly shows how brutally Saddam managed to keep these tensions at bay. While there is no arguing the point that the Americans have to take most of the blame for the destruction of Iraqi society, the Iraqis themselves must share the blame for falling prey to this division based on ethnic affiliations. It would be understandable for Iraqis to launch an insurgency against foreign aggression and occupation, but how can Iraqi on Iraqi killings be reasonably justified.

In the din of bomb explosions and civil strife some momentous occasions were witnessed in the four years. Most notably, the 2005 national elections saw over 122 million Iraqis casting their ballot, most for the very first time. Then the adoption of the new Iraqi constitution was well received and hailed by the international community. The capture of Saddam and the killing of his sons was another feather in the newest ‘democracy’s’ hat. However, much of these accomplishments did come with caveats that proved to be unpleasant. Take the execution of Saddam; the manner in which it was carried out would have ironically made Saddam proud had he been in charge. The Constitution ensured that the Sunnis were convinced that in a federal setup, as laid out by the document, their hold over the country’s energy resources was all but over, thereby also seeing a nefarious understanding between the Shias and the U.S. Then again the elections also ensured that Al-Qaeda in Iraq became hell bent on destroying this newfound unity amongst Shias and Sunnis with the bombings of the Askariya mosque in early 2006, ultimately damaging relations between the two groups, some say forever.

In such a scenario it is with naïve hope that the world looks on as Iraq enters the fifth year in a war many feel the US and the Iraqi government are losing. The troop surge by the US has brought down the sectarian violence, though in the words of George Bush it is still early days in the new strategy and asking for patience. The diplomatic fallout, like the humanitarian one, has also been disastrous. With a newly empowered Iran, the American leeway in arm-twisting the Iranians on the nuclear issue looks diminished. Having realized its new found power, Iran is actively seeking to play the ‘Iraq card’ to ensure that the Americans stay away from any possible military intervention. However, diplomatic relation aside it is important for the world to now think up of ways to end the conflict or look at newer ways to end the suffering of millions of Iraqis. With hundreds of thousands dead, two million internally displaced and the loss of over 3000 American troops the answers on the best way forward are scarce. What is certain is that a rapid withdrawal of forces will be disastrous; then again for foreign occupation to continue is equally untenable. It is high time the Arab League or other confederations of Islamic countries take a call on whether to send in troops to secure the country in the next 18-24 months. Also, it is high time that the United Nations comes into the fray by getting all parties involved within and outside Iraq on a common platform and discuss the new way forward. If Ban Ki-Moon, the new UN General Secretary, ever had an opportunity to show statesman and leadership, it is now. As for George Bush, it is time for him to realize that the bluster of shocking and awing our opponent had its limited success, the reality now points to a more somber assessment and a course correction. Unfortunately, while the world ponders, Iraq continues to be decimated. After four years of war, our sincere wishes are with the country called by some as hell on earth.

2007-02-27T09:42:00.000-08:00

Badal Cloudes Over Punjab

The keenly awaited results of the assembly elections in Punjab, Manipur and Uttrakhand threw no major surprises expect the manner in which the principal opposition party, the BJP, has been able to cement a victory to for the next government with allies the Akalis in Punjab and their own in Uttrakhand. The Punjab elections were of great interest with most poll pundits predicting a hung assembly. Unfortunately for chief minister Amrinder it was not to be and the Akalis have marched to an impressive tally of over 65 seats in the 117 member Punjab assembly. With this victory the Congress has held the 40-year-old tradition of not winning back-to-back election victories ever in Punjab intact.

The Punjab victory is certainly a reason to celebrate for the Akalis and the Badal clan. The Congress regime had seen the Badals in deep trouble over graft charges which some estimates put to over three thousand crores during their earlier rule. The father son duo had to spend time in solitary confinement, for which Sukhbir Badal, son of Prakash Singh Badal has never forgiven the Amrinder dispensation. The return of Prakash Singh Badal will mark his fourth stint in Punjab, but this victory can be mostly attributed to how son Sukhbir ran a spirited campaign. Sukhbir Badal has managed to pull off what many thought was impossible. In many ways, he has emulated what Uddhav Thackeray managed in the recently concluded Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation elections, where on paper the Shiv Sena was seen as a spent force. The loss of Narayan Rane and cousin Raj Thackeray had pollsters wondering how the Sena could stem the tide. However, Uddhav managed to prove his detractors wrong. In a similar way, Sukhbir Badal has craftily managed the campaign which saw much mud slinging from both sides. While liquor and money were the order of the day for both sides trying desperately to woo voters, ultimately, it was the manner in which the Akalis managed to portray the Maharaja and his rather indulgent lifestyle that ultimately took the toll on the Congress.

To give the devil its due, Amrinder did not perform badly as the Chief Minister. His regime saw the settling of the water dispute with Haryana, he did manage to offer a good Minimum Support Price to farmers and religious anniversaries including the 600th anniversary of the Khalsa were celebrated with much fanfare. Add to that the fact that the personal efforts of Amrinder helped in bringing the two Punjab’s across the borders closer and cemented greater trade interactions. However, the many pitfalls and the manner in which Amrinder ran his government and the influence of certain cronies ensured that any chance of re-election seemed dim. The Maharaja was in his office only twice a week; he traveled mostly by a helicopter and was more comfortable in his palace in Patiala rather than the rough and tumble of Punjab’s rural and religious political intricacies. Some major controversies including the alleged corruption charges for granting the construction of a mall in Ludhiana drew criticism, as did the proximity of the liquor and land mafia. More recently, the Congress government faced embarrassment when the incumbent DGP, S.S. Virk was removed on orders of the Election Commission for his partisan ways. The local Punjab unit of the Congress did not make things any easier for Amrinder. Sonia Gandhi’s move to curtail the Amrinder’s powers saw the removal of close aide H.S. Hanspal, as Punjab Congress president, who was succeeded by Shamsher Singh Dullo, a known Amrinder baiter. The calculation by the Congress at the time was that by installing a Dalit as the Congress state chief, the party could win back the support of the Dalits who seemed wary of Amrinder and were drifting towards the BSP. Further, by installing former chief minister Rajinder Kaur Bhattal as the deputy chief minister further ensured that there were too many centers of power in the ruling government and ultimately the poll prospects of the Congress took a beating.

Amrinder Singh, to his credit had been able to move the thrust of Punjab politics from religion to development. In his own words, Amrinder was quoted as saying that he was happy at the change in the focus from religion to roads. However, even with this plank the Congress could not better the Akalis and now it is for the Akalis to decide in which direction they want to take the politics of Punjab. There is no doubt that the cyclic change of governments between the Congress and the SAD is bound to witness another round of political vendetta. Analysts say that the new government is sure to raise some uncomfortable questions about the previous regimes conduct and witch hunting, as was done by the Congress, seems to be on the Akali minds now however much they deny it publicly. The Akalis will have to realize the importance of this victory. There is no doubt that the politics of Punjab has changed and rapid industrialization and the setting up SEZ’s will move focus away from religion based politics to one that is development oriented. Also the traditional revenue generator for the state seems to shifting from agriculture to industry, the Akalis will have to factor that in their policy formulation to remain popular with the electorate. The sooner Badal realizes this new reality, the longer they can stay in power.

The Punjab victory would not have been possible had the BJP not performed as well as they did this time around. The dismal show in the last elections ensured that the NDA combine sank without a trace. This time some smart political maneuvers by Arun Jaitely ensured that the BJP tally has gone up to a respectable 18. Coupled with the victory in Uttrakhand, where former union minister BC Khanduri is the favorite to succeed N.D. Tiwari, the BJP is on a high. However, the party must realize that before it breaks open the champagne the real challenge lies in U.P. and the general elections in 2009, where the party has a dismal chance of winning at the moment. Although, analysts will argue that two years is eternity in politics.

2007-01-11T21:35:00.000-08:00

Surge Splurge - Will a troop increase help Bush?

US President George Bush finally announced his new strategy for Iraq. Predictably, Bush has opted for a dramatic troop increase numbering over 20,000 to provide security in Baghdad and the restive Anbar region. The Commander in Chief has been under immense pressure from Democrats, ex- Generals and even erstwhile neo-cons on the right way forward in Iraq. Having sanctioned the much publicized bi-partisan Iraq Study Group, the president took cover behind the impending report for the better part of last year on what his future strategy will look like for a war that the coalition of willing seems to be losing. After seeing the report and also rejecting it in parts, Bush decided to set the future strategy in Iraq based on assessments from the Pentagon and intelligence agencies. He avoided any further criticism for the war by buying time and pushing his policy speech on Iraq to January. To instill clarity on how best to use the increased troop levels in Iraq, Bush has also shaken up the military establishment in Iraq and the Central Command based in the Gulf. With the removal of Generals Casey and Abizaid as heads of the Iraqi command and CentCom respectively, the White House gave subtle hints on what the renewed strategy in Iraq would look like. Both Casey and Abizaid have been vocal advocates of a gradual reduction in the number of troops this year and making “transition” the theme for 2007. Casey and Abizaid were of the firm belief that American troop presence in Iraq was increasing the insurgency and with more boots on the ground, the number of targets for the insurgents is also more. Further, many ex-Baathists and extreme nationalists, who make up part of the insurgency, propagate American presence as a foreign occupation and that sentiment helps fuel resentment against the Americans. The Casey-Abizaid line basically looks at ways to train more Iraqi troops and reducing the American presence in the front lines of the battle. The new team comprising of Admiral William Fallon and Lt. Gen. David Petreaus will look at how to best use the increased troop levels in Iraq and ultimately what mission will the additional divisions be assigned. But the question before the generals and the White House is – is the troop increase an exercise in futility?

President Bush has outlined some of the mistakes his administration has made during the war and how it has played out. Not sending more troops all of last year was one mistake that the president has conceded in a rare admission. He should also be aware that the inadequate numbers on the ground is not a year old problem. Many analysts and even the former Ambassador to Iraq, Paul Bremer have clearly stated that an adequate figure to stabilize Iraq was closer in the range of 500,000 rather than the existing 140,000 odd. Also, with the president not doing enough to bring out a political resolution after the Al-Qaeda attack on the Al-Askariya mosque in Samarra which Arab analysts described as the “Iraqi 9/11” ultimately added another violent element to the existing insurgency – sectarian reprisal attacks. The two key missteps are ultimately what lead to violence on an unprecedented scale all of 2006. The revised Bush strategy will not have the desired effects if the weak Iraqi government is not sincere in its efforts to quell the sectarian militias and death squads. Then again, the very definition of “sincere” is questionable. In the eyes of ordinary Shia Iraqis, by swearing allegiance to clerics like Moqtada al-Sadr the current Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki is showing conviction and solidarity with his community. The definition of sincerity changes dramatically in the Green Zone housing the Multinational Forces. Here, going after militias and death squads regardless of the sectarian affiliation is being truly sincere to the ‘cause of freedom’. This disconnect amongst the two sides has not only made radical clerics like Sadr control the government (he has 30 sitting members in the Iraqi parliament) it also sends a message to the two warring communities that it is the militias and not the Americans or the Iraqi army that will protect them. In such a scenario how a troop surge or increase will help is anybody’s guess. The Republicans and most vocal amongst them, presidential hopeful, John McCain has argued that an increase in troops will help in breaking the cycle of violence and thereby help the Iraqi government take control of Baghdad and the Sunni dominated Anbar promise. While the argument holds some merit, the counter argument to that is will the Shia dominated government act against its own militias, which are the source of majority sectarian attacks in the country. Then again, if the argument is that to secure Baghdad is of vital importance, in military parleys, whichever way Baghdad goes, Iraq follows, then a 20,000 increase in troops still falls short of the required number needed to safely take the city.

Bush has complained about the quality of troops coming out of the Iraqi training schools. Many units are heavily infiltrated by militiamen themselves and the notorious Interior Ministry has been accused of executing Sunnis without even a trial. The “clear, hold, build” strategy to clear areas of militias and insurgents, in the words of the president, is not working because while the Americans are doing the “clear” part of the strategy, Iraqi forces cannot manage the “hold” part for any building on those successes that can follow. To tackle this Bush has tapped Gen. Petreaus, a decision most will not argue against, for the general has done some excellent work in training Iraqi troops and his primary mission, it seems, will be to train more Iraqis so that the Americans can start going home.
The American public and the world in general have now seen the war go on for too long, and the will to maintain status quo is not an option anymore. One thinks that the president understands that but the solution does not lie in increasing troops, which as the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman finds akin to a couple not being able to work things out, decide to have a child thinking it will solve all problems. The president must set a realistic deadline to step back from the frontlines and let the Iraqis, with their newly bestowed American sponsored “democracy”, decide the best way forward.

2007-01-04T03:01:00.000-08:00

Iraq 2007: Hangs in the Balance

The US and its allies in Iraq would be relieved to see the back of 2006, clearly the year being the worst in the 3 years of war in the country. The year saw a dizzying increase in violence, Shia-Sunni tit for tat attacks, bombings and ethnic cleansing that is killing close to 100 Iraqis every day. The US hopes that 2007 will be a “year of transition” clearly wanting to end its front-end military involvement by 2008 and giving the job of securing Iraq to the Iraqis. There are reports that the British will also be pulling out of Iraq before Prime Minister Tony Blair demits office sometime later this year. Undoubtedly, Blair would want to finish the military intervention that he started in the face of all round criticism in 2003. Also, the heir apparent Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown would want to take office with the populist message of bringing the troops back home. With Basra alternating between violence and relative calm, the exact pullout dates will most likely depend on how the summer and fall of 2007 shape up for Southern Iraq.

2006 though will not be remembered in public memory so much for the sectarian strife than for the execution of former dictator Saddam Hussein, who was hanged amidst much criticism and a threat of a spike in ethnic tensions. The hanging of Saddam does mark an end of an era in Iraqi politics and would definitely be a welcome closure for many Iraqis who suffered under his tyrannical regime. The execution would have been broadly welcomed by the world had it not been for the appalling nature in which Saddam spent his last minutes facing a volley of taunts, jeers and insults by prison guards and security forces present during his execution. The very act of having video recorded the event ensured that the weak Iraqi government came under sustained criticism from human rights agencies, many governments and by a section of the Iraqi population. However, as was the case with Saddam’s capture and the death of his sons in 2003, a large section of the Iraqi populace would have wanted undeniable verification of the events before they began rejoicing. Similar was the case with the former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, whose body was flashed the world over to convince not only Iraqis but also skeptical sections of the US population to convince them of his death. Such is the influence of the visual medium today and also the lack of trust in governments that most statements are taken as propaganda rather than the gospel truth. The video footage of the Saddam execution would have “proved” to Iraqis that Saddam was indeed death. However, the release of the grainy last minutes of Saddam caught on a cell phone brought to the fore what many have commented on the nature of the dictator’s execution – that it was nothing more than Shia retribution for the atrocities they faced under a Sunni Saddam. The very notion that the security men filming and those taunting Saddam could not look over the ethnic status of Saddam and see him as a tyrant who not only killed Kurds and Shias, but also Iranians and Kuwaitis, was nothing short of shameful while at the same time extremely telling.

That Iraq is now clearly divided on ethnic lines with regular purges of minorities from many of its regions is well established. However, how deep this ethnic divide runs was witnessed by the world in that cell phone video. Chants of “Moqtada” (after the radical Shia cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, who controls the largest militia in Iraq and who by a cruel twist of democracy also props the current Iraqi prime minister and his government in place) evidently established the complete fragmentation of Iraqi society. In such a grim reality, it is little wonder that many analysts are now calling for an informal trifurcation of the country on ethnic lines. The new Iraqi constitution does authorize limited autonomy for certain regions, a clause that the Kurds in the north of Iraq have used to their advantage and put to fullest use. The Kurdish north remains the most stable part of Iraq with only Kirkuk seeing some Sunni-Kurd and Kurd-Shia violence. By and large, the Kurds are the only stabilizing factor and a rare success story in Iraq. The remaining regions, as has been suggested by Democratic Senator Joe Biden and many others on the ground in Iraq, should be loosely divided into a Shia and Sunni region with a central government looking after Oil, Foreign Affairs and National Defense. But for this panacea to become a reality is an uphill task. The ensuing violence after declaring such an announcement will be unbearable. If the partition between India and Pakistan is anything to go by, we are looking at a massacre on a genocidal scale. Then again, the US and its Allies would not look at this solution too kindly. By declaring such an option as a viable solution there will be tacit acceptance of a failed policy and further fuelling a oft repeated notion in Iraq that only a strong man can keep the country together. The Americans lose out by choosing either option. On the one hand, you leave behind a country divided and on the other you replace a dictator you didn’t like with a dictator you can live with. More so, there are no takers for the position of a strong man with the exception of Al-Sadr, who is reviled by the White House and the Pentagon.

There are no easy solutions in Iraq neither is “staying the course” a viable option. Bush, who is to make a policy statement on Iraq next week, will need to show some success in Iraq before he leaves office in 2008. Historians will argues that here you had a president whose response to 3000 odd civilian deaths on 9/11 was by sacrificing another 3000 troops against a country that had no direct links to 9/11. Removing the tyrant was important but the world is not necessarily a safer place without him. The “war on terror” has been derailed by the war in Iraq. It is important that Bush get the former back on track and end involvement in the latter. Iraq needs a solution and it is important that the Bush administration starts taking into account the reality that exists in Iraq and take the suggestions of the sane voices coming out of the country. Time is running out for Iraq, a country whose fate hangs in the proverbial balance much like the hung body of its disgraced dictator tethering between chaos and control.

2006-12-29T23:25:00.000-08:00

The End of Saddam - Death of a Dictator

Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator who ruled Iraq for over 25 years was finally executed in the early hours of today by the Iraqi Government in what is seen as a closure of sorts for Iraqis and the country’s tumultuous history. With his execution also comes to an end a regime who’s brutally was on universal display through their acts and actions within and outside the country. Saddam himself was defiant till the end and still regarded himself as the rightful President of Iraq. The end of Saddam ironically marks the end of a bloody era in Iraqi history but at the same time also ushers in an equally bloody immediate aftermath. The questions still remain – did he get a fair trial? Was it nothing more than victor’s justice? Was there an alternative? Will this make Iraq more peaceful in the long run?

While many of these questions will linger for some time to come, any speculation on whether Saddam would actually be hanged or not has now been laid to rest. The Iraqi government was keen to show its firm command over the internal issues of their country and also put its stamp of authority over the execution, not wanting to be seen as a mere puppet regime propped up by the U.S. The US too was keen to back away from any involvement in the actual execution which would have only made the Iraqi popular sentiment rage against the American actions. There has often been speculation on whether the US would “allow” the execution to go on. It is important to point out that the control and influence of the Americans on the Iraqi government is often overstated. Today in Iraq, we have a Shia dominated government and society that bore the brunt of Saddam’s regime. Now in power, nothing will give them more satisfaction than to see dictator pay for his actions. And in that spirit the impending execution was indeed imminent.

Another important question the Saddam saga brings out is over the legitimacy of the trial itself. Many legal analysts argue over whether the trial met international standards. Or whether his guilt was assumed prior to the start of his trial. It is significant to mention that whether this trial met international standards is not as significant as the fact the court that gave justice was an Iraqi one and it is ultimately the Iraqis who decide the fate of their leader on the basis of a constitution and constitutional law so decided by the entire spectrum of Iraqi politics. International trials and courts themselves don’t have a brilliant track record either. Their failure to give justice to Milosevic, Pinochet and perpetrators of other genocides does not augur well for international justice. Then again a Saddam trial in the International Court of Justice would have again raised questions on the fairness of the trial, considering the West’s disdain for the dictator. In lieu of such aspects, an Iraqi trial by an Iraqi judge seems the fairest option at the time.

Saddam Hussein did have a certain romanticism attached with him amongst many people all over the world. His defiance of the West and the US in particular was seen as what can be described as “Arab Machismo” which saw Iraq take on the mighty US army in the Gulf War of 1991. The failure of Bush Senior to “take out” Saddam further added to the myth of the dictator’s invincibility. But for all the defiance against the West he inspired in the Middle East, there was broad consensus in the world community over his brutality and barbaric acts of genocide against his own people – most notably against the Shias and the Kurds. The Dujail Massacre and the Anbar offensive saw many Shias being summarily executed the gassing of the Kurds and the eradication of the Marsh Arabs have horrified generations. Then again the acts of his sons including murder, intimidation and rape further spread hatred and revulsion in equal measure amongst Iraqi and the world alike. Saddam was himself involved in the execution of his sons in law who defected to Jordan and let the world know of Iraq’s secret weapons program. The very execution of his own relatives remains a chilling testament to the utter disregard for human life this dictator had.

The life and times of Saddam have been dramatic to say the least. His rise to power after overthrowing his own mentor in 1979, his acts of military aggression against the Iranians from 1980 to 1988, which saw the support of the US for his regime. The infamous photo of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam 1982 is stamped in memory forever. His defiant stand against the US in 1991 remains etched in public memory. Then again the fall of the Saddam statue in 2003 and his subsequent capture from a “spider hole” in December 2003 will never be forgotten. Also, one can never forget the dramatic press conference by the then US Administrator in Iraq, Ambassador Paul Bremer’s three famous words, “We got him” will never be forgotten. His sentencing and the subsequent execution too becomes part of world history.

But his execution also marks a solemn day for Iraqis, who will now reconcile to the fact that in whatever little way they finally did get justice. For the relatives of close to 400,000 people who went missing or killed during his rule this maybe little conciliation, but then again not many Iraqis thought that they would see this day. The overriding question that comes out of the execution is what effect it will have on the current violence and insurgency in Iraq. Frankly, the answer is not too rosy. There will be a short term flare up in violence, most notably by the Sunni militias who will see this as the day when any chances of the Sunnis regaining authority over the country have all but finished. They will now have to live under Shia political and social dominance due to the sheer majority in numbers that the Shias enjoy. Then again the insurgency in Iraq has little to do with Saddam. The remnants of his regime and the Ba’ath Party form a very small minority of the violence. Saddam’s death may activate these insurgents, particularly in the Sunni triangle, but their actions will not significantly alter the current levels of violence. Some analysts argue whether the violence can get any worse than it already is, and hence Saddam’s execution will have only some much influence over the insurgency.

The execution of Saddam is a timely reminder to other strongmen in the world that they may also have to face the gallows for their actions, and more importantly the aura of invincibility is nothing but a smokescreen that can vanish in time and your actions will be accounted for – by victor’s justice or otherwise.

2006-12-29T02:39:00.000-08:00

7 lookouts for '07

With barely a couple of days to go, another momentous and memorable year will come to a close and an action packed New Year awaits us. While 2006 had its share of politicking, wars, scandals, sporting triumphs and tragedy, 2007 offers more of the same. Here is a sample of the seven events to look out for in the New Year.

Election time in UP and Punjab

Undoubtedly, the major news making event of the year will be the elections for the state legislature in UP. Considered as the most crucial state in national politics, the UP elections will have politicians, psephologists, news watchers and analysts alike eagerly waiting for the run up and the outcome of these elections. What makes the elections even more interesting is the lack of a clear frontrunner in the electoral fray. A new coalition based on the electoral arithmetic amongst the BJP, Congress, SP and BSP seems to be in the offing. But with the twists and turns of politics in the state being more unpredictable than the weather, this is one event where putting ones money on any party is at one’s own peril!

The second election battle will see arch enemies in Punjab take on each other. With this being the last chance for Shromani Akali Dal leader Prakash Singh Badal to wrest the chief minister’s post from the Congress’ current incumbent Amrinder Singh, the battle will be a no holds barred affair with chances of a hung assembly likely. If either party manages a clear mandate, it will certainly be curtains for the losing side. A strong Akali come back would certainly mean the end of the road for Amrinder, with either Deputy CM Rajinder Kaur Bhattal or state Congress chief Shamsher Singh Dullo being given the baton to pursue the post electoral fallout. A Congress win would ensure that Badal Senior will have to let go of his position at the helm of Akali politics and make way for a new leader. Whether the new leader will be son Sukhbir or some other old hand of the Akalis remains to be seen. Then again by coronating his son, Badal may actually increase factionalism in the volatile Akali grouping.

Cricket World Cup

The biggest sporting event of the year will definitely be the Cricket World Cup in the West Indies. With the current favourites and champions Australia looking menacingly ruthless in destroying any opposition the signs are ominous for India who find themselves in the same grouping as the world champs. India too will need all the help it can get to come out of the rut of poor form it finds itself in and start getting ready for the challenge that presents itself in the Caribbean. An Indian victory may be far fetched but it’s the desire of every Indian. Will men in blue do their due?

Quota Raj

2007 will see a definite political uproar over the implementation of quotas for OBC’s in government educational institutions and the possibility of implementation of the recommendations of the Sachar Committee on Muslims and minorities. With the summer protests against quotas from students still afresh in public memory the coming unrest is a definite event in the 2007 calendar.

The future of Iraq

Iraq will continue to dominate headlines in the coming year. With the likelihood of a Saddam execution and a new strategy on Iraq by Bush to be carried out in the New Year, all eyes will be on Iraq and its deteriorating security situation. Will Bush change tracks and go for a new military and political policy in Iraq? Analysts say it is not a question of if but when. Are you listening Mr. Bush?

Blair to step down

British Prime Minister Tony Blair will make way for a new premier at 10 Downing Street later in 2007. With his departure, the New Labour revolution of Blair and Brown will see a continuation under sometime friend and sometime foe Gordon Brown, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. How tumultuous or smooth will the transition be? Also, if rumors are to be believed Blair might be getting an international assignment to broker peace in the Middle East once he demits office. Watch this space for more.

A new French President

After Germany got Angela Merkel last year will 2007 see a female French President? With current defense minister Michele Alliot-Marie announcing her bid for presidency the race has just gotten interesting. Her opponent is the Socialist Party’s Sergolene Royal, who is generating considerable interest amongst the French electorate. But the man to beat will be the interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy. With his strong nationalist message and a clampdown on lawlessness and illegal immigration he is a rage amongst the centre and right of centre of the French political spectrum.

Technology

If 2006 was all about blogging and YouTube, 2007 will have more technological innovations and products up its sleeve. With the Windows new operating system Vista ready to hit shelves soon, the PC will certainly undergo a change (At least that’s what Microsoft hopes for!). Also, the eagerly awaited Sony Playstation 3 will be available early next year, and the gamers are gearing up for that prospect. TV on your mobile may become a reality in 2007 with 3G and IPTV making its way to India on a mass consumer level. The year will surely also see a fall in prices of Plasma TV’s, which hopefully will make it affordable for all of us! More importantly will 2007 signal the end of the cablewallahs with the coming of DTH and CAS?

So, 2007 promises to be an exciting year whether you’re a news buff, sports freak or a techie. These events are only the planned ones; one really wonders what will be the real surprises ‘07 throws up. Any guesses?

2006-12-18T05:43:00.000-08:00

Hamas-Fatah Standoff: The internal Intifada

The fragile peace in the Palestinian territories is now on the brink of a complete break down considering the infighting and violence of the last few days. The two warring factions – Fatah and Hamas had been eyeballing each other for a few months now, but the latest increase in skirmishes between armed gunmen of the two sides has got the disastrous prospect of a civil strife in the making. Hamas, the radical political and para-military party is made up of renegade Palestinians hell bent on destroying Israel and take back the holy city of Jerusalem, which is effectively under Israeli control. Having transformed from a militant para-military force to a political player in the turbulent world of Palestinian politics yielded reach results as they stormed the parliamentary elections in January and formed a majority government. In doing so, they also replaced the corrupt and ineffective government of the Fatah party whose founder was the legendary leader Yasser Arafat.

The bad blood between the two sides is nothing new. Both sides have argued on which of the two stands of the genuine interests of the Palestinian people. Fatah, though with a para-military force of its own, has been taking the more moderate view on how Palestine should deal with Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, have adopted a more radical approach, with their charter calling or the destruction of Israel and the return of Palestinian land from the Jordanian border to the Mediterranean. Both sides, unfortunately, have not lived up to the expectations of its people. Fatah has been given repeated mandates, both while being led by Arafat and also after his demise, only to get neck deep into corruption and also having to fend of allegations of being subservient to Israel and the US in its dealings for Palestinian statehood. This fear of looking like “sellouts” had an unfortunate outcome with Arafat breaking away from the potentially path breaking talks with President Clinton and then Israeli PM Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000 in order to strike a better bargain for the Palestinians. Many Western analysts regard it as a colossus failure on the part of Arafat to have walked away in 2000. However, many Arab and Middle Eastern analysts do offer a different version of the events of that fateful summit. That apart, the Hamas victory in January completely shook Western establishments and Israel as they faced their enemy as a democratically elected government. With their strong mandate and a good humanitarian track record, Hamas has been adopting a confrontationalist attitude towards the Israelis for any negotiations. The peace talks further broke down with the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit by the Palestinians in June this year that led to a tense standoff between the two sides. Since then the Western governments have been backing the moderate President of the Palestinian territories, Mahmud Abbas (also the leader of the Fatah). In doing so, they have side stepped any dealings with Hamas and it’s Prime Minister Ismail Hanieyah. Pointedly, here lies the genesis of the current problem.

The West has been a vocal advocate of democracy and has used that pretext to overthrow Saddam. The White House has made is clear that the democratization of the Middle East is important for world peace. But quite paradoxically, when any Arab country or in this case the Palestinian people legitimately chose a government then the West has no right to complain. However, this is not the first example of the West influencing a country to “help” them choose their leaders. The now reviled former leader of Chile, late General Augusto Pinochet received American support after the Communist Party installed Salvador Allende as the nation’s president. Henry Kissinger at the time had remarked rather caustically, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." With such an approach to foreign policy, it is little wonder that the same is being replicated in the Middle East policy of the the US. By actively backing Abbas and his call for early elections, the West have furthered the tensions between Hamas and Fatah. Also, with both sides retaining their para-military forces, the violent infighting is the logical yet tragic outcome.

Any freedom movement or nationalist struggle remains viable till all the players toe the same line after due consensus. The Palestinian issue has been one without any solutions for over half a century thanks to the differing opinions and the ensuing violence that succeedes it. Today, it is the Hamas, tomorrow it might be another political entity. The Paelstinians must speak in unison in what their demands are and more importantly the West must heed the democratic voice of the electroate. The subvsersion of any mandate is nothing short of arm twisting democrarcy to suit one’s needs.

The current stand off, which has resulted because of the declaration of early elections by President Abbas, also has the imprint of the regional powers pushing their vested interests. Iran, whether the US likes it or not, has emerged as the single dominant force in the Middle East, having overtaken Saudi Arabia for the coveted title. Iran now has a say in all the flash points in the Middle East including Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestine issue. Their active support for Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon has helped it in its talks on Iran’s nuclear program. Their influence being so strong in Iraq and Lebanon that the West has no option but to talk to them, a foreign policy no-no till a few years back. Iran, ironically, has the US to thank for its sudden elevation in stature as a fallout of the Iraq invasion. Now, with support to Hamas and in doing so thumbing the nose of the Israelis, it is truly having the last laugh. However, it is important for the Palestinians to realise how much of a friend is Iran to their cause or is it using the emotive issue of Palestine to raise its standing in the wider Muslim world. If indeed the Palestinain street supports Iran and its machinations, peace may be distant, also, if the reality is the latter, then the political establishment of Palestine must charter into taking control of their foreign affairs rather than have Iran coverlty push its own agenda. While those may be long term policy objectives of Palestinian politics, in the interim it is important for the infighting to stop and a government of national unity be formed to help Palestinian movement move out of the unending cycle of violence peppered with moments of peace. The longer this fighting festers the more dangerous the world becomes. Sadly, this numbing truth seems to be falling on deaf ears in Gaza and the West Bank.

2006-12-07T00:05:00.000-08:00

Baker’s Truth on Iraq: Get out and get out fast

The most important foreign policy document for the Bush Administration finally saw the light of day with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group finally coming out with its 79 recommendations on the way forward in Iraq. The report made from some in your face grim reading with a bleak assessment of the outcome of current American policy in Iraq. Though, much of the reports recommendations were made available thanks to the selective leaks to the media, the basic undercurrent of the report was that the Bush policy is failing and moreover doomed for a complete failure in Iraq. The group has outlined three main areas of change. Firstly, it recommends that the American troops change their primary mission in Iraq from anti-insurgency to support and training of Iraqi forces. Second, it has asked the Iraqi government to set realistic landmarks – political, military and economic to end the sectarian divide and help the country on a path of reconciliation. Third, they have called for an urgent need to initiate a new diplomatic effort in the region to bring in Iraq’s neighbours to the table to help fight the growing divide in the country.

The three key recommendations are not new, but considering they come from a 10-member panel that includes democrats and republicans and headed by a Bush Sr. confidante, the writing is clearly on the wall. The group’s assessment is in a way the call from the entire political fraternity on both sides of the divide to tell in no uncertain terms that the current policy in Iraq is unacceptable. The group’s report could not have come at a better time, with over 2900 American troops dead and another 21,000 wounded, the country is polarized on the war and the cracks in even the staunchest of Republican support base is beginning to show. Politics apart, the commission suggests that the Iraq war could be billed at over a trillion dollars, a price that will certainly leave most Americans wondering whether that money could have been better spent on internal issues or on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Moreover, unlike the President's proclamations, the war in Iraq has made America more unpopular and unsafe than ever before. Al-Qaeda is still a menacing threat to the world and the war against terror has derailed with the Americans caught up in stopping sectarian strife and fighting armed militias in Iraq. Better still the troop involvement in Afghanistan, the real theatre of the war on terror has a paltry 32,000 troops while Iraq has close to 150,000. The need to fight the resurgent Taliban is more acute than preventing civil war in Iraq. Strategic analysts summarize by saying that the situation in Iraq looks worse than it actually is, while Afghanistan is actually worse than how it seems.

The report and its bleak assessment does some blunt talking with it clearly stating that “military solution alone will not work”. Further, the report says that the famous Bushism, “staying the course” will also not work. Hence, it is clear that the change in tactics and strategy is the need of the hour, if Bush wants to salvage some sort of a graceful exit from Iraq. The most interesting aspect of the report suggests the setting up of an International Iraq Support Group. This group will engage the support of Iraq’s neighbours including Iran, Syria, Egypt and the Gulf States apart from representatives from the UN, EU and the five permanent members of the Security Council. Such a suggestion, though making diplomatic sense, has been out rightly rejected by the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who insists that the solution to Iraq will be decided by Iraq and not by outsiders which amounts to interfering with the Iraq internal issues. The sentiment is well taken as Mr. Talabani may want to address a domestic audience by that statement, he too will accept the role Iran plays in the Shia majority of Iraq and the influence of Syria in the rising sectarian divide. Involving the players who have a stake seems to be the only solution for Iraq. Then again Iraq was at war with Iran for close to a decade and for Iraqis to look at the Iranians as their saviors is a bitter pill to swallow. The option lies with the Shia bloc in the Iraqi parliament, if they wish to not be at the mercy of Iran for a solution, they themselves must stop their dependence, economic and ideological, on the Iranians. Coming to the International Iraqi Support Group, it remains to be seen whether Bush will bite the bullet and call the Syrians and Iranians for a summit to discuss the way out in Iraq. The biggest beneficiary of the Iraq war remains Iran, which will extract some concessions from the international community in return for its support for a new way forward in Iraq.

The Iraq Study Group has also looked at other options for a new policy on Iraq. They have rejected the notion of a federal structure on sectarian lines, with a centralized government in Baghdad, as one that will cause chaos and civil war. Also, they suggest that such a step might trigger a regional war. So only a staggered withdrawal of troops with a force of 20,000 to aid in training of Iraqi troops and Special Forces to battle Al-Qaeda and support the Iraqi security forces holds profound merit in the current state of affairs. With the “ability of the US to influence events in Iraq diminishing“, an 18-month withdrawal plan is highly recommended to salvage some sort of a victory in Iraq.

What remains to be seen is how much influence the report will ultimately have on the White House. This may provide the right political cover for Bush to initiate a phased and responsible withdrawal, citing a bipartisan voice urging such a move. However, if accepted, Bush will also tacitly admit to his own failure in Iraq. All may not be lost, but Bush has certainly lost some of the famed political capital he has earned after the 2004 presidential elections. The hope is that he can end this war with minimum damage – political, military and economic and at the same time set the stage for a Republican continuity in the 2008 elections. That may be a long shot, but the recommendations of the commission will put the ball in Bush’s court to take some action on it. Bush has the last opportunity to salvage some brownie point from all of this. If he gives up his brusque ways in the last two years of his presidency and helps unite the nation and the world into a honorable exit with an acceptance of some of his shortcomings he can emerge as a leader tried to make a difference in the post 9/11 world albeit in a divisive and bloody way. Who knows we may have “misunderestimated” him all this while, but it is ultimately for him to realize that only he controls his own legacy and time is running out as his legacy is already stands tainted.

2006-12-01T05:08:00.000-08:00

THE AIDS BOMB

World Aids Day was celebrated the world over with the message of spreading awareness and not the disease. What has been disturbing this year though has been the rapid increase in the number of HIV cases in India and the ever rising toll it is taking on the country’s people and resources. Aids has now firmly got a vice like grip over India with Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur, Nagaland and Uttar Pradesh accounting for the majority of new cases detected. However, that said, the epidemic is truly pandemic in nature and no state has survived its aggressive reach. For years, sadly, we have taken myopic comfort in the fact that the disease was ravaging sub-Saharan Africa and the West, and although the number of dormant cases of Aids was next only to South Africa, the disease was not ‘really’ an epidemic in India. Today the reality is that the disease of global proportions has India as its epicenter and that judgment has some sound backing. Of the 40 million odd people suffering from HIV/AIDS, 6 million are in India. And with figures from China still unverifiable, India truly is the hub of HIV/AIDS. So how have things come to this, how have we gone from just another affected country to the world capital for Aids.

The reasons and causes are not hard to find. With a majority of HIV transmissions passing though unprotected sex, the reason why India is a country with the largest HIV/AIDS population becomes evidently clear. Sex and talking about it is still a big no no in the country. While our urban centers do enjoy a high degree of understanding about the virus and its modes of spread the vast rural hinterland remains largely untouched by this critical awareness strategy. A shocking statistic reveals that one in two sex workers in Mumbai are HIV positive, to think the number of people they can infect and the true reality hits you in the face. A major reason for the spread of the disease has also been the dismal state of women rights. A woman has no right to demand her husband to use a condom and many a times becomes the unfortunate victim for her husband’s follies. Similarly, men who indulge in unprotected sex often do not grasp the true nature of Aids and what it can do for his family and future generations. The need to create awareness on condom use is ever more important in the rural areas where awareness remains abysmally low.

Religious leaders too must share the blame for the continuing rise of HIV/AIDS in the country. Their policy of abstinence and equating AIDS as a disease of the immoral is fuelling the AIDS epidemic. Abstinence was a policy that has been championed by the more conservative governments of the West and Africa. Though, they have enjoyed limited success in those countries, abstinence is only part of the solution and not the Holy Grail for controlling the disease. It is imperative on our religious leaders to spread the message of abstinence and condom use hand in hand rather than see the use of condoms as one that promotes promiscuity.

While at the cost of sounding self-contradictory, the urban Indian while more knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS than in the past has started taking a rather cavalier attitude towards HIV/AIDS for the past few years. Awareness is certainly on the rise, but paradoxically, with new methods to control the spread HIV now clinically in practice, it is making many Indians more callous in its attitude towards HIV/AIDS. With anti-retrovirals finding more acceptance as a means to delay the transfer of HIV to full blown AIDS, people have changed perceptions about the disease. What was once the incurable disease has now turned to one which does have a limited cure for it. This grave misconception does lead to risqué beahviour which is furthering the spread of AIDS. While one does not advocate a fear psychosis to set in people, reminiscent of the 1980’s when AIDS was thought to spread through shaking hands and eating together, the need to inject a healthy fear of the disease and how easily you or I can be victim to it is needed.

One cannot talk about AIDS without talking about the social stigma that attaches on its victims. Countless stories of discrimination – social, economic, educational and professional have become common in the country and the world over. Cases of HIV+ children being abandoned by their parents or HIV+ families being ostracized by their immediate communities fill the newspapers of the day. The early 90’s saw brilliant adverts featuring Shabana Azmi boldly interacting with AIDS patients and asking each citizen to do the same. Such campaigns had a profound affect on society. Unfortunately, today we find that the level of social acceptance is similar to what it was when the disease first found its way to India. A fresh relook is needed to reinject the sense of obligation towards helping those with AIDS is required.

The government on its part has done well to address the issue of AIDS with setting up of NACO and several high end laboratories to check the disease. It is highly unfortunate that the government has also been rather uptight in handling criticism of its policies. Any mention of India being the epicenter of the disease is usually dismissed and the good worked done by the government harped upon. The government will have to realize enormity of the task at hand and deal with the situation with a muti-pronged strategy. Unfortunately for India, there is no one-size-fits-all type of a solution. The many diversities of the country require diverse tactics to control HIV/AIDS. An urban campaign will certainly not work in the rural areas. Similarly what might work in the North of India will differ from the approach needed in the South. Similar adaptations are required on religious and ethnic grounds. Steps like compulsory HIV testing before marriage, while retrograde as may be, is one important method needed to check the spread of the disease. The spread of AIDS through infected needles by intravenous drug users too needs to be addressed rather than taken as a problem affecting a deviant few.

Analysts say that India still has time to buck the trend and get a check on its AIDS crisis. These may be the last few years before we truly are faced with a disease which we are frankly not equipped to handle – medically, socially and economically. Every Indian must do their bit before we are tragically forced to re-define AIDS as the All India Disaster Syndrome.

2006-11-26T23:22:00.000-08:00

Death by poison: Story of the Russian defector

The world was rattled by the news of the death former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, who dies of a suspected poisoning by a radioactive substance. The former spy was a critic of the Kremlin and its incumbent Russian President Vladimir Putin. The news of his poisoning and subsequent death has unnerved the UK government to such an extent that the government’s disaster management group codenamed COBRA held emergency meetings in London. The worrying aspect for the government and also partly the reason for the COBRA meet is that the suspected agent used as the poison was Polonium 210. A highly radioactive substance that can only be obtained by high end nuclear reactors or in secret nuclear locations under the respective government’s watch. Experts say that it is certainly not a “over the counter” material unlike its other radioactive cousins. The suspected use of Polonium 210 therefore points a mysterious finger to some governmental agency in Russia, most likely the FSB, formerly the KGB or even the Kremlin. What is even more worrying is the fact that if weren’t the usual suspects supplying the Polonium and in fact the source is someone from outside the government it throws a larger question on the availability of these materials in the wrong hands or in the nuclear black market.

Litvinenko himself was a controversial figure. Earlier working as a spy for the FSB he defected to the UK in 2000. From then on he has been a vitriolic critic of the Kremlin’s iron fisted rule over Russia and also its conduct of the war in Chechnya. He has also accused Putin and the FSB of orchestrating bombings in apartments in Moscow in 1999 that killed over 300 people and which was the pretext used by the Kremlin to engage in a war in Chechnian separatists. He was also investigating the death of Kremlin critic, Anna Politkovskaya, the journalist who was recently gunned down by an armed assialant in the lift of her apartment. Litvinenko alleged that the killing of Politkovskaya was the handiwork of the FSB on instructions from the Kremlin. A charge the Kremlin vehemently denies. However, some in Russia did view Litvinenko in much dimmer light than his portrayal in the Western media. He was arrested in 2000 for his conduct in anti-terror operations during his stint in the FSB, on his release he took assylum in the UK and ultimately spoke out against the rule of the Kremlin. Many Russians regard him as an traitor who left his country to speak about the war in Chechnya and against the president. They also charge him as being an antinational element who was giving legitimacy to the terrorists in Chechnya. Some bizarre allegations also followed where a British MEP alleged that Litvinenko had actually unearthed that current Italian Prime Minitser Romano Prodi was a mole for the KGB. That said it is obvious that along the way Litvinenko did make some powerful enemies and maybe paid the price for being the spy who knew too much.

This incident also throws light on the way the Kremlin handles criticism against security agencies and the president. In the Kremlin’s world view any criticism of Russian conduct in Chechnya and its handling of terror events like Beslan is anti national and unacceptable. The Russian media is known to be mostly subservient to the president and any criticism of Putin is avoided or told in a round about fashion. In such a scenario the Russian population is told only one side of most stories – that of the Kremlin. Even during the Beslan crisis the death of hundreds of children was protrayed by the Kremlin as an unfortunate outome of the necessary military action at the time.
Putin is also not known to take too kindly to competition, most recently the erst while richest man in Russia Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was jailed for eight years in a Siberian prison and his company Yukos was dissovled in a matter of months. Many allege that the crime of Khodorkovsky was simple – he was ambitious and looking to challenge Putin. Similarly, media tycoon Boris Berezovsky has to flee the country after the Kremlin threatened to arrest him for his anti-Putin style of reporting. Such incidents do not portray the current state of democrarcy in Russia in good light. There is no doubt that Putin and his style of functioning is more authrorotative than dictatorial, but having said that being authorotative need not necessarlity come about by trampling on democracy and its basic tenenats of free speech. The Western media too has had a field day with their portrayal of Livinanko and the manner of his death which is so reminiscent of the romantacized view of the cold war and spy novels. The true extent of the Kremlin’s involvement is by no means certain nor is it outrightly deniable, but the death and the sorriunding circumstances do point to a deeper conspiracy, the ultimate who do it – and no there is no butler in this thriller.

2006-11-14T04:59:00.000-08:00

Indo-Pak talks: Don't bite the Siachen bullet

India and Pakistan will resume their foreign secretary level talks in the coming days. On the plate is a diverse agenda ranging from the next steps in confidence building measures, the controversial joint anti-terror mechanism, the border disputes, Siachen and most obviously Kashmir and cross border terrorism. The much talked about evidence, whether it is clinching or otherwise, about Pakistan’s involvement in the 7/11 Mumbai blasts will likely to generate the maximum heat and pubic attention. Post India’s open talk about evidence on Pakistan’s 7/11 involvement, Pakistan has curiously been adopting measures to diplomatically stump India with a series of premature ideas and possible solutions that have neither been discussed or at best have not got approval across the board. One such notion that is being floated by President Musharraf and Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri is one on the impending breakthrough and final settlement of the Siachen issue.

Siachen, the world’s highest and most challenging battlefield has seen both sides lose soldiers and money to keep the strategically vital glacier under their respective controls. India occupied the glacier in 1984 and has ever since more or less controlled the glacier and its key peaks. Most notably the Saltoro ridge has been under Indian control and has proved to be the strategic watershed on who controls Siachen. Also, with Siachen under its belt, the Indian army can take a peek at the Pakistani military installations on the Pakistani side whilst also protect Ladakh from any untoward Pakistani military misadventures. Moreover, the Indian army through its commander in Siachen has made it amply clear that the control of Siachen is paramount and any troop withdrawal at this stage will only be counterproductive. For his part, Kasuri, has been vocally speaking to the press about the breakthrough that is likely to be in place in a matter of “days, not weeks”, as told to NDTV in an interview. The wide proclamations have been politely scoffed at by the Indian establishment who are yet to see the reason behind Kasuri’s blustering optimism. That said, the Pakistani side has been known to be better than ours in the battle for public sound bytes and diplomacy. This latest statement too seems to indicate that the Pakistani’s are playing the game of brinkmanship in setting the agenda for the talks with India. Their desire is to push India to a ‘Siachen only’ corner during the talks, since it will be under constant speculation and media attention, while pushing back the potentially damaging Indian agenda on 7/11 links and cross border terror. Again, if India is seen to shy away from speaking on Siachen, Pakistan will argue that another opportunity by Pakistan to find lasting peace has been discarded by India. If we do make a commitment on Siachen, domestic politics will ensure a through consensus on the decision or worst still a roll back on whatever commitments are given during the Foreign Secretary level talks. The Indian diplomatic establishment under the old Pakistan hand S.S. Menon and the Foreign Ministry now under Pranab Mukherjee will need to preempt the Pakistan ploy of forcing its agenda and will need to clearly outline that the agenda as we see it, which is clearly about cross border terror, 7/11 and Kashmir. Also, equally important is getting the joint anti-terror mechanism up and running, what with, the prime minister putting all the diplomatic eggs on the anti- terror mechanism basket, some positive movement on the front is a logical expectation.

The next level of talks between the two neighbours is bound to generate a lot of interest on both sides. However, the expectations must be tempered against realism. Anyone who has read President Musharraf’s memoir will acknowledge that making lasting peace with this man is not only tough it seems impossible. However, since we can’t choose or wish away other countries leaders, one must work with him. This while he and his PR machinery continue to offer solutions that are over the top and mostly unacceptable. More importantly, Menon and Mukherjee must ensure that India’s agenda to find a solution for Kashmir and stop cross border terror activities must be squarely on top of the agenda, even if it means the Pakistani side walks away with more media brownie points and more fodder to complain about against its neighbour. The future of the Indo-Pak peace talks rests not on television interviews but actually on finding real peace and real solutions on mutually acceptable, rather than dictated, terms.

2006-11-06T06:38:00.000-08:00

The Saddam Verdict : Hope, Despair and Division

Saddam Hussein, the once feared despot of Iraq, who ruled the country with barbaric brutality for close to 25 years finally had his day in court and was duly awarded the death sentence. The death sentence comes for the Dujail massacre in 1982, which resulted in the extermination of 148 odd Shia Iraqi under the Sunni Baath party leadership. Iraq was in a bloody war with Iran at the time and Shia-Sunni tensions were high, with both sides looking suspiciously at the other. A failed assassination attempt led to the ultimate bloodbath under direct instructions from Saddam and carried out by his cronies, all of whom have been sentenced. The premise Saddam gave for the killings was lame and pointed out to the influence of Shia Iran actively backing Shia Iraqis to carry out an attempt to kill him. The court however, ruled that the massacre held no legal, moral or military justification and for his actions and crimes against humanity, Saddam must face the gallows. More cases against Saddam, mainly involving the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja, the Anfal campaign targeting Shias and the killing of the Marsh Arabs, still need to reach their logical conclusion, with or without Saddam. While there is no love lost for Saddam from any quarter, leaving aside his minor core group of supporters from Tikrit and the remnants of the Baath party, the execution order and the veracity and legality of the court that tried his case is under the scanner.

Questions have been raised ever since the trial began about whether Saddam would get a fair trial or not, considering the active presence of the US in Iraq, the biased approach of the current Iraqi government and the routine killings of Saddam’s defense lawyers and the kin of sitting judges. Moreover, Saddam himself refused to recognize the court and made the proceedings a propaganda tool to paint himself a martyr for his people. His religious overtures and his antics of carrying a copy of the Koran to the court did not cut much ice with religious Iraqis and Muslims worldwide keeping in mind his ‘secular’ past and colorful ways. That said, media organizations in the Arab world and commentators on the Middle East have raised their concerns about the court and the rule of law applied against Saddam. Some have even gone to the extent of calling the court a kangaroo court with a single point agenda to hang Saddam. That said, it is also true that prior to the invasion in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam, the same commentators were the source of the gross human rights abuse carried out by Saddam and his sons Uday and Qusay. One would agree that the court and the proceedings may not meet the expectations of every analyst there is no disputing the outcome is one which is well deserved for Saddam and his cronies. It would have been a travesty of justice if Saddam would have been let off and many Iraqis would still fear the overthrown dictator keeping in mind any chances of his return to power.

The victims and the families who suffered under Iraq may welcome this sentencing, surely never would they have realistically believed that such a day would come. But the ruling is sure to upset the already precarious situation that exists in Iraq. The Shias have welcomed the decision with customary gunfire and spontaneous street celebrations. They now feel that they will get the chance to have a government that is representative of the demographics that exist in the country. Also, finally the nightmare quarter of a century of fear is finally over. But with it comes the vent up anger of the Sunnis, who fear that with Saddam gone and him never making a comeback (a popular belief by many Sunnis) there hopes of ever regaining power are bleak. Many even fear having to live as second-class citizens under the dominant Shia majority. This sense of despair and fear of losing governmental representation will fuel the Sunni insurgency in the days to come. The argument that the decision to hang Saddam will in anyway decrease the insurgency holds little merit as the Sunnis will be renege to hit back at the Americans, who they see as the cause of their ‘loss’ of power and the Shias, who they distrust because of the backing they receive from Iran.

Al-Qaeda and the Mujahideen Shura Council that are carrying out the atrocities against ordinary Iraqis will welcome this decision for two reasons. One, they never really backed Saddam, whom they saw as an equal infidel like the Americans with his western ways and secular ideology. Secondly, the decision will help them propagate the notion of the injustices being carried out by the occupying Americans against Iraq and thereby justifying their jihad against the invading infidels. However, this ruling awarding capital punishment to an erstwhile dictator will ruffle many feathers in the broader Middle East, with heads of states becoming more wary of democracy in the Arab world, if all that democracy means is that heads will literally roll. This misplaced fear, however, should not be an impediment for democracy as many citizens of countries ruled by oppressive regimes will realize the true power of democracy where a court of law can punish even the ex head of state and elections can get help get them the universal right of franchise.

Many commentators have argued that the timing of the ruling is meant to coincide with the mid term elections in the US and that it was meant to help Bush and the Republicans. Understandably, the White House has vigorously denied all such claims. One finds the argument of the curious timing as far fetched and moreover, despite the hang order, the war in Iraq and domestic scandal will not help the Republicans to save the Congress and maybe even the Senate. But one must take this moment to cherish democracy and the power it holds, it may not be perfect, and Iraq certainly is not the pinnacle of democracy, but under the true tenants of democracy it does have the power to bring even the most villainous of men in history to justice.

2006-10-31T02:38:00.000-08:00

Two death sentences and a controversy

The Delhi High Court finally gave justice to Priyadarshini Mattoo in the sensational rape and murder case involving Santosh Singh, son of former cop J.P. Singh. The ruling, a landmark of sorts, overrode the earlier judgment passed by the trial court, in which the judge rather impotently let Singh go free although the judge was convinced that Singh had indeed committed the crime. The trial judge also admonished the investigative authorities and the prosecution for a shoddy job done in the case. The case, which seemed set to go into the cold storage, was revived thanks to the national outrage caused by the acquittal of the accused in the Jessica Lal case. The Mattoo judgment will certainly go a long way in reassuring the nation’s citizens that justice can be given to the victim, albeit rather late and with lots of public pressure and media attention thrown in. Further, the death sentence in itself will ensure that a sense of ‘real’ justice has been delivered for a crime that has been rightly billed as ‘rarest of rare’. But like in any independent judiciary and a democratic setup the guilty has a right to appeal and it is likely that the case may drag on and ultimately knock the doors of the Supreme Court. That said, the very fact that the Delhi High Court has delivered on its job and with the father of deceased finally looking satisfied will go a long way in regaining public support for the pillars of Indian democracy that seemed to have been shaken post the Jessica Lal judgment.

Another death sentence was handed in another high profile case to Mohammed Afzal, the main accused in the dastardly attack on the Indian parliament in 2002. The judgment has had a mixed reaction by the media and the intelligentsia in the country. Many firebrand politicians, leaning to the right or far right of Indian politics, welcomed the judgment and hailed it as a necessary deterrent to any future attacks on democracy and its vital institutions. On the other hand, a mix of social scientists and activists has voiced an opinion against the hanging order. Most notably, Arundhati Roy, the Booker prize-winning novelist and social activist have faulted the Indian justice system and have raised the voice against capital punishment. Observers have also argued on the ‘efficacy’ of capital punishment as many studies have indicated that it does not serve as a deterrent to avoid crimes. While still others argue that will justice not be denied to the families of the braves who fought off the parliament attack. A simplistic answer to a complex argument seems foolhardy. Afzal’s case does fall under the rarest of rare cases and for that he must be hanged. As a nation that is under constant attack from hostile neighbours and victim of the global jihad for years, a strong message needs to be sent out to the world and terror perpetrators that India will not lets its democracy and its institutions be harmed or attacked. More so, many have argued that the ruling will cause great anguish and an uprising in Jammu and Kashmir. The argument is fraught with danger as it amounts to saying that the people of Jammu and Kashmir support the actions of Afzal and hanging him would make him a ‘martyr’. Leaving aside a minority one can reasonably argue that the people of J&K will be only too happy to see such a man go to the gallows in order to help their youth move away from the notion of martyrdom made so infamous by Jihadi propagandists like bin Laden. Martyrdom means dying for one’s country, and not by trying to destroy it.

The controversy surrounding the Afzal hanging aside, the Mattoo and Afzal judgments, though similar in outcome have elucidated a curiously differing response. For Mattoo, a 23-year-old student raped and killed, the death sentence has been received with great relief and a feeling of vindication. As for Afzal, a terrorist who was willing to wage war against the State, the response has been one of doubt and a feeling of victimization for the accused. This when the justice delivery system in both cases was delivered by the same penal code and by the same courts. Then why is it that we doubt once judgment while welcoming the other when the outcome remains the same? One would like to see the same amount of press coverage and outspoken critique of the Mattoo judgment vis-à-vis capital punishments. Will any activist openly come out and oppose Santosh Singh’s death sentence? One thinks not. Is it because the family of the Mattoo’s, Lal’s and Katara’s can get time on air and be pursued by the press while those of the brave men and women who laid down their lives to protect the State are, to put it crudely, not important enough to pursue to make them seek justice?

2006-10-24T00:53:00.000-07:00

The War in Iraq : Time for a pullout?

The War in Iraq is getting bloodier and makes for grim reading for the Bush Administration and more importantly for the families of the fallen both in the US and Iraq. The month of October has proven to be the bloodiest in terms of body bags for the coalition and the Iraqi police. The realities on the ground are clear – Iraq has descended into civil war and the it is the militias rather than the Iraqi Government that is in charge. Countless media reports have now shown that the Mehdi Army loyal to the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Badr Brigade loyal to the Shia grouping SCIRI are now in control of vast areas of the Shia dominated South, Central and the East of the country. The Sunnis backed mainly by the Al-Qaeda and remnants of Saddam’s Baath Party are now competing for territory in Iraq. The Iraqi Police and defense forces have been reduced to the status of bystanders, chillingly, just waiting to be blown up by either warring faction for being loyal to the ‘infidel’ Coalition forces. Last week’s siege of the southern city of Amarah by the Mehdi Army was another example of the control exerted by the militias and the level of sophistication available to them thanks to the generous backers in Tehran and Damascus. The situation as it exists is untenable and a major military shift in US policy is urgent and necessary.

The response of the beleaguered White House has been to call in the Generals and take stock of the situation at hand. Reports indicate that Bush is going to “stay the course” and a pullout is not in the offing anytime soon. While the gung-ho attempts to remain committed to Iraq is applaudable, clearly a tectonic shift is required at the Pentagon and in Iraq to salvage what is left of the country. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld has been getting the necessary backing to stay in office by Bush and the far-right of the Republicans. While his planning for war has been impeccable his plan for keeping the peace has been dismal. Retired Army generals who have served under him are clearly asking for his ouster. Citing poor planning, inadequate troops on the ground and mismanagement leading to the Abu Ghraib scandal as some of the reasons that the Generals are seen backing away from their former boss. Some argue that the same Generals okayed the very plans they are now blaming Rumsfeld for having conjured up. As with any war, politics is the first shot to be fired. Republicans are blaming Democrats for backing such Generals and financing their airtime. Democrats are countering the Republicans by saying the war in Iraq was ill planned and the time has become for a re-think in strategy.

Bush on his own has also added fuel to the ‘change in course’ fire by accepting comparisons between the situation in Iraq and the famous Tet offensive in Vietnam that ultimately turned public sentiment against the unending war in Vietnam. The chorus has been rising within his administration to change course or face further backlashes at home and admonishment from the Islamic states for furthering a blood bath in Iraq. Bush’s response has been, well, vintage Bush, he has vowed to “stay the course” even if the only one’s backing him are “Laura and my dog Barney”. Such dwindling support for Bush is fast turning into reality and a course correction or a sobering reality check in equal measure is urgently needed.

It is pertinent to analyze the options that are available to the Coalition for its future in Iraq. Al-Qaeda and Jihadists were itching for the war to start in Iraq to reduce it to the quagmire it has now become. It has become a clarion call against the ‘crusade’ being carried out by Bush. A visible propaganda agenda for the group. The Coalition had also had made it seem that the elimination of the former commander of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would ultimately finish Al-Qaeda from Iraq. There lies the inherent flaw in the understanding of the Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is now a global movement and not a terror outfit. They work on a decentralized network of cells akin to Special Forces units of all major Armies. Killing one commander of Al-Qaeda will only lead to another one taking charge, as Abu Hamza al-Masri has done. Al-Qaeda can only be defeated if a sustained and unified offensive takes place against them by Islamic armies or population itself. Currently, with Shia-Sunni tensions reaching alarming proportions a sustained unified effort is unlikely. As for the militias on the ground, the Americans are to share the blame for not doing enough to contain clerics like Sadr. Further the alienation felt by the Grand Ayotollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest priest of the Shias in Iraq, has further moved the Shias away from the Coalition. More significantly, by allowing Sadr to take part in the recently held elections has only given political legitimacy to the militant movement. In such a scenario where a party, whether Shia or Sunni, that is in charge of Parliament on the one hand is also in charge of the street through strong arm tactics is a democracy for the delusional.

The need to engage Iraq’s neighbors and the key backers of various warring factions is a must. The Bush administration will have to forego history and a little pride and will have to talk to Damascus and Tehran. By keeping these two key players out of Iraq, it is only helping them fuel a covert system of backing the Islamic radicals in Iraq. A former Secretary of State once commented that in diplomacy you don’t talk to friends, you talk to your enemies. In the case of Iraq, the Americans are seen only talking to their friends rather than take Iran and Syria on board to get some achievable results in Iraq. White House officials do confirm secret meetings between the US and Iran on Iraq, but understandably, the US will not hold pubic conversations with Iran with their current face-off on Iran’s nuclear programme.

The other key facilitator in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia. Good relations between Bush and the house of Saud run generations back. Although, of late, the relationship between the two have soured post 9/11 and the War in Iraq. King Abdullah has been keen to shed his image as a friend of the US and has buckled under pressure from the religious Wahabis in the inner circle to gradually wean its relations with Washington. This led to US forces relocating in Bahrain and also to a further chill in the two countries relations. With the Saudis now not actively interested in peace, and with a majority of the Sunni militias getting its backing from Saudi financers, the road to peace is further winding. The UN is not interested in cleaning the mess the US created. It has lost too mush time and personnel in Iraq, with the bombings of its headquarters in 2003 killing its chief envoy, Sergio de Mello.

In such a tenuous situation, no single solution seems fit for use. A gradual troop withdrawal and maybe introducing a peacekeeping force under the aegis of the Arab League can help quell some of the violence. Then again the question of a federal re-structuring of Iraq, a plan backed enthusiastically by the Kurds, is always on the table. However, partitioning the country will never be acceptable to Bush, who will for all times to come be held responsible for the breakup of a secular though dictator state. But failing to find a credible solution will relegate Bush to the list of war-mongering leaders who knew war but could never make peace. That reality is now beginning to show on Bush.

2006-10-18T06:19:00.000-07:00

Where’s the RTI for the media?

The Right to Information Act of 2006 has been a watershed in Indian democracy by increasing transparency on how the government carries out the function of governing and policy decision making. The Act has been well received despite its teething troubles and the crucial question of whether to include file notings in the purview of the act. Those troubles aside, in principle, the legislation will go a long way in introducing a greater degree of transparency, which as stated is the hallmark of any democratic system. Moreover, the act also empowers the citizen, who is now armed with a law, which can hold his government and public servant accountable for actions and decisions taken. However, one wonders whether the present law can be modified to include another pillar of democracy, which of late has played the role of an errant boy, in our current set-up – the media.

The opening up of the media space has ushered the floodgate of information that is now available to the viewer or reader. This increased media presence has played a crucial role in highlighting issues that were earlier overlooked or un-reported. Gone are the days when the staid old Doordarshan would be the only source of information to the general audience. The major disadvantage of the state run media was that accusations were offer laid on it for helping or supporting the ruling dispensation. Now, with channels and newspapers galore the government and all major sections of the ruling elite maintain a healthy fear of being exposed by the media for their acts of omission and commission. But this relentless pursuit of information and news has reached a breaking point of sorts. 24-hour news channels and tabloid sections of newspapers are looking for ‘news’ where none exists. Many a times one wonders whether what one is watching is exactly news or the twisted views of voyeur being caught by the lens of a camera. Shameful news stories have appeared where media persons have actively encouraged people to immolate themselves so that that they can get that famed ‘exclusive’. The word exclusive itself has become the most abused term in the media, with even a press conference of someone important being passed of as an exclusive. Also, one has noticed an increased sense of ‘dumbing’ down of the media and stories.

Journalists argue that we are addressing an audience that watches such news stories and ultimately if there is a demand then there is a news channel that is willing to fulfill it. The argument is flawed as the media prides itself in educating the ordinary viewer about what is the state of the nation and also let them know about how our country is being run. Surely showing biased news stories and writing motivated columns does not uphold to that principle. However, any mention of any sort of regulation on the media is downrightly termed as a move to curb freedom of expression. No democratic setup will ever advocate any sort of move that undermines the very principle of democracy – freedom of expression. But many still raise eyebrows on how motivated stories appear at the whims and fancies of journalists. If the truth has to emerge then the personal views of the journalist are immaterial, that should be left for the opinion makers and the edit page, not for ‘news’. Today, if one flips through any channel all one sees are views and not news based on hard facts. The media needs to encourage self-regulation to improve its lot before the pursuit of TRP’s and eyeballs makes them redundant. Madhu Trehan, a veteran journalist from the ‘Newstrack’ days recently spoke out on a panel discussion on NDTV about the way editorial space in a national daily was being “sold”. Such alarming views and that too from the fraternity itself warrants some sort of attention and frankly grave introspection.

Traditional media will also have to come to terms with the fact that people interested in the news are now relying on non-conventional innovative ways to get their daily dose. News blogs, podcasts, independent news portals and citizen journalism are fast becoming the core source of getting the news. In a way, if traditional media does not get over its biases on these newer information outlets the cat will be out of the bag on facts overlooked and facts not reported as they exist. A case in point has been the recent Barak controversy involving George Fernandes and now the UPA and the Navy. When the CBI charge-sheeted Fernandes all hell broke loose on how outdated and flawed the Israeli Barak missiles were and how good the indigenous Trishul system would have been had it not been discouraged by Fernandes. Now, with the Trishul project itself in the doldrums the media is blaming the DRDO on the long delays and the virtual redundancy of the Trishul as it has been in the planning for the past 20 odd years. A more prudent analysis of the weapon systems in question was never delved into and only quick sound bytes from disgruntled members on both sides were aired and passed of as facts. To top it all what has been appalling has been the manner in which the current Defense Minister and the UPA have been blamed for doing a flip-flop on Barak and Trishul. Never was analysis done what are the requirements of the Navy and the armed forces in general on its needs and how the two systems fared when squared off against one another. Quite frankly, this bandwagon style of journalism will soon start getting flak with people relying on independent sources to get to the truth.

There is not denying the fact that the strong criticism against the media does not in any way take away the good that is being done by them. The Jessica Lal case and now the Mattoo verdict has been the work of the media to make the stories of the slain remain centre stage in public consciousness. Also, a replacement for the media by news blogs and web portals is still a way off with most people in the country relying on the good old ways of getting their news. But with each passing sting operation and media hype around issues that seem to die a mysterious death, the media houses need to do a thorough analysis of where they stand today. Fact checking and the veracity of sources is a must in any story. Lessons need to be learnt on the Valerie Plame issue that rocked the media and polity in the US, where New York Times journalist Judith Miller had to spend time in jail for not revealing her source that put Plame at a serious risk of bodily harm. An intense debate has raged since on what constitutes as journalism in the interest of the people and what amounts to biased reporting that can harm people. Such introspection is acutely needed amongst the luminaries in the field before some sort of legislation on how transparent the news organizations are in making news stories is forced on them or worse still before the news starts looking like an episode of Saas-Bahu and nothing more.

2006-10-09T00:40:00.000-07:00

Paging Republicans : Troubled Times Ahead

The political temperature at Capitol Hill in Washington has been red-hot since the revelations of former Congressman from Florida, Mark Foley’s child abuse scandal and charges of pedophilia surfaced on ABC News service a few weeks back. The charges against Foley relate to him sending obscene and sexually suggestive instant messages to pages in the Congress. Pages are teens employed as interns at Capitol Hill for them to carry out courier services and also to expose these young minds to how the legislative government machinery of the world oldest democracy works. As it turns out, if the charges are proven, the Page system itself will need an overhauling to avoid teens from becoming victims of prying eyes and thoughts of Senators and Congressman. What has been most appalling in the Foley scandal, has been the fact that Foley himself was a ‘champion’ against child abuse and was on various sub-committee’s to introduce legislation to ensure child safety against domestic violence and sex crimes. Foley’s own involvement in the crime he was trusted to prevent augurs very badly for all politicians on both sides of the divide on how to tackle the menace of child abuse in this day and age of the internet and unsupervised web exposure by children.

But like all scandals this too has taken a political hue. Understandably, the Democrats have been accused of raking up this issue when the House of Representatives is to undergo mid-term elections on November 5th. Republicans, with their backs against the wall are hitting back at the Democrats by accusing them of having prior information of Foley’s outrageous behaviour but keeping a lid on it till election fever sweeps the country, thereby, exposing more Page’s to further possible abuse by Foley. Democrats, now sensing that they can wrestle back the Congress from the Republicans have found another pet issue of moral values that the Republicans champion and are turning the tables with the Foley fallout. They have also insisted that the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert knew about the instant messages and salacious e-mails prior to its expose by ABC. They are also demanding that the speaker owe up to his oversight and resign. Hastert, the longest serving speaker, is himself in a bind, for if he resigns it is a tacit acceptance of his guilt, on the other hand, if he stays the issue remains at the forefront of national debate and media attention. The sitting Congressman and Senators who are fighting to save their seats are avoiding the controversy and detaching themselves from any knowledge of the alleged crime. Some have asked for Hastert to resign, if found guilty of complicity or abetting, charges which are far from proven at the moment. But for Hastert, the former wrestling coach, these are testing times.

President George Bush has been vocal in condemning the Foley scandal and has been quick to distance himself from the politics of Capitol Hill. But he too knows that the scandal will have leave a mark on the mid-term polls and it is likely that the core support base of the Republicans – evangelical Christians and Christian conservatives will have doubts on the high moral ground the republicans talk about during election but fail to live up to those values once in office. Also as Democratic Senator Joe Biden, articulated on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, even without the Foley scandal, the Republicans were in trouble with the War in Iraq, the Iran nuclear issue, North Korea and on domestic issues of rising gun-related crime in schools and oil prices. President Bush has been hitting back at critics of the Iraq war and have accused Democrats of advocating a policy of “cutting and running”, he insists, that the American Marines should stay the course and get the job finished. While, one would not advocate an immediate pullout of the quagmire that has become Iraq, a change in policy is urgently required. Former Secretary of State, James Baker, who has just returned from a fact-finding mission in Iraq, has painted a grim picture about the country’s future and its present sectarian strife. Baker’s report echoes what analysts and politicians alike have been saying for the better half of this year, that Iraq is in a low-grade civil war. Increased troop levels or the division of Iraq on sectarian autonomous zones remain the two credible options. While the former is the needed to save the country from breaking-up the latter offers a more long-term peace prospect. Both these notions have been ignored by the Bush White House, and with a lack of an alternative strategy Bush’s own political standing has been severely diminished. With talks on the resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue seeming further from resolving Bush’s foreign policy will have a severe effect on the Republican party’s chances.

Moreover, Bush has always painted himself and the Republicans as the moral lighthouse of America. Bush’s tough line on abortion and on embryonic stem cell research have won him accolades from the Christian right. But, with the Foley scandal severely eroding the party’s moral standing, it seems that the last bastion of the Republicans that has remained their stronghold in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, finally seems to have been breached. It is unlikely that the Republicans will hold on to the House of Representatives and that can severely effect the maneuvering space the new Democrats controlled Congress will offer to Bush. There are tough times ahead for the Republicans and the Congress who are wondering whom to blame – Foley, the current whipping boy or Bush, the perennial one.

2006-10-01T23:43:00.000-07:00

The Joint Anti-Terror Mess

The key outcome at the recently concluded NAM summit Havana, Cuba, at least the one generating maximum interest in India, was the meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Their subsequent joint statement and the setting up of the Joint Anti Terrorism Mechanism also raised the importance of their summit meet. The ambitious programme will soon see Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies and other key players in defense and internal security ‘jointly’ manage terror and share its pre-attack intelligence to safeguard on both sides. The move marks a paradigm shift in India’s approach to terror and more specifically towards the Pakistan sponsored variety of cross border terror.

In committing to this one mechanism we have virtually given the General the carte blanche he so desired to declare and prove to the world that he is indeed a victim of terror rather than the propagator – as is conventional wisdom of the day. What better opportunity to show himself as a man of peace than show up for a photo-op with the premier of Pakistan’s arch nemesis and that too conveniently days before meeting the most important man on the planet President Bush. The obvious questions that come to mind are – whether India really thinks that this new initiative will change anything considering years of talks followed closely by failures? Or more pertinently has India lost out on its most dependable weapon against Pakistan – branding it as a sponsor of state terror and global jihad.Empirical wisdom would suggest that this sort of a terror mechanism is advisable with more friendly countries rather than those with which a state has active hostilities. To draw a parallel it is impossible for the Israeli army to share intelligence with say Lebanese or Syrian intelligence for fear of the fallout it may have on its own troops and citizens.

The prime minister has taken a rather lenient attitude towards the Pakistan. He commented that even if this mechanism fails, it would still be worth a try. While no Indian in his right mind would oppose such overtures by their prime minister to look at ways to solve the long standing dispute with its neighbour, it is debatable how easy it would be for India to pull out of such an agreement and also what would define it as a failure. Is the success of the proposed mechanism time-bound with a certain “ all deals are off” after a fixed expiry date or will India retract in case of another terror atrocity that may bear the fingerprints of Pakistan or the ISI? These questions or what are the finer details of this arrangement have not been spelt out by the prime minister or his special representatives and they do need immediate attention. More clarity and a debate to trash out a consensus would have been prudent and quite frankly credible rather than pursuing a change in the government’s foreign policy, which clearly caught the nation’s polity off guard. One hopes and shares the debatable optimism of the PM in wanting this mechanism to prevent terror attacks, but a more nuanced look does unfortunately favour cautious optimism at best currently.The potential to gain politically and diplomatically from this peace initiative seems to benefit Pakistan more – at least on the face of it. The General has finally gotten around to dealing with India on the single most contentious issue by being on the negotiating table as an equal rather than from apposition of having to constantly prove his anti-terror credentials. The mechanism assists Pakistan in multiple ways. First, with the ISI and RAW sharing the same intelligence or the lack of it, will give Pakistan some knowledge of what we know and what we don’t. Secondly, by implementing such a mechanism Pakistan can for the first time raise the issue of alleged state sponsored terrorism by India legitimately to the world. Islamabad’s constant pandering to the world that India is fuelling the uprising and separatists in Balochistan have been received the world over with a generous pinch of salt. But the current proposed mechanism allows Pakistan to raise the issue, albeit a rather non-existent one at that, to us and to the world, thereby, painting both nations with the same terror brush. Thirdly, comments from Musharraf and the former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan have raised the question of separating religion from extremism. They argue that if terror acts carried out by Muslims can be type-cast as Islamic fundamentalism or the jihad, then surely the terror activities of the LTTE in Sri Lanka should be branded as Hindu terrorism. This rather clever ploy by Musharraf indicates his insistence on separating religion from terrorism so that he can re-jig the terror activities in Jammu and Kashmir as a freedom struggle, rather than the now accepted view that Jammu and Kashmir is a front line against Islamic fundamentalists.

But the more pressing repercussions of this arrangement needs to be addressed to the prime minister and the foreign office mandarins in South Block. What has significantly changed on the ground that the Indian establishment suddenly feels it’s ok to talk intelligence with Pakistan? Barely months after the dastardly and terribly devastating 7/11 bombings of Mumbai, has Pakistan really changed? The often referred to trust deficit between the countries still remains, so what are the merits of committing to Pakistan with a lack of deliverables being demanded from Pakistan? The prime minister has dismissed aspersions on the mechanism as “rumours”, but then what are the real facts have not been spelt out by him in his recent press meet in Nainital. If, as the PM suggests, this mechanism is actually a “test” for Pakistan, then why does the Indian side not have a clear roadmap towards its early implementation. Also, as discussed, the most important aspect of setting up this mechanism is when to claim it to be a qualified success or a failure.

Doubts will remain in this latest confidence building measure which follows after a longish gap from the previous set of CBM’s involving people to people contact across the border. With the government under pressure from the opposition and foreign policy gurus alike, it seems like the government has to lay down a credible road map soon. Whether Musharraf will be able to walk away with more than he bargained for remains to be seen, but more significantly, this mechanism may just prove to be the litmus test for the success or failure of the prime minister’s policy on Pakistan. Importantly, it will also determine his future legacy as prime minister and as the leader who finally made peace or the one who let the general off the hook.

2006-09-16T00:35:00.000-07:00

Pope's Panzer attack on Islam

Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to Germany got mired in deep controversy over his speech at the University of Regensburg by passing controversial statements on Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. While the remarks were not strictly his, but that of a 12th Century Byzantine emperor, the timing and the potential to cause angst amongst the Muslim community is quite evident. Further, the words from the leader of the Christian church on Islam were ill-timed and also irresponsible considering the political realities of the day. Also, by quoting an ancient figure of centuries ago, the Pope has seemed conservative and detached from realities and outlooks of the 21st Century. This at a time when the strain between the two biggest religions is clearly showing, with allegations on both sides arguing that the other is promoting extremist values to pursue a goal of greater penetration of their religious beliefs the world over – Muslims with their Jihad and Christians with their military pursuits. Moreover, the wider Christian world has always told its Muslim counterparts to part ways with extremism and give up its jihad against the western world. Christians have always argued that the likes of Al-Qaeda and the vitriolic jihadis are distorting the true picture of Islam. But when the leader of the church equates Islam with violence and Islam’s spread “by the sword of the faith he preached”, the ‘true’ mindset of Christians seems to be reflected. This duality in approach is sure to feed into the hands of religious extremists who are going to use this as another example of Christians wanting to spread their ‘crusade’ in the Muslim world by passing derogatory remarks on their religion and its Prophet.

Also, the entire incident raises another important question about the Christian church and the values it is propagating to its followers. Many find the Church as regressive and even oppressive, seen as propagating values that are disengaged with the world we live in. The Church’s approach towards AIDS and the use of condoms, its attitude towards abortion and allegations of forced conversions have left many followers disagreeing with its leaders. Further, with secularism spreading its wings in the former stronghold of Catholicism, Europe and America, the Vatican has always felt the need to find more followers in the third world and also to reiterate the core values of Christianity. In the process a great debate was initiated at the time of Pope John Paul II’s death on whether to elect a new Pope with new modern and moderate values, or to check the diminishing numbers of the faith by reinforcing the core Christian values. In the end, the latter won (at least according to the cardinals in the Vatican) and Joseph Ratzinger, the Panzer Pope, named after the German tanks of the 40’s, was elected to lead the Church into the 21st century. His recent comments on Islam are sure to re-ignite the debate on whether the election of Ratzinger was beneficial in the long run. Surely, a debate is needed to ensure that leaders of the two biggest religions in the world are representative of the beliefs of the majority in their respective religions. While the recent years following 9/11 have made Islam to be seen as a religion of ‘extremism’, the Pope validating such a notion only serves to harm inter-religion harmony apart from making the actions of a fringe few seem like the belief system of Islam itself.

The debate needs to initiated in the Islamic world itself, where they have to realize that today their religion is being hijacked by extremists and being passed off as the holy word. If the Muslim community extols the virtues of peace and brotherhood as the hallmarks of its religion, its perception in the non-Muslim world is the diametric opposite. A through deliberation on part of the community leaders and leaders of all major Islamic sects need to spread the idea of education and peaceful prosperity along with their religious beliefs as the urgent need of the hour, rather than bloodshed and violent confrontation that has unfortunately become synonymous with Islam.

2006-09-08T06:58:00.000-07:00

The Blair Legacy : Is there any?

After months of speculation embattled British Prime Minister Tony Blair finally announced his retirement plans. The most successful Labour leader in history has decided to step down within the next 12 months, without getting into a specific time frame about his imminent departure. His unpopularity and the public growing mistrust in his leadership was evident with the way several junior ministers resigned sighting a lack of confidence in his leadership. Also, poll after poll have shown that the Blair run is finally over and that its last lap is being seen by the world. Growing criticism for his domestic and foreign policy, most notably in Iraq, ensured that whatever chance of his political survival were dashed once his heir apparent the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, virtually asked Blair to give a set date or face a government meltdown. So, ten years into New Labour and three consecutive election victories later, has the dark shadow of Iraq doomed the premiership of one of the charismatic and at the same time reviled leaders of contemporary world history?

In 1997, Tony Blair was a 44-year-old leader who charmed the British public with lively public debates in Westminster and looked every bit the pretender to the throne. The only one who could challenge the 18-year reign of the ruling Conservatives. Ten years on and the wrinkles and furrows are not only earned by the age and travel, but also by the controversial and polarizing policies of his government. Any discussion on Blair would be incomplete without Iraq. Undoubtedly, the most divisive and unpopular policy of Blair has been on Iraq. His popularity and standing as a leader reached its nadir with the manner in which Blair aligned himself with President Bush and by extension Bush’s neo-con agenda. The unenviable title of a poodle was bestowed on Blair thanks to his unwavering support for the trans-Atlantic friendship. This rather one sided friendship seems to have ended badly not only for Blair but also for George Bush, who is seeing rock-bottom popularity polls on his leadership. The complete surrender of Britain’s foreign policy to the US was at show in the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg earlier this year when a mic accidentally left on recorded the exchange between Bush and Blair. Blair was seen taking Bush’s permission on whether to intervene in the recently erupted Israel-Lebanon conflict. Bush summarily dismissed his viewpoint and told him that Condoleezza Rice would handle it. The world saw the beginning of the end for Blair that very day. Further, his failure to ensure a clear exit strategy for British troops in Iraq further brought mistrust into the British voter about Mr. Blair’s intention in Iraq. His recent siding with the Americans on the Middle East crisis and his line on Iran’s nuclear ambitions have made him a virtual spokesperson for American rather than British foreign policy.

Apart from the obvious unpopularity of the war in Iraq, domestic policies and intra-party scandals have rocked the Blair government. Blair had won election after election with his “New Labour” mantra following the “third way” to break away from the traditional Socialist leanings of the Labour party to the more centrist and market oriented New Labour. However, a decade on, many of his policies saw the virtual bankruptcy of the National Health System, fewer spending on education and further increase in crime. More importantly, the ethnic strife in Iraq was not the only sectarian worries on Blair’s mind. The aftermath of the war in Iraq and the 7/7 bombings, along with unpopular measures like racial profiling have further alienated the diverse minorities that make up the UK. His regime saw the rise of home grown jehadis along with race violence and increased ghettoisation of the Muslim community. How Britain plans to tackle this after Blair and still into the war on terror remains to be seen. Also, a spate of ministerial goof ups and scandals left Blair red in the face many a times. Be it Deputy Prime Minister’s John Prescott’s love affairs or that of former Home Secretary David Blunkett, or the embarrassing situation of having your Foreign Minister Jack Straw openly dissenting on the Prime Minister’s foreign policy, Blair has seen it all.

But whatever the criticisms, Blair always will have a special place in most people’s minds. The very thought of young dynamic leaders, though plenty in the West, are a rarity in our part of the world. Every Indian looked at Blair and wished the day would come when young leaders decide the future of an emerging India. Also, under Blair, India did get special attention, and relations have been good with Blair at the helm. While Blair, may have decided to quit, ten years into the New Labour dream, the world is watching whether it will be more of the same under Gordon Brown. Or will history repeat itself and, after a 10-year Labour reign, will another young 40 year old, this time from the Tories, David Cameroon, beat the ‘boring’ Brown to live the “New Tory” dream. One shall see.

2006-09-02T01:06:00.000-07:00

Student Politics : Time for Reform

Student bodies and unions have been in the news for all the wrong reasons of late. The thuggery on display in Ujjain took the life of a professor who was opposing holding student body elections. The intimidation and eventual assault on the professors was covered by the media and one got to see first hand the ugly side of student politics. Student politics came of age in the seventies with many movements demanding rights and for socialist causes. Over the years the ‘student’ in student bodies was replaced with politicians of all colours and hues. With all major national parties having their student bodies, the politicization of student unions is complete. The national parties are using student politics as laboratories to extend their influence and also delve into a young vote bank for electoral gains. They have also in the process inculcated the sterling qualities of politicians – voter intimidation, violent confrontations, booth capturing, horse trading and of course corruption and the use money power.

A case in point is the Delhi University elections, which have been reduced to a farce with candidates each year proclaiming to do the exact same thing in their manifestos year after year. While many may argue that the one year tenure is too little to achieve anything concrete, the question arises that all these years could the student leaders not concentrate on this single issue and get a more workable time frame rather than fight over petty issues? Also, would it not be better if students raised issues on say the right to access the Internet or introducing newer courses etc. rather than indulge in arm-twisting and false promises?

The utter degradation of student politics was not exactly a hidden truth, but recent farcical election campaigns and violence has given it the necessary scrutiny. Student bodies are meant to represent student’s rights; at least that is what they claim. But when issues of student welfare and the very future of students is in question, all student parties are found wanting. During the recent reservation demonstrations, not one student political outfit came out in open support of the movement. It was left for umbrella groups to raise the concerns and demonstrate their angst. The government on its part had appointed former Chief Election Commissioner, J.M Lyngdoh, to propose election reforms for student bodies and statutory regulations on them. Lyngdoh recommended a cut in election spending and bans on posters etc. These steps work well for the election procedure itself, but the essence of the argument lies in what is the role of student politics and bodies in the first place? Is their role to be testing ground for a future in politics? Is it a fast way to grab power and legitimize thuggery? Is it to make the years spent by a student in college fruitful? Or is to voice student rights? To find one answer to that may be naïve, but the answer sure lies somewhere in between. Despite the fact that one may be critical of student bodies one cannot deny their role in a democracy and especially in a democracy involving young people. So one can also argue that the politics of today is now being reflected in the student version of the same as well. What student leaders see on television screens, with mud slinging and chair throwing, they feel is what politics stands for. So in an ironical sense the student leaders behavior is a creation of the politicians themselves.

One would be happy to see mature and reason based student politics but at the same time it is the job of the ‘big’ politicians to show them the way. Surely, one cannot be critical of students and not of the politicians who are pumping money and absurd notions about politics into these leaders. But with the tragic death of Prof. Sabbarwal there is a clarion call for reforming student politics, who does this – the government, the students, or college administration is debatable, but the time has come to rid ourselves of manufacturing goons and criminals in the name of student empowerment.