About Me

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Siachen Sell Out?


The 49 mile long Siachen Glacier forms part of the watershed that separates Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. The Indian Army has been deployed on the commanding Saltoro Ridge since 1984. The line of deployment is known as the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL). India and Pakistan appear to be currently negotiating troop reductions in Saltoro. The agreement might entail a redemarcation of the ground position. It is difficult to assess the proposed deal as the negotiations are being conducted in stealth.


M.K Narayanan, National Security Adviser to the Manmohan Singh administration indicated that India and Pakistan were about to reach agreement on the mutual reduction of troops and troop withdrawal in Siachen. In contrast, the Indian Army Chief of Army Staff, General J.J. Singh has expressed concerns that "We have conveyed our concerns and views to the Government and we expect the composite dialog between the two countries will take care of all these concerns" and added that "demilitarization is not on the horizon"


The United States might have facilitated discussions on the vexed subject. It is in American interest that Indo-Pakistan relations improve so that the strategic objectives of the United States can be better met in the extended region. Any settlement on Siachen should not compromise India's long term interest to ensure a corridor to Central Asia. India needs to retain its presence to prevent further consolidation of the Sino-Pakistan axis across the Karakoram pass.


This is not to deny the value of mutual troop reductions in Siachen. The current deployment of troops is not cost effective. However, the rumored redemarcation of the AGPL (even if accepted by Pakistan) is not in India's interest. Writing in the Asian Age, former Vice Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. Vijay Oberoi says that "while the Indian Army is not averse to vacating the AGPL, if the nation so desires, but wants that what it secured with great effort and many sacrifices, and which it has held safely for the nation, in the face of enemy action, as well as the severity of the climate and the treacherous terrain, for the last 22 years, should not be sacrificed at the altar of expediency, merely to notch up one more CBM towards the ephemeral peace process". He added that "if India withdraws from Saltoro and Pakistan captures it, the situation then becomes irreversible".


Nehru had erred in "conceding" ground control over Baltistan and Gilgit to Pakistan in 1948. That terrain had enormous geopolitical significance given its proximity to Central Asia. Mrs. Gandhi recaptured Kargil - one of three districts of Baltistan - in 1971. India occupied Siachen in April, 1984. Pakistani troops under a certain Brigadier Musharraf unsuccessfully endeavored to undo this in 1987 and in 1999. Recall that before the Kargil aggression of 1999, Siachen was an unoccupied zone since 1949 with the positions of LoC clearly delineated as per the 1972 Simla Agreement. Yet the Pakistani Army had no scruples in violating these borders. There is a good reason not to trust them today since the mastermind of that war is still the ruler of that country.


There are reports that India might even drop its insistence on marking a AGPL in Siachen before withdrawing to show its 'eagerness' for the peace process during Prime Minister's upcoming visit to Pakistan in July. This is an unwise move devoid of strategic considerations. It is in India's long term interest to annex the restive region of Baltistan when Islamabad is preoccupied with domestic insurrections and Beijing focused elsewhere. Any compromise on the line of control could foreclose future options. Moreover, New Delhi can not forego its de jure claim on the territory.


The reported deal benefits Pakistan. Pakistan currently has 80,000 troops stationed in Balochistan to crush an insurrection there. It has another 80,000 troops tied down in the North West Frontier Province/Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Its military is stretched and it needs to urgently redeploy troops. Islamabad now requires a stable eastern frontier to tackle domestic issues to its west. India can use this to leverage better terms. For one, it should not concede on the line of control in the Siachen segment. While Pakistan would find this difficult to accept, India is not pressed for time.


The lack of transparency vis-a-vis the current negotiations is disturbing. India is a democracy where the executive is held accountable to the elected legislature. The authorities in New Delhi need to take Parliament into confidence on an issue of such importance. The Government must realize that its only constituency is the local one, not foreign interests.


Further reading:


Subhash Kapila, India: Government set to repeat strategic blunder of Aksai Chin in Siachen?,South Asian Analysis Group, 2006.


Vishnu Makhijani, From Haji Pir to Siachen, it is deja vu for the Indian Army , IANS, 2006.


Co-authored by Jaffna and Cynical Nerd


Thursday, April 27, 2006

Nepal On The Mend?

Via Stratfor:

What India will likely do is employ a two-pronged approach in dealing with the Maoists. Existing fissures among the Maoist cadres over the future of the movement are waiting to be exploited by New Delhi and Kathmandu. The personal hatred between Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai, another leading figure in the party, is widely known, and their differences will only deepen once the group faces the critical issue of disarming and merging with the Nepalese army in exchange for political representation. By reopening these fissures, India can work with the Nepalese government to divide the Maoist movement and undercut its ability to deadlock the entire country through blockades and attacks.

And the Maoists may not be the only ones suffering from internal divisions. It is questionable whether the unprecedented unity of Nepal's political parties will succeed in holding out for much longer without the king as a common enemy. Moreover, the political parties want guarantees from India that they will not come under attack from the Maoists down the road. As the parties proceed with their own political agenda, their alliance with the Maoists is likely to come under serious duress when the Maoists begin to feel like they are being sidelined out of the political process. With King Gyanendra slowly retreating into the background, the difficulties in maintaining the alliance among the seven parties and weakening the Maoist movement will only add to New Delhi's task list for maintaining order in its own backyard.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Sri Lanka

Known for its tenacity and grit, the LTTE is now at the cross roads. It fought fierce conventional battles, captured major army bases and significant swathes of land, and attacked Colombo in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This affected investor confidence, tourism and forced the incoming Government to enter into a Norwegian mediated cease-fire with the LTTE in February 2002. The cease-fire is now at breaking point.

While the LTTE retains the ability to wreak havoc with the Sri Lankan economy, it has few real options. For one, it has been increasingly sidelined in the international arena given its human rights record and terrorism. Australia, Britain Canada, India and the United States have designated it a terrorist outfit. The European Union is likely to ban it should the current cease-fire be broken. This restricts their international fund raising capability. Financing constraints would prevent a return to prolonged conventional warfare.

The fighting capacity of the LTTE that once allowed it to take on the Sri Lankan military might now be dented. Reports suggest that Indian intelligence had instigated the revolt of Eastern/Batticaloa LTTE cadre led by Karuna in March, 2004. The Northern command of the LTTE crushed this but in doing so lost one of its most capable strategists. Karuna defected to the military. The LTTE has a Northern/Jaffna leadership that controls the sea tigers, the incipient air tigers, its intelligence, its finances, its international procurement and its mercantile shipping. However, many of the foot soldiers hailed from the poverty stricken East. While the LTTE has not lost the East, its ability to recruit fighters there has been dented. It now faces a shortfall in cadre.

The close ties forged between Karuna and the Army under Indian sponsorship resulted in snipper attacks on LTTE leaders. The LTTE retaliated with claymore mine attacks on army convoys. The military responded with the murder of Tamil civilians. Last afternoon's attempted assassination of the hard-line Army Commander deep within the fortified Army Headquarters in Colombo and the subsequent Sri Lankan Airforce bombardment of Tamil villages in Trincomalee indicate that we might be in for turbulent weather.

The LTTE retains the capacity to attack Colombo and destroy investor confidence. Any terrorist attack in Colombo would send the economy into a tailspin. Even if there were to be a return to conventional war due to trigger-happy hard-liners on either side, both parties realize that they lack the means to sustain it. There would be the inevitable peace talks after a swift territorial redemarcation of areas controlled by either side. As in the past 25 years, Sri Lanka remains in a stable equilibrium of continued uncertainty.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Nepal At The Edge

Nepal just might have been rescued from the brink as King Gyanendra announced at 11.30 PM yesterday that he had reinstated the lower house of parliament. He apologized for those killed in three weeks of pro-democracy protests which he went on to describe as a "people's movement". The monarch had transferred executive power to the political parties last Friday. The Seven Party Alliance of Parties dismissed that as insufficient demanding the restoration of the legislature. He has now done so. Pressure from the European Union and the United States in light of the intensifying protests helps explain the King's about turn.

By contrast, the Indian role has not been altogether benign. The Indian Foreign Secretary - Shyam Saran- announced over the weekend that India had abandoned its "Twin Pillar" policy of supporting a multi-party democracy and a constitutional monarchy. He added that it was for the Nepalese to define their political system. New Delhi appears to have had a tacit understanding with the Maoists.

The Maoists might still consolidate their hold in the emerging political vacuum. To quote, United States Ambassador Moriarty "My real concern is that the successor Government may end up being dominated by the Maoists. The Maoists under the current situation swing a lot of weight because they have the weapons and the parties do not".

Others confirm the not so hidden clout of the Maoists. Maoist cadre had directed the street demonstrations in Kathmandu and provided the manpower. The SPA had no real control on the streets. A significant number of the protestors appeared to be from Maoist controlled rural areas.

Hundreds of Maoists had stormed the Nepalese town of Chautara 75 miles east of Kathmandu attacking the local hospital, the post office, the education office and administrative buildings yesterday. The Maoist insurgents destroyed the communications network. Military reinforcements had to be airlifted in. Kathmandu was under curfew for five days. Protestors had already occupied the 17 mile long ring road. The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) had announced plans to march to the royal palace today to declare a "Democratic Republic". Let's hope that the politics of reconciliation now sets in.

The Maoists control one third the territory of Nepal. They have set up local government authorities. They have built a 55 mile road through the mountains that might eventually link up with China. The Maoists collect taxes. They run collective farms, riverine fisheries and livestock. They retain links with Indian Maoist rebels in Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Telangana.

New Delhi blundered with its sponsorship of Tamil militant groups in Sri Lanka in the 1980s. It has no coherent policy in Nepal either. The current deal in Nepal owed more to European and United States proactiveness than to any initiative in New Delhi. It might be intended to contain the Maoist insurrection and ensure political space for Nepal's moderates. Let's hope that the restoration of democracy last night leads to peace and economic growth in the Shangri-La that once was Nepal. We need to watch events today to see whether this would indeed materialize.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Chinese civil nuclear plans

The United States Congress passed legislation in 1985 to permit full civil nuclear cooperation with China. The Congress approved this notwithstanding official testimony that China had then been covertly assisting Pakistan's nuclear program. China became a NPT signatory in 1992. The Sino-American civilian nuclear deal was delayed by 13 years. It took effect in 1998 after the Clinton administration lifted the sanctions imposed in the aftermath of the Tiananmen protests.

Reuters had an interesting blurb on the subject datelined April 21, 2006. Chinese leaders view nuclear energy as a counter to increased reliance on hydrocarbon imports, not to mention the environmental pollution in Chinese urban areas. China intends to quadruple civil nuclear capacity by 2020. And yet, this would only provide 4% of Chinese energy needs. Opponents warn of challenges that include waste disposal and the steep cost of new generators.

China had opted to rely on a mix of American, Canadian, French and Russian civil nuclear technology designs. The objective was to keep China up to speed on the latest development in the technology realm in different countries. However, the nine nuclear reactors currently in operation barely contribute 2% of the nation's power today. This is a mere one-eight of the global average. The plan is to raise this to 4% over the next 15 years by building 30 new reactors. Many doubt whether this target could be met given the difficulty in constructing 2 major reactors each year. The reliance on fossil fuels is thus set to remain.

The Chinese are moreover pursuing designs that use less uranium as international uranium prices have tripled since 2004. The financial challenge ahead is daunting and China hopes to tap into the power utilities listed in its share market to help fund the nuclear expansion. This would be an interesting development to watch.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

China Hu?

Even as President Bush greets President Hu at the White House, Washington's elite wake up to Jim Hoagland's essay reminding them of Bush's Indian Ally -- our visionary Prime Minister.

Great timing indeed.

Supporting Democracy in Nepal

This blog has long supported the idea of India being the enforcer of political modernity in our neighborhood.

This means recognizing the simple fact that India's emergence as a superpower is constrained by our (politically and literally) bombed out neighborhood. Also, that our long term interests are in alignment with those of the people in our neighboring countries -- not with their frequently autocratic rulers.

Therefore, in Nepal, we should be squarely with the people demanding democracy. The King's fortune has run out and there is little gain in including him in the next chapter of Nepal. It's time for him to retire in exile.

What we need to do is to find a way of sidelining the Maoists. This is possible if India can persuade the Nepalese Army to join the democracy bandwagon -- and the political parties to accept an India-backed Nepalese Republic in exchange for their pledge to crush the Maoists.

Hopefully, this is precisely the prescription Shyam Saran and Karan Singh have taken to Kathmandu.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Jawahar Lal Nehru: Random Thoughts

These thoughts on Jawahar Lal Nehru are based on personal reflection. I do not refer to any one publication. Many would disagree with me. Moreover, I am not a historian. Let me begin by mentioning that I am not awe-struck by Nehru. India would have been a stronger, more prosperous and enlightened country had he not governed for so long. And yet, Jawahar had his strengths and leadership.

The unstinted support of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on two crucial occasions explains Nehru's rise in the political firmament. The Indian National Congress had three leaders of towering national stature in 1920 - Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Mohamed Ali Jinnah and Subhas Chandra Bose. Gandhi sponsored Jawahar due to the close links he had with Jawahar's father. Jinnah left the Indian National Congress although he retained ties with the party until 1929. Subhas Chandra Bose veered in his direction. Gandhi nominated the 40 year old Jawahar as President of the Indian National Congress in 1929. The Indian National Congress had its presidential elections once again in 1946. Several state units nominated Patel for the position. Gandhi asked Patel to withdraw from the race to allow Nehru to run uncontested. This paved the way for Jawahar to become independent India's first Prime Minister in 1947.

Nehru's legacy of constitutionalism and the rule of law was profound. This Kashmiri barrister educated at Harrow, Cambridge and Inner Temple nurtured the institutions of liberal democracy in India. He ensured the resilience of the judiciary, the legislature, the federal structure, the cabinet and the civil service. India today is one of three countries in the Asian continent to have had such institutional continuity - the other two being Israel and Japan.

Nehru had a contradictory persona which makes one grudgingly respect him. Highly westernized, he made the transition to a Gandhian nationalist. An authentic liberal, he supported socialism. He opposed his father in demanding a complete break with Britain. His nationalism compelled the colonial authorities to imprison him several times in contrast to Ambedkar and Jinnah. Nehru's international outlook in the pre-independence era revealed a cosmopolitan world view. The support for the Irish Freedom Struggle, the passionate endorsement of the republican cause in the Spanish civil war and support for Iraqi nationalism in light of the incessant aerial bombing by the Royal Air Force was noteworthy.

And yet, Jawahar was a flawed leader. While Sardar Vallabhai Patel successfully integrated the multitude of problematic princely states (such as Hyderabad, Junagadh, Manipur and Travancore) into the Indian Union, Nehru messed up the Kashmir issue. He dithered when action was called for. He imposed conditions on the Kashmir Maharajah when Pakistani irregulars were ready to invade in 1947. Pakistan captured large tracts of land. Indian troops fought back and were poised to retake the strategic terrain of Baltistan and Gilgit when Pakistan called for a cease-fire. Nehru accepted the offer when his military was on the winning streak. He referred the matter to the United Nations unnecessarily internationalizing it. The issue remains unresolved to date. Indira Gandhi did her bit to recapture lost ground by retaking Kargil and Siachen in 1971 but was stopped on threat of United States intervention.

Nehru's China policy was tarnished for similar reasons. The Chinese People's Liberation Army captured Beijing in October, 1949. It moved into Tibet in 1950 and occupied Lhasa in 1951. The Tibetan administration tabled a motion at the United Nations appealing for international assistance. Nehru's delegation prevented its inclusion in the UN agenda. He withdrew the Indian garrison from Lhasa in 1950 and accepted Chinese suzerainty over 471,700 square miles of Tibet without extracting commensurate Chinese recognition of Indian claims on Kashmir.

China was not a member of the United Nations at that point. Nehru defended China in international fora while Beijing stealthily annexed 15,000 square miles of territory in Aksai Chin in 1957. India was caught unprepared. China invaded India's 32,000 square mile North East Frontier Agency in 1962 and crushed Indian resistance. Nehru helped establish the Nonaligned Movement with much ado. However, not one Non Aligned Country supported India's case vis-a-vis China. It was left to the Kennedy administration to do so.

Much has been written on Nehru's policy of socialism, centralized planning and the stifling of private initiative. India had the proverbial 2 to 3% Nehruvian rate of growth in the 1950s and 1960s. The fact that 40% of India's population continues to live on less than US$ 1 a day is an indictment on the Nehruvian vision for economic progress.

Jawahar focused on heavy industry, engineering and technology. He established the Indian Institutes of Technology. And yet he failed to build primary schools, health clinics and rural roads to educate the poor and provide decent health care in India's poverty stricken hinterland. India's record vis-a-vis literacy, infant mortality and maternal mortality was amongst the worst in the developing world. These human indicators demonstrated the failure of Nehruvian social policy. His administration had conceptualized the policy of reservations to help integrate India's scheduled castes and tribes into the national mainstream. But he did little in way of substantive investment on the ground to raise the competitiveness of the Dalit youth.

India's agricultural sector fared poorly under Nehru. Despite the anti-American rhetoric, he was dependent on American food aid. It was Mrs. Gandhi who ushered in the Green Revolution, achieved self-sufficiency in food production and turned down PL 480.

Nehru failed to introduce the uniform civil code - that ultimate test of modernity. An Indian woman's right to divorce, inherit and sue on marital grounds is constrained by the religion she is born into. Nehru fell short of the imperative of gender equity and national integration. There needs to be a level playing field applied to all Indians regardless of religion.

Jawahar alienated the likes of Ambedkar, Jayaprakash Narayan, Purushottam Das Tandon, Rajagopala Chari (rugger playing charlie) and Shyama Prasad Mookerjee. India would have had a different history had Nehru not been in power for 17 years. Term limits on the lines of the United States have their value. But alas India had been introduced to the politics of dynasty! And a controversial one at that too.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Nepal

Via Stratfor:

In an attempt to split the SPA (seven party alliance) and Maoists, the king announced in a Hindu New Year address April 13 that he would call national elections and consult with the country's political parties. The promise of elections was viewed as a complete farce, and the opposition's calls to replace the monarchy with a constitutional assembly only grew louder.

Politically, however, India has no easy options. Supporting King Gyanendra -- an autocratic monarch who has lost practically all standing with his people -- would be futile, but New Delhi also cannot afford to sit by and allow the monarchy to be overthrown, since that would provide an opening for the Maoists to take power. Since the king disbanded parliament, India has been taking its time to formulate a strategy on Nepal, but it's now clear the clock is ticking and spillover is possible. Recognizing that Nepal's fate depends primarily on the mindset of its generals, India's attention likely is fixated now on the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA). Senior army officials feel that New Delhi, formerly one of its chief suppliers, ditched the army when it cut off military aid to Nepal following the royal takeover. If New Delhi and the RNA can make peace, India might begin to draw the SPA away from the Maoists with the promise of RNA backing to topple the monarchy.

Though a military coup is likely in the cards for Nepal, such political maneuverings by the SPA and India would need time to develop. Meanwhile, the dark cloud of emergency rule hovers.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Heartburn In Pakistan

If the Indo-US deal is so terrible for India, how come there is such stupefied heartburn among Pakistani commentators?

Daily Times' Khalid Hasan is even reduced to parroting the lunatic Vladimir Zhirinovsky's vile outbursts against Condi Rice. Lost your own tongue, Khalid?!!!

Nepal Update

The Nepalese monarchy is in deep crisis. The Maoists have positioned themselves to be the lead political actor in the weeks to come. New Delhi lacks a policy to address this. Nepal is adjacent to Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. The spectre of a Maoist corridor between Nepal and Telangana is real.

The Maoist insurrection started in 1996. 13,000 have died since then. King Gyanendra dissolved the legislature in 2002. He suspended the All Party Government in 2005. The situation has since worsened. As the Chennai-based "Hindu Newspaper" put it, "A novice in politics and statecraft, Gyanendra is all tactics and no strategy". It is clear that he needs to either hold free and fair elections or abdicate.

The Seven Party Alliance of Political Parties (SPA) had signed a political compact with the Maoists in November, 2005 and March, 2006 to (i) initiate a nationwide agitation against the autocratic monarchy; (ii) restore parliament; (iii) form an interim administration: (iv) conduct elections for a constituent assembly; (v) and initiate the process of constitutional reform. The goal is "Loktantra". The word could either mean "people's rule" or outright "republic". The Seven Party Alliance is led by the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal - Unified Marxist-Leninist.

India helped negotiate the deal. This is surprising given the extent of anti-Indian sentiment held by the Maoists. India until recently had the "twin pillar strategy" that it believed held the key to stability in Nepal. The "twin pillar" entailed the co-existence of a constitutional monarchy and elected government.

The United States on the other hand had pressured the SPA not to enter into the agreement with the Maoists. Washington expressed concerns that the deal had failed to commit the Maoists to abandon the campaign of violence. Donald Camp, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, stated in the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific at the House of Representative Committee on International Relations that the United States had only two goals in Nepal i.e. the (i) restoration of multi-party democracy; and (ii) prevention of the Maoist take over. This vision is in New Delhi's interest given the anti-India record of the Maoists, not to mention the Maoist campaign of murder, torture, bombings, extortion, kidnapping and the recruitment of child soldiers. It is in India's interest to coordinate with the United States in this instance.

King Gyanendra is increasingly unpopular. The nationwide agitation has had its effect. The King held Municipal elections on February 8, 2006 to test the waters. The call for a boycott by the SPA and the Maoists succeeded with only 20% of the electorate casting their vote. Only 15% of the seats were contested while 54% of the seats had no candidates. The Maoist campaign of terror and high levels of popular disaffection explain this.

The latest civil uprising is now in its tenth day. There is now grass roots support for the anti- government demonstrations. The elderly, women and children defied nationwide curfews to come out to the streets and protest. They clashed with security personnel. Students, teachers, professionals, doctors and civil servants joined them to barricade roads, burn tires and chase away the police. Lawyers took to the street. Journalists did the same. There are increasing calls for the monarch to be exiled.

Nepal is a landlocked country. It is one of the ten poorest countries in the world. Kathmandu is heavily dependent on India for trade, transit and riparian rights. It is heterogenous with numerous tribes, ethnic groups and dialects. The Caste Hill Hindu Elite that comprise 31% of the population is dominant. The need for a smooth transition in Kathmandu from an inept autocracy to a representative democracy is in India's interest. The days of the monarchy appear numbered unless the King were to dramatically shift gears. A Maoist takeover is therefore possible in the upcoming political vacuum. This is not in India's national security. The deafening silence in New Delhi is therefore perplexing.

Friday, April 14, 2006

Reservations

The perennial Indian obsession with reservations is back and, unsurprisingly, generating a great deal of heat.

Personally, we are strongly opposed to quotas and reservations -- these are highly inefficient and profoundly immoral means of trying to correct real and perceived inequities in our society.

Having said this, we see little value in expressing stale lament over Government's attitude on this subject. Our politics have long since fallen to the seductive and poisonous embrace of brazen populism -- this strategy is a vote-winner, hence nothing else really matters.

Frankly, what reservation opponents ought to be doing is not protesting Government's predictable senselessness, instead constructively engaging the purported beneficiaries of its myopic approach on why we think this is counterproductive.

Given our democracy and our demographics, persuasion is the only real way to win this valid battle. This long-term process will be costly -- we'll probably lose IITs, for example, as the genius factories that they used to be -- but this would be a cost worth bearing if we ultimately convince the vast majority of Indians that reservations are profoundly violent to the spirit of our equalizing constitution.

If we fail, unfortunately, so will India.

Darkness In Delhi

Via New York Times, Attack at Main Mosque in New Delhi

This joins the long list of disgraceful assaults on our places of worship -- from Akshardham to Varanasi to, now, the Jama Masjid, we've been witnessing an unrelenting assault on basic human decency.

Hopefully, all Indians will join together to condemn this latest barbarity.

And Then There Was Light

Via BBC, Natural light to reinvent bulbs

A light source that could put the traditional light bulb in the shade has been invented by US scientists.

The organic light-emitting diode (OLED) emits a brilliant white light when attached to an electricity supply. The material, described in the journal Nature, can be printed in wafer thin sheets that could transform walls, ceilings or even furniture into lights.


The OLEDs do not heat up like today's light bulbs and so are far more energy efficient and should last longer. They also produce a light that is more akin to natural daylight than traditional bulbs.

Cool! Bye, Bye, bleeping tubelights!!

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Nuclear Deal - Rejoinder

This blogger is astonished by the intense negativity in the linked post.

The criticism of the Indo-US nuclear deal has become rather personal -- brazenly accusing Dr. Singh of selling out India's security interests. Sample this from the linked post:

Nonetheless, the charges persist that Manmohan Singh might have traded long term national security for immediate commercial benefit.

First, if such an ugly and personal charge is to be made, why not make it directly rather than hiding behind the construct "charges persist".

Second, to cite Yashwant Sinha and Vajpayee ji as voices of dissent here is laughable -- these folks were pretty close to making a similar deal themselves, then suffered an electoral reverse. Now, their protestations sound like "sour grapes". Afterall, what's Vajpayee ji's legacy? Incompetence in Gujarat, cowardice in Kandahar, the irrelevance of BJP.

Debate is good. Mudslinging is not. Many issues that are being raised relate to steps India has not taken (e.g., agreeing to fissile material cutoff, abiding by CTBT, etc.), nor intends to take. Why then all the alarmist talk?

Nuclear deal: Addressing the domestic concerns


We respond to the comments on Pragmatic's post on Condoleeza Rice's testimony. There has been little clarity in New Delhi on the precise contours of the Indo-American nuclear deal. The ongoing US Congressional deliberations led Brahma Chellaney (here and here), Yashwant Sinha and AB Vajpayee to reopen the debate in India. Manmohan Singh had failed to provide sufficient detail to the Lok Sabha. He now needs to answer the concerns raised in light of US Congressional deliberations.


Condoleeza Rice indicated that the Bush administration will push for a South Asia-wide moratorium on the production of fissile material. China rejected the draft Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and so did the United States. A formal regional cap will compromise Indian nuclear options vis-à-vis China. Critics counter that India’s interest will be affected once Chinese nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles start lurking in Indian waters. Furthermore, the United States Congress plans to insert riders into the deal mandating India not to test nuclear weapons. The United States Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Washington therefore has no right to enforce it upon India just as it keeps sub-critical tests to further perfect its large arsenal. Some in the US Senate like Sen. Sarbenes propose that India enter into an Additional Protocol with the IAEA before the Indo-American deal is made effective.


A clause on the Congressional resolution states that “A determination under subsection (b) shall not be effective if the President determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive device after the date of enactment of this Act.” The pro-deal advocates say that India has in any event announced a moratorium on nuclear tests. The opponents stress the need for options should China or Pakistan test a weapon overtly or covertly. In any case, it should be up to India to retain the flexibility whether to respond with further tests or not. This should be a national decision, not an international obligation.


American sanctions will then be inevitable since a non-P5 country testing a nuclear device will not be eligible for trade in civil nuclear, weapons and high-technology items in keeping with the US Arms Export Control Act and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. This has happened before when the US stopped fuel supplies to the Generic Electric built Tarapur plant when India tested a weapon in 1974. The present amendment to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act makes this explicit with respect to India. The Government of India should explain the ramifications of possible US sanctions and the constraints this would pose. There needs to be a public debate on the issue.


India might still be guaranteed fuel through other Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) members. This was reiterated by no less than US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns. Nevertheless, India should lobby hard to obtain full membership with the NSG to ensure sanction free supplies - like our earlier post on getting Uranium from South Africa, Niger or Brazil. Other NSG heavyweights like France and Russia will have to be lured with the prospects of buying reactors from their countries. These countries will then not antagonize India for fear of forgoing a commercial nuclear deal.


Another issue is the nature of safeguards and the IAEA Additional Protocol. Obviously, India will not agree to an intrusive full scope safeguards which is applied for non-Nuclear Weapons State (NNWS)/NPT signatories. It just has to prove that none of the fuel from the civil reactors receiving foreign fuel/assistance ends up in its military program. This is still more stringent than the free pass given to NWS like China despite their massive proliferation activities. The United States in fact agreed to sell Westinghouse reactors to China with technology transfer to prevent Russian or French export firms from entering into the lucrative Chinese market. American business interests reigned supreme in China’s instance. India conversely is being set against more stringent standards.


Critics allege that India will not be recognized as a formal nuclear power. India will not get open access to natural Uranium supply. It will only be able to import externally pre-determined amounts and that too under international supervision. Advocates claim that the deal would address India’s energy needs in a crucial period of economic take-off. India is poised to grow at maximum speed for which access to cheap energy is vital – nuclear included. They add that the current nuclear deal is a stop-gap arrangement (till the Thorium cycle takes over) to make sure that Indian economic growth is not constrained.


Nonetheless, the charges persist that Manmohan Singh might have traded long term national security for immediate commercial benefit. India would replace its dependence on international hydrocarbon reserves bought and sold in the international market with a dependence on the NSG. The international price of coal has continued to drop in the past 20 years. The price of Uranium has increased in the last 18 months.


The United States clearly benefits from the deal. For one it caps India’s strategic options. Condoleeza Rice also revealed in a recent op-ed that India had agreed to import 8 nuclear reactors by 2012, at least some of which were to be from the United States. Brahma Chellaney writes that each 1,000 MW reactor would cost US$ 1.8 billion which is 23 times the annual budget of the entire Indian nuclear power industry! The deal would revive the US nuclear power industry which has not received a single reactor order in more than 30 years.


There are no easy answers to such questions of national importance. However, a debate is needed in the public domain to ensure that the concerns raised are effectively addressed. India’s national security interests demand that.


Co-Authored by Jaffna and Cynical Nerd


Global Warming Alarmism

Via Opinion Journal, MIT atmospheric science Professor Richard Lindzen opines:

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Barelvis Targeted In Karachi

Via Stratfor:

An explosion took place during evening prayers April 11 in Nishtar Park in Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, where Barelvi Sunni worshippers had gathered to celebrate the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed. At least 70 people were killed and scores more were wounded.

That this attack targeted a gathering of Barelvi -- who constitute the majority of Pakistan's Sunnis -- and that it occurred during the celebration of the Prophet Mohammed's birthday, Eid Milad-un-Nabi (or Mawlid, as it is referred to in the Middle East), indicates the likely perpetrators were extremist Deobandi and/or Ahl-i-Hadith militants. Followers of these groups strongly oppose such marabout-type practice, and reject all religious ideas and acts that were not practiced by the Prophet Mohammed and his companions.

This is the second attack in Pakistan targeting Barelvis; the first was the suicide bombing against the Bari Imam shrine in Islamabad in 2005. The timing and target will create a significant backlash against groups that share the views of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and could open up the mainstream Sunni versus Wahhabist fault line that divides the Pakistani Sunni community.

At Long Last

Via The Hindu, Canada labels LTTE a terrorist organization

Monday, April 10, 2006

What Global Warming?

Here's news for global warming panicmongers. The Telegraph reports that global warming stopped in 1998!

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Silence On The Blog

This blogger has been away for a couple weeks -- traveling and working and not blogging at all.

Sorry about that.

But you know sometimes, as bloggers, we find ourselves reading and writing a great deal, therefore thinking we know what's going on. But, on reflection, this is much like placing one's ears on a cold steel rail -- listening for the distant murmur of oncoming trains -- and thinking we have a good window on the world.

One's really got to get away to regain perspective.

So, this blogger's been in the Middle East -- and thinking about Iraq and America and, of course, India. Thinking more than reading or writing.

You know, we had a train fire in 2002 that killed nearly 60 people and pogroms followed in Gujarat. In Iraq, suicide bombers seemingly take out more people daily and, yet, we do not see rioting in the streets of Baghdad. What does this say about the inner strength and patience of the Iraqi people -- and what does it say about our own?

In America, there's a huge political battle being waged over illegal immigration -- mainly from Mexico. The contours of this battle match our own challenge from similar migration out of Bangladesh. Americans are frustrated as Indians are -- and, yet, for all the walls we build on our frontiers (which we support, don't get us wrong), such migration can likely only be slowed, not stopped.

We ran into a man from Karachi on a flight from Dubai. He complained that Americans do not let direct flights originate in Pakistan for security reasons (surprise, surprise!) -- he tried to reason that North Indians have little in common with South Indians, that Indian Muslims are structurally deprived, and that trade with India would be bad for Pakistan. Wasn't a fun flight at all.

The Indo-US nuclear deal is likely in trouble. President Bush is very unpopular these days and is unlikely to get much of his agenda through the US Congress. The key thing to remember is this: given how the world is shaping, US will need India even more tomorrow than it needs us today. They might turn away the deal today, but will be back -- then, we should up the ante and demand a better deal. The current deal, which we've supported, would then be the minimum marker on what India would rightfully expect -- that would be just fine from our point of view.

Blogging resumes now. Our ears are back on the cold steel rail. Looking forward to our ongoing conversation.

Iraq: Random Thoughts

April 9 marks the third anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The insurrection in Iraq persists unabated and the country is at the brink of civil war. The attacks on the Shi'ite majority of 60% continue each day. The civil turmoil conceals the ongoing political process, one that is noteworthy despite shortcomings. There were elections to a constituent assembly, the deliberations on drafting the constitution, the referendum on that constitution, subsequent general elections and the political maneuvers linked to cabinet formation. This is a political process at work. However, the prime shortcoming is that the post-election process is confined to the Green Zone. The vast majority of Iraqi citizens are not part and parcel of the process.

Law and order have deteriorated outside the Green Zone. The civil administration is under stress except for the Kurdish areas in the North. Armed gangs roam the streets and a person can be bumped off a fee to settle private scores. Suicide attacks on American military installations and Shi'ite civilians continue. Iraq is perched on a precipice.

There might be four reasons for this.

For one, the Sunni Arab minority of 20% has always governed Iraq since the days of the Abbasid Caliphate in the 8th century. The Shi'ites have never ruled. The thought of democracy, of one person-one vote and majority rule is anathema to the vast majority of the Sunni population. The prospects of a Shi'ite administration governing them is something that will never be accepted by the ordinary Sunni citizen.

The United States is partly to blame for this. Their strategy to date, right or wrong, is perceived as undermining Sunni interests. A nation is based on a confessional or ethnic compact of sorts, one that the United States may have unwitting weakened by its repeated attacks on the Ba'ath. While certain Sunni legislators might have been bought into the political process, the vast majority of the Sunni civilians have not.

The insurrection has significant support in Sunni triangle. Rebels are housed in private residences, suicide lorries packed with explosives are parked in Sunni homes the previous night near the intended target, wounded militants are rushed for treatment by doctors who provide their services for free and many wounded are nursed in mosques. An insurrection can not be crushed if it enjoys such massive civilian support.

Two, significant segments of the Islamic world perceive the West as leading an offensive against their traditions, their culture and their religion. The clashes between immigrants and locals in Europe, the cartoon controversy, the Sydney riots, the responses in the aftermath of any terrorist attack be it in Bali, Istanbul, London, Madrid and New York, not to mention the dual policy towards Iran and Israel have widened the gap between the West and Islam. Fundamentalist youth in several countries volunteer to take on the Americans in Iraq. Chechens blow themselves up in Baghdad for the greater cause of Islam. The Iraqi insurrection is fueled by activists from different countries motivated by a hatred of the West.

Three, my sense and I could be wrong here, is that elements in the Sa'udi establishment and those of neighboring Persian Gulf emirates support the Sunni insurrection just as they had financed Saddam Hussain against Iran in the 1980s. The Sa'udis belong to the Wahhabi school of Islam that views the Shi'ites as Kufr - i.e. infidels. There is no love for them. The thought of a Shi'ite led administration in Iraq next to an already significant Shi'ite regime in Iran disturbs them. I suspect a flow of funds from the Gulf to finance the uprising in Iraq.

Four, let us not forget that the kingdoms of the Persian Gulf rest on a fragile political base. Their have their own Islamist political activists keen to establish a more purist Islam in their kingdoms and overthrow a royalty perceived to be un-Islamic, corrupt and allied to the United States. I would not be surprised if some in the elite circles of Riyadh prefer that such activists be tied down in a never-ending conflagration in Iraq rather than move to the Hejaz.

The outlook for a return to peace in Iraq is remote. The United States appears caught in quick-sand that it can not extricate itself from. Many an Islamist militant would wait it out for a change in guard in Washington in November, 2008. And until then, the embers would continue to burn and flame-up intermittently to the detriment of the ordinary citizen of Mesopotamia.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Tibetan Blunder

I had posted an article on Tibet in October. I now refer to Brigadier J.P. Dalvi, "Himalayan Blunder: The Angry Truth About India's Most Crushing Military Disaster". Orient Paperbacks: New Delhi. I refer to his paragraphs on Tibet and Krishna Menon.

In 1904, British India under Lord Curzon organized a military expedition to Tibet. The largely Indian troops under Colonel Younghusband entered Lhasa and forced Tibet to accede to the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty. Britain thereafter controlled Tibetan foreign policy. The Anglo-Chinese Treaty of 1906 confirmed the 1904 Treaty. Lord Curzon urged that London provide de-jure international recognition to Tibet as an independent state. The Home Government remained non-committal.

In 1910, Qing dynasty China invaded Tibet and forced the Dalai Lama to flee to India. The Dalai Lama returned to Lhasa in 1912 and drove out the Chinese garrisons. Tibet proclaimed its independence in 1913. In 1914, Britain entered into an understanding with China to divide Tibet into two regions i.e. Outer Tibet and Inner Tibet. Outer Tibet had an area of 471,700 square miles. China agreed not to send troops into Outer Tibet. Inner Tibet meanwhile was incorporated into neighboring Chinese provinces. In 1914, Britain entered into an agreement with Tibet not to recognize Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. In 1921, New Delhi informed China that it intended to deal directly with Tibet bypassing China.

During World War 2, Tibet opened its own Foreign Affairs Bureau. It declared its neutrality when Japan invaded China. In 1947, a Tibetan trade delegation traveled overseas on Tibetan passports. Brigadier Dalvi quoted Jayaprakash Narayanan to mention "China has not exercised suzerainty, sovereignty or any other form of control over Tibet at any time from 1912 to 1950 when Chinese Communist Forces invaded the country." Jayaprakash Narayanan had attacked Nehru "The worldly-wise, who by their lack of courage and faith, block the progress of the human race not towards the moon but towards humanity itself. These persons have a myopic view and forget that nothing stands or can stand still in history - not even the Chinese Empire".

On October 7, 1950, the Red Army entered Tibet. K.M. Panikkar, the Indian ambassador to China and a left-wing ideologue, advised Nehru not to oppose the annexation of Tibet. Sardar Vallabhai Patel opposed this recommendation sending a letter to Nehru on November 7, 1950 urging that Nehru not recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Brigadier Dalvi reproduces the letter which makes for painful reading giving the remarkable percipience of Patel. I quote Patel "Chinese irredentism and Communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the Western powers. The former has a cloak of ideology which makes it ten times more dangerous. In the guise of ideological expansion lie concealed racial, national and historical claims".

Tibet appealed to the United Nations on November 23, 1950 for international assistance to oppose Chinese annexation. The Indian delegate to the United Nations opposed the inclusion of the question on the agenda. The issue was dropped on India's insistence. Sardar Vallabhai Patel died in December, 1950. The Red Army entered Lhasa only on September 9, 1951. The Tibetans revolted in 1959. The Chinese crushed the revolt and the Dalai Lama fled to India.

This assumed strategic significance. Tibet had exercised ecclesiastical authority over the North East Frontier Agency, Bhutan, Sikkim, parts of Nepal, Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia. China used this to lay claims to large tracts of land on India's northern frontiers and Mongolia's southern borders.

Brigadier Dalvi quoted Commandant General W.D.A Lentaigne, a distinguished British General with an impressive war record, that India could have forestalled the Chinese sequenced annexation of Tibet in 1950 and 1950. The General had predicted that China's next step would be to annex large tracks of land in Ladakh and the North East Frontier Agency. History proved him correct!

Brigadier Dalvi then describes Krishna Menon. Menon had studied at the London School of Economics. He obtained his Ph.D. in Glasgow. He was linked to influential British socialists such as Harold Laski and Bertrand Russell. Menon was closely associated with the far left of the Labor Party. In 1938 he toured Spain, then in the throes of civil war between the leftist Republicans and rightist Nationalists, arguing the case for the left.

Brigadier Dalvi mentions sources that described Menon as a Fabian Socialist or outright Communist. Menon had repeatedly advocated the case for the People's Republic of China at the United Nations in the late 1950s in the face of strenuous opposition from the Eisenhower administration. Indo-American relations plummeted to a new low.

You Go, Girl!

US Secy of State, Condoleeza Rice, heads to Capitol Hill today to argue in favor of the US-India nuclear deal and address concerns from lawmakers. We will watch her testimony with interest.

Another article details the dealmaking behind the scenes. We credit Rice and Bush with the vision to reshape the world and the courage to move away from tired, old thinking. We credit the Indian negotiators for holding firm on its strategic program. This deal is good for India, the US, and the world.

Meanwhile, we are disappointed by some members of the India caucus who oppose this bill before the debate has even begun. These fair weather friends must be weeded out. Support on this bill must be the litmus-test of friendship with India.

India, Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers

It is difficult to summarize a complex sequence of events in a single post. There are many versions to a story. Each side has its own interpretation. The views below are expressed in my individual capacity. I have simplified the narrative in the interests of brevity.

The word "Sri Lanka" is derived from the Sanskrit "the resplendent isle". The country has an area of 25,000 square miles and a reported population of 19 million. The country has not had a complete census since 1981. In that census, the Sinhalese constituted 72.9% of the population, the indigenous "Sri Lankan Tamils" constituted 12.6%, the Muslims (a separate ethnic group that largely speaks Tamil) constituted 7.4%, while the "Indian Tamils" (who were the descendents of indentured labor who had immigrated in the 1800s) constituted 5.6%.

Sri Lanka obtained its independence in 1948 - six months after the British withdrew from India. Inspired by Jinnah, the indigenous "Sri Lankan Tamils" had demanded weighted representation in the legislature in the immediate prelude to independence. The ethnic polarization had begun. Sri Lanka proceeded to strip the "Indian Tamils" of their citizenship in 1949. The then Government of Don Stephen Senanayake was unabashedly pro-American.

Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike campaigned on a platform of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism in 1956. He won the elections and replaced English as the official language of the country with Sinhalese. Many "Sri Lankan Tamils" vociferously opposed the move and demanded parity of status between Sinhalese and Tamil. The parallels with East Pakistan in the 1950s were remarkable.

Assassinated by a Buddhist monk in 1959, Bandaranaike was eventually succeeded by his wife, Sirimavo Bandaranaike. In the Sino-Indian border dispute in 1962, she cautiously edged towards the Chinese position on the case. She managed to persuade India to take back half the island's "Indian Tamil" population. Lal Bahadur Shastri was only too keen to wean away Sri Lanka from the growing Chinese links in the aftermath of the 1962 Sino-Indian war.

1971 marked the Sinhalese youth insurrection driven by unemployment and landlessness. Mrs. Bandaranaike crushed the revolt and declared emergency. An estimated 20,000 Sinhalese youth had died. Pakistani ships and planes refueled in Colombo enroute to Dhaka in the Bangladesh war of independence in 1971. Sirimavo introduced affirmative action to encourage Sinhalese intake into the university system and Government jobs. This in turn precipitated the Tamil revolt.

Junius Richard Jayewardene won the elections in Sri Lanka in 1977. Indira Gandhi expressed concern at the pro-American tilt of Sri Lankan foreign policy in 1979. The United States had sought refueling facilities for its airforce and navy in Sri Lanka, had reportedly expressed interest in the strategic port of Trincomalee, and had requested to set up a Voice of America relay station to beam news to the Indian subcontinent. India viewed the VoA station as an intelligence gathering device. This alarmed Mrs. Gandhi all too aware of the rapprochement between the United States and China, the traditional close links between the United States and Pakistan, not to mention the coup in Bangladesh in 1975 that overthrew the pro-Indian Mujib-ur-Rahman.

The anti-Tamil pogroms in 1977, 1981 and 1983 had led to the death of many Tamils, arson attacks on Tamil businesses and the flight of Tamils from Sinhalese majority areas of the island. Tamil youth groups responded with bomb attacks, assassinations and murder of Sinhalese. Bank robberies financed Tamil militancy. Several traveled to Lebanon, Libya and Syria for training. Mrs. Gandhi saw this as an opportunity to out-flank the increasingly pro-American Jayewardene regime. She proceeded to support Tamil militancy to avoid the perceived encirclement of India by pro-American regimes. This had the added advantage of ensuring electoral support in Tamil Nadu that had been inflammed by events in Sri Lanka.

India armed, aided and abetted several Tamil groups in the early 1980s. The LTTE was the only group that chose to be independent of Indian influence. Its leadership had temporarily moved to India and had received some training. But it soon returned to the island unlike other militant groups.

Both the Sri Lankan military and the Tamil Tigers carried out mass murders of Tamil and Sinhalese villagers. There were acts of terrorism. Colombo gradually lost control of Jaffna. It turned to Israel for support which trained its military and adviced the arming of Muslim home guards to neutralize Tamil militancy in the island's east. The Muslim home guards attacked Tamil villages in the East and the LTTE responded with brutal murder of entire Muslim congregations at prayer. The situation had grown out of control.

Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated in 1984. Rajiv Gandhi attempted to enforce a negotiated settlement on the island. Jayewardene acquiesced by agreeing to a land mark constitutional amendment in 1987 that recognized Tamil as an official language on par with Sinhalese. He devolved power to Tamil majority areas through the establishment of provincial councils. India in return had to enforce the cease-fire. India proceeded to disarm Tamil militant groups. It succeeded in all instances except with regards to the Tamil Tigers. The Tigers took on India with ferocity.

India lacked a unified command and control structure in the island. The Indian military was caught between the politics of the Ministry of External Affairs, the state government of Tamil Nadu and India's Research and Analysis Wing. Wounded Tamil Tiger cadre were shipped to Tamil Nadu for medical treatment while simultaneously fighting India. The LTTE imported arms through Tamil Nadu to sustain its battle against Indian forces.

The presence of Indian troops in the island precipitated the second Sinhalese youth uprising between 1987 and 1989. The Australian Human Rights Commission had estimated that 60,000 Sinhalese youth died fighting the Jayewardene administration in protest at the perceived capitulation of the Government to India.

Jayewardene ended his two term limit in 1988. Premadasa succeeded him and promptly demanded the withdrawal of Indian forces. The LTTE entered into a strategic alliance with the Premadasa regime. Colombo and the Tamil Tigers declared a cease-fire. Colombo armed the Tigers to fight the IPKF. The LTTE imported weapons and ammunition through the port of Colombo.

Rajiv had lost the elections in 1989 and V.P. Singh agreed to the Premadasa demand to withdraw. The last Indian troops left the island in March, 1990. 1,000 Indian soldiers had died between 1987 and 1990 fighting the Tamil rebels in the island. The LTTE was to later boast that they had defeated the world's fourth most powerful military.

The LTTE resumed hostilities against Premadasa in June, 1990. The LTTE assassinated Rajiv Gandhi in the run-up to the 1991 Indian elections to forestall the return of the Indian military to the island. It assassinated Premadasa in 1993. This brought one chapter of the island's murky and bloodied politics to a close.

The LTTE and the Sri Lankan military continued to fight massive conventional battles in the late 1990s. 65,000 people are estimated to have died in the Tamil insurrection. The LTTE formed a naval wing, an incipient air wing, an illicit mercantile shipping wing and illicit real estate operations overseas to raise funds. India abandoned open intervention in the island's politics and opted for more subtle behind-the-scene maneuvers.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

The Marxist Betrayal

These are random thoughts of mine based on previous reading. I do not refer to any specific text per se.

The history of the Marxists in India has been one of repeated betrayal of the country. They have let India down time and again when it came to the clash of interests with the Soviet Union or China. Their political loyalties lay outside.

M.K. Gandhi broad-based the Indian National Congress to include the teeming masses belonging to all ethnic, caste and religious groups in the anti-colonial freedom struggle. To quote B.R. Nanda "From a three day Christmas week picnic of the upper-middle class in one of the principal cities of India, it became a mass organization with its roots in small towns and villages". The Indian Marxists never had this rural base. There's was an urbanized elite leadership.

Stalin entered into a pact with Hitler in 1939. The understanding reached between the two was for Germany to annex western Poland while the Soviets annex eastern Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Finland. It was a territorial demarcation of war spoils between Europe's two most expansionist and authoritarian regimes. The Community Party of India then supported the independence struggle with a series of blitzkrieg trade union action, shut downs, gheraos, strikes and sabotage which crippled industrial activity. The railway workers, the sailors, the dockers and the textile workers belonging to the Marxist trade unions led the strikes. The intent was to weaken the colonial hold on the Indian economy and open a third front against Britain given that Stalin and Hilter had joined on an anti-western platform.

However, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941. German troops had reached the outskirts of Moscow by December that year. The Soviet Union had suffered unparalleled destruction and did an immediate policy reversal to join the allied war effort. The Communist Party of India changed track in tandem. It decried the Indian freedom struggle as weakening the international struggle against fascism, a movement which the Marxists had initially allied with. The Communists pulled out of the freedom struggle. M.K. Gandhi had launched the Quit India Movement in the summer of 1942. The Communists turned informants and helped the colonial authorities to identify and imprison the entire leadership of the freedom struggle. The Indian Marxists supported the British in this crucial interlude given the new Soviet-British alliance against Hitler.

M.K. Gandhi and the Congress hierarchy were behind bars between 1942 and 1945. The Congress had convincingly won the 1937 elections while the Muslim League had suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the Congress in all Muslim majority provinces of pre-partition India except East Bengal. While the Congress leadership had been imprisoned, Jinnah was free to organize the Muslim League and strengthen its holds over sections of the Muslim population of British India. The fortunes of the League rose between 1942 and 1945. The Marxists meanwhile supported the ideological case for partition arguing that the Muslim population was entitled to self-determination. This was interesting given the Soviet Union's own suppression of Muslims in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Stalin had deported the Chechens and Tartars to Siberia en-masse!

The British partitioned India in 1947. Pakistan immediately expelled its Marxists who fled to India!

Nehru, a self-proclaimed socialist, did not oppose Communist China's annexation of Tibet in 1950. Tibet had an area of 471,700 square miles. China was then fighting the United States in the Korean war and Nehru could have easily retained the colonial-era Indian military presence in Lhasa and consolidated it further in order to ensure Tibetan independence. Furthermore, Nehru supported Peking's cause in the United Nations. China responded by annexing the 15,000 square mile Aksai Chin in what remained of Indian-held Kashmir in 1957. Pakistan had earlier annexed Baltistan, Gilgit, Hunza and Muzafarabad that had an area of 32,000 square miles.

The Nehru administration was not even aware of that development in Aksai Chin while his Marxist Minister of Defence, Krishna Menon continued to support China in international fora such as the United Nations. Taiwan then occupied China's seat at the Security Council. The Indian Marxists later defended Chinese actions in Aksai Chin pointing out that enclave's historical links with Chinese-held East Turkestan, now called Xinjiang.

China invaded the North East Frontier Agency with an area of 32,000 square miles in 1962 and then quite as suddenly withdrew its troops. The road to Assam was open and Nehruvian India lay prostrate. The Indian Marxists defended Chinese actions on the alleged grounds that NEFA had historical links with Tibet. Not one of them questioned China's initial hold on East Turkestan and Tibet on historical grounds to begin with. China had no valid territorial claim on either under modern international law. China detonated the nuclear device in October, 1964. The Indian Marxists welcomed that step as part of the global war against international imperialism! Yet, when India exploded its second nuclear device in May, 1998, the Indian Marxists opposed that as an unnecessary belligerence.

The Indian Marxists have repeatedly let India down. They do not have Indian national interests at heart. They currently control the Departments of History in major Indian universities such as JNU. With that platform, they are able to twist the past to suit their nebulous aims in the present. I refer here to Habib Irfan, Harbans Mukhia, K.N. Panikkar, R.S. Sharma, Romila Thapar and Sarvapalli Gopal. Other individuals such as Arundhati Roy, Barkha Datta, Brinda Karat, Mani Shankhar Aiyer, N. Ram and Praful Bidwai in India, and Meera Nanda, Sarmila Bose, Sugato Bose and Sumantro Bose overseas continue to occupy the intellectual and media space in a disproportionate manner. They leverage this vantage point to weaken India!

Japanese Defiance

The blog had covered incipient Sino-Japanese tensions in a previous post. Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi had defied China on several issues.

Cabinet spokesman, Shinzo Abe is increasingly viewed as the front runner to succeed Koizumi in September this year. Mr. Abe accused China today of destabilizing Asia with its military expenditure. He reported that Chinese military budget had registered a two-digit annual growth in the past 18 years. He blamed China for having a democracy and human rights deficit and denied the existence of the rule of law in that country. This was a harsh attack on China. Mr. Abe urged that the foreign ministers of Australia, India, Japan and the United States convene each year given shared threat perceptions and democratic values.

Another candidate in the run-up to replace Koizumi is Taro Aso, Minister of Foreign Affairs. Not to be outdone, he reiterated that China's military build-up was a threat to Asia. The Japanese Defence Agency had released a study last month on Chinese military expenditure. It had expressed concern of the allegedly under-reported increases in Chinese defence expenditure estimated at US$ 28 billion by the World Bank in 2003.

A major point of contention between China and Japan has been Prime Minister Koizumi's symbolic visits to the Yasukuni Shinto Shrine that honors Japan's 2.5 million war dead each year. China had sharply reacted to such visits alleging that Japan had not renounced its history of aggression directed at China during World War 2.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Iranian Missiles

Iran has been in the news over its reported nuclear program. On March 31, 17,000 elite revolutionary guards began naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Iran tested the Fajr-3 missile that day. The missile is intended to avoid radar and hit several targets with multiple war heads. Iran tested a second missile on April 2 firing a high speed torpedo intended to deter surface and submarine threats to its shipping. The new torpedo, the "hoot" is reported to have a speed of 223 miles per hour. It is reportedly as quick as the world's fastest submarine missile - the Russian made Shkval developed in 1995 - in fact three to four times faster than a normal torpedo. Teheran announced that it would test another missile today and more tomorrow.

Iran already possesses the ballistic Shahab 3 missile that can hit targets within a range of 1,200 miles. This includes Israel. Shahab 3 is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Iran has invested in a nascent space program. It is still unclear whether these steps represent genuine advances in military technology or are mere gestures of defiance. They are likely however to provoke the United States whose Naval Fifth Fleet is based in the Persian Gulf.

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Freedom of Religion and the Middle East

Associated Press had an insightful article on the freedom to choose one's religion in the Middle East and North Africa . Unlike India, Japan, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand, almost all states in the Middle East and North Africa criminalize Christian missionary activity. Algeria, Tunisia and Turkey are the only three countries in the region that permit an individual to convert from Islam to any other religion.

Lebanon is a secular state that once had a Christian majority. The Christian population appears to have now declined to 35% due to an exodus. Muslim religious authorities forbid the change of religion in Lebanon and will not legalize a marriage between a Christian man and a Muslim woman. The reverse is allowed since the Prophet Mohammed had 12 wives, one of whom was a Christian. Muslim Lebanese women travel to Cyprus to marry a non-Muslim man and register this marriage upon their return to Lebanon.

The Shari'ah considers the conversion of any Muslim as apostasy that is punishable by death. According to Palestinian law, Muslim women who seek to divorce their husbands who convert to Christianity have only to report the matter to a Palestinian court to have the marriage nullified. Muslim women who wish to divorce the husbands in Jordan who converted to Christianity can report the matter to court and the courts will convict the man of apostasy. A Muslim man who adopted Christianity in 2004 was convicted, fired from his job and had his marriage annulled.

The law of Israel forbids organized Christian missionary activity amongst Jews.

Sa'udi law forbids conversion from Islam and does not permit the public practice of any religion but Islam within the kingdom. Missionaries are not allowed entry and the law forbids the construction of churches in Sa'udi Arabia. Riyadh has a different scale of compensation for those murdered depending on the religion of the victim. Families of Muslim male victims are entitled to maximum compensation under the law while the families of Hindu women victims are paid the least - a fraction of the compensation received by a Muslim male's family.

In May, 2005, a Muslim who converted to Christianity in Egypt was charged for contempt for religion, a charge that entails a jail sentence of 5 years. The man however has not been charged and remains in indefinite custody. A court convicted a Shi'ite Muslim who adopted Christianity in Kuwait but did not punish him since the criminal court did not spell out a punishment. Sudan enforces the death penalty for Muslims who convert to Christianity. A Sudanese Muslim who allegedly converted in Khartoum but denied it upon arrest remains in prison and has been tortured according the United States Department of State.

The case of Abdul Rahman, the 41year old Afghan who converted to Islam and was referred to an Afghan court for possible execution hit the world headlines in the last fortnight. Even Amin Farhang, the Afghan Economic Minister who had lived in Germany for 22 years before returning to Kabul had defended possible prosecution arguing that Afghanistan can not switch suddenly from one extreme to the other" and the added that the right to convert was impossible in a land that continues to uphold the Islamic punishment for apostasy.

Afghanistan was forced to release Abdul Rahman given the avalanche of international criticism. As Bush had remarked on March 22, "It is deeply troubling, that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another". Or as the New York Times put it, "If Afghanistan wants to return to the Taleban days, it can do so without the help of the United States". The Anglican Archbishop of Canada had mentioned "I'm absolutely horrified to think that this kind of fanatical literalism would be applied to this time and age". The Milan-based newspaper - Corriere dell Serra - added that "western states helping Afghanistan should launch a movement to reform Islam there".

Medieval South India

I largely rely on Robert Eric Frykenburg, "Elite Formation in Nineteenth Century South India: An Interpretative Analysis" in "International Association of Tamil Research Proceedings," First International Conference Seminar of Tamil Studies: Malaysia 1968. I will confine myself to the material dealing with the time period from the 6th century CE to the 17th century CE. I have simplified the subject in the interests of brevity.

Frykenburg explains that "centuries of ceaseless contact, collisions and pressures between increasing numbers of groups" helped define South Indian society. The nuclear areas of human settlement and land control date back to the Pallava-Chola period. South India had highly organized villages.

There were three types of villages. They were inter-linked and inter-dependent. One produced the agricultural surplus, the other sponsored learning and culture while the third was centered on industry and commerce. "Representative" territorial assemblies called the "Periya-Nadu" controlled dense clusters of agricultural villages dominated by the elite agrarian castes. These included the Vellalars, Mudaliars, Kammas, Reddys, Nairs and Vokkaligas depending on the region. There were the privileged and tax-free Brahman-dominated agraharams that served as sanctuaries of piety and learning. These were largely located in Kanchipuram, Madurai, Tanjore, Tirupati and Uduppi. The third category was the mercantile villages of the great trading guilds of early medieval South India. This included the Ayyavole of Karnataka, the Manigramam of Tamil Nadu and Chettinad.

"Primitive" peoples occupied the largely forested areas outside these "nuclear areas". There was a "continual tension between the barbarian darkness of the forest and the cultural enlightenment of each settled region". The Periya Nadu villages absorbed the forested terrain over the centuries and integrated the jungle peoples. These communities were relegated to the mass of untouchables that comprises 15% of South Indian society today.

The events of the 13th century CE shook this order. Pandyan warriors, allied to the Sinhalese, defeated the Chola Empire. Muslim incursions from the Delhi Sultanate led to the southern movement of Telugu refugees and the establishment of the Vijayanagara Empire. The Reddy warriors and the Niyogi Brahmans formed the new elite. A section of the Chola Vellalar immigrated to Jaffna to establish a militaristic kingdom there in 1215 CE permanently displacing the Sinhalese of northern Sri Lankan in the process.

The subsequent defeat of the Vijayanagar Empire at the battle of Talikota in 1565 CE led to the emergence of Telugu ruled enclaves such as the Nayaks of Tanjore - whose aristocracy later headed the last ruling dynasty of the Sinhalese kingdom of Kandy in the 1700s CE. Other Telugu administered enclaves included Mysore, Madurai and Ramnad. Meanwhile, the Sultans of Bijapur and Golconda that had replaced Vijayanagara hired Muslims nobles from the wider Islamic world to fill the highest ranks of their kingdoms. They failed to address the shortage of Muslim administrators and foot soldiers.

The Sultans increasingly turned to the Marathas to make up for the severe manpower deficiency. The Desastha Brahmans became the elite cadre of fiscal and local administrators while the Maratha warriors served as light and irregular cavalry in the Sultanates of the Deccan. This contributed to the swift replacement of the Sultanates in the 17th century by the Maratha Confederacy under Chhatrapati Shivaji. It led to the influx of Marathas into the indigenous elite of South India. The Maratha Naiks replaced the Telugu rulers in the kingdoms of Madurai and Tanjore.

The Portuguese appeared on the scene with the annexation of Goa in the 1500s CE. The trade route from the Gangetic plains to the sea - and the wider world beyond financially superseded the land route to Persia. The Marathas controlled the route to Goa and prospered with the economic boom. The Rajputs situated on the overland route to Iran declined due to the lack of transit revenue.

The "Dravidian" history of South India is therefore a multi-faceted one. Numerous forces and events beyond the borders shaped it. This rich, inter-connected and fascinating history influenced the elite formation of the nineteenth century which I reserve for another post.

Followers