Cynical Nerd published an analytical piece today contrasting the proposed Indo-United States nuclear deal with the earlier concluded Sino-United States nuclear deal. He argues that China drove a much harder bargain and achieved more favorable terms in its negotiations with the United States.
International relations are fluid and ever changing. There are no eternal verities in foreign affairs. The United States will not remain the sole undisputed super power for long given the sheer costs of its engagement in the Middle East. China is an emerging power on India's eastern horizon and had sponsored Pakistan's nuclear program in the 1980s with a far sighted objective to contain India. Indian decision makers will need to keep this in mind always.
India appears to have agreed to throw upon several of its nuclear reactors to the international inspection regime. Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States did not make similar concessions in the past. This is an unequal nuclear regime. India should not foreclose options in haste to close a nuclear deal. In a transient international environment, New Delhi will need to retain defence policy choices at a future date.
Brazil, Niger and South Africa have vast uranium reserves. India should consider innovative foreign policy tools to leverage those reserves for its national interest. It can also learn a lot from Chinese resolve to maintain national interest at all costs when negotiating an international treaty. It is time to reflect on options and steely national determination as Indian and American negotiators place the finishing touches on the nuclear deal in the next day or two.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Nigeria Riots
Nigeria, a federation of 130 million people, has been wrecked by religious riots once again. More than 10,000 people had died in religious violence since 1999 when the predominantly Muslim northern states began to enforce Shari'ah law. Nigeria is evenly divided between Muslims in the north, and a mix of Christians and animist in the south. Both Islam and Christianity as practiced in Nigeria include a fair dose of traditional African tribal religious beliefs. The last major riots occurred two years ago when more than 700 persons, largely Christian, died in Muslim mob attacks. The religious unrest this year started last week when Muslim crowds, angered by the controversial Mohammed cartoons, demolished 30 Christian churches and killed 30 Christians in the north. Revenge attacks in predominantly Christian Ibo territory in south quickly ensued with many more Muslims murdered. This led to counter-attacks in the north with the death toll rising further and 15 more churches set on fire. At least 140 people had died in 7 days of religious violence. Perhaps 10,000 have been left homeless.
The religious violence masks deeper tensions. Much of Nigeria's oil wealth is in the south. Should the south opt to secede, the predominantly Muslim north would be stripped of rich hydrocarbon revenue and access to the sea. Much of the country's commercial infrastructure and educated manpower is in the south. The northern Hausa states, heirs to the medieval Islamic principalities of Kano, Maiduguri, Sokoto and Zaria, would then be landlocked and transformed into an impoverished region much like Chad and Niger. With the growing desertification of the Sahel, the prospects look bleak. However, the Nigerian military is largely Hausa in composition and is likely to prevent any such secession. The predominantly Christian Ibos had attempted to secede between 1967 and 1970 which the northern military had crushed with unparalleled ferocity. The Biafran famine was a man made one where the Ibos died in the tens of thousands.
Nigeria is but a geographic expression. It lacks a cultural underpinning for broader unity. British rule united 356,700 square miles in territory only in 1914. Nigeria became an independent state in 1960. The process of nation building has proved to be difficult. Political uncertainty is aggravating religious and tribal rivalries. Rebels in the oil producing south have waged a three month campaign of attacks and kidnappings against the oil industry. This has reduced exports and driven up oil prices. Meanwhile, President Olesegun Obasanjo, a Born Again Christian, is seeking to amend the constitution to enable him to run for an unprecedented third term. The future is uncertain for Nigeria.
The religious violence masks deeper tensions. Much of Nigeria's oil wealth is in the south. Should the south opt to secede, the predominantly Muslim north would be stripped of rich hydrocarbon revenue and access to the sea. Much of the country's commercial infrastructure and educated manpower is in the south. The northern Hausa states, heirs to the medieval Islamic principalities of Kano, Maiduguri, Sokoto and Zaria, would then be landlocked and transformed into an impoverished region much like Chad and Niger. With the growing desertification of the Sahel, the prospects look bleak. However, the Nigerian military is largely Hausa in composition and is likely to prevent any such secession. The predominantly Christian Ibos had attempted to secede between 1967 and 1970 which the northern military had crushed with unparalleled ferocity. The Biafran famine was a man made one where the Ibos died in the tens of thousands.
Nigeria is but a geographic expression. It lacks a cultural underpinning for broader unity. British rule united 356,700 square miles in territory only in 1914. Nigeria became an independent state in 1960. The process of nation building has proved to be difficult. Political uncertainty is aggravating religious and tribal rivalries. Rebels in the oil producing south have waged a three month campaign of attacks and kidnappings against the oil industry. This has reduced exports and driven up oil prices. Meanwhile, President Olesegun Obasanjo, a Born Again Christian, is seeking to amend the constitution to enable him to run for an unprecedented third term. The future is uncertain for Nigeria.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
War In Serendip
Via BBC, New Sri Lanka peace talks begin
Sri Lankan officials and Tamil Tiger rebels have begun meeting in the Swiss city of Geneva for their first face-to-face talks in three years.
The focus of two days of talks is to boost a threadbare four-year truce. Mounting violence in recent months has raised fears of a return to civil war.
The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says diplomats are playing down hopes the talks can achieve anything more than restoring some stability in Sri Lanka.
"If they fail, I really do believe there will be war," an unnamed European diplomat is quoted as saying by Reuters.
Since we don't believe any sustainable peace is possible with the terrorist Tigers at the helm of Sri Lankan Tamil politics, we consider a decisive war that finally ends their brutal regime a superior option to yet another phony "peace". In this sense, the Geneva talks are actually counterproductive.
Sri Lankan officials and Tamil Tiger rebels have begun meeting in the Swiss city of Geneva for their first face-to-face talks in three years.
The focus of two days of talks is to boost a threadbare four-year truce. Mounting violence in recent months has raised fears of a return to civil war.
The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says diplomats are playing down hopes the talks can achieve anything more than restoring some stability in Sri Lanka.
"If they fail, I really do believe there will be war," an unnamed European diplomat is quoted as saying by Reuters.
Since we don't believe any sustainable peace is possible with the terrorist Tigers at the helm of Sri Lankan Tamil politics, we consider a decisive war that finally ends their brutal regime a superior option to yet another phony "peace". In this sense, the Geneva talks are actually counterproductive.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Superpower, eh?
Via Newindpress, Nine accused in Jessica Lall murder case walk free
A country that cannot provide justice for a young woman murdered publicly is, at best, a pretend superpower.
Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, these are the moments -- when modern India stands impotent before its feudal twin -- that try men's souls.
Shame on the Indian State.
A country that cannot provide justice for a young woman murdered publicly is, at best, a pretend superpower.
Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, these are the moments -- when modern India stands impotent before its feudal twin -- that try men's souls.
Shame on the Indian State.
More On Cartoons
Two separate critiques.
One, our friend Amit has weighed in on the cartoon controversy coming out in support of the indefensible Flemming Rose who began this saga by publishing the horrible cartoons, and Glenn Reynolds who mistakenly thinks publishing them on his blog is a sign of his free speech machismo.
We respect Amit a lot but are astonished by his take on the matter. He closes by citing MadMan who argues that tolerance doesn't mean that just because you hold an opinion, we are obliged to respect it. We, on our part, are also perfectly entitled to treat your beliefs with utter contempt and consider you a loon for having them.
Fair enough. In that case, if the cartoonist has the right to deliberately offend Muslims -- and this non-Muslim blogger -- surely we have the right to be offended and hold him in utter contempt. That we defend his right to free expression does not ipso facto mean we stand with him in his exercise of his contemptible expression. Flemming Rose, Glenn Reynolds and now, alas, Amit have done exactly that by trying to pooh pooh his offense.
One final point. Many of us are not offended because Mohammad was portrayed in a cartoon; the offense is in that he was caricatured as a terrorist. Those who don't consider this offensive are certainly entitled to their opinions -- but, please do not insinuate that others' taking offense to this are somehow, as Mr. Rose argues, enforcing Muslim taboos on non-Muslims. This is outrageous to the extreme and demeans logic.
Two, a couple of non-entities have issued murderous fatwas in UP. They should be tried for incitement just as the UP minister who has incited people to murder the cartoonist.
More disturbing than their lunacy is the puzzling condemnation of these fatwas by the so-called moderate Muslim leadership. Sample this:
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said the fatwa had no meaning.
AIMPLB legal adviser Zararyab Jilani told IANS: "The board has nothing to do with these fatwas; but even if we consider that the Shariat does prescribe death penalty for anyone committing blasphemy with the name of the Prophet, such a fatwa would have legal sanctity only in a country governed by Islamic law."
Is Mr. Jilani really implying that death penalty for offensive speech would be OK but for the fact that India does not follow Islamic law? Wow! This is a rather technically construed condemnation -- surely there are Muslim leaders who can find the courage to condemn these fatwa-issuing idiots without legalistic contortions? Are there any?
More by Nitin here.
One, our friend Amit has weighed in on the cartoon controversy coming out in support of the indefensible Flemming Rose who began this saga by publishing the horrible cartoons, and Glenn Reynolds who mistakenly thinks publishing them on his blog is a sign of his free speech machismo.
We respect Amit a lot but are astonished by his take on the matter. He closes by citing MadMan who argues that tolerance doesn't mean that just because you hold an opinion, we are obliged to respect it. We, on our part, are also perfectly entitled to treat your beliefs with utter contempt and consider you a loon for having them.
Fair enough. In that case, if the cartoonist has the right to deliberately offend Muslims -- and this non-Muslim blogger -- surely we have the right to be offended and hold him in utter contempt. That we defend his right to free expression does not ipso facto mean we stand with him in his exercise of his contemptible expression. Flemming Rose, Glenn Reynolds and now, alas, Amit have done exactly that by trying to pooh pooh his offense.
One final point. Many of us are not offended because Mohammad was portrayed in a cartoon; the offense is in that he was caricatured as a terrorist. Those who don't consider this offensive are certainly entitled to their opinions -- but, please do not insinuate that others' taking offense to this are somehow, as Mr. Rose argues, enforcing Muslim taboos on non-Muslims. This is outrageous to the extreme and demeans logic.
Two, a couple of non-entities have issued murderous fatwas in UP. They should be tried for incitement just as the UP minister who has incited people to murder the cartoonist.
More disturbing than their lunacy is the puzzling condemnation of these fatwas by the so-called moderate Muslim leadership. Sample this:
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said the fatwa had no meaning.
AIMPLB legal adviser Zararyab Jilani told IANS: "The board has nothing to do with these fatwas; but even if we consider that the Shariat does prescribe death penalty for anyone committing blasphemy with the name of the Prophet, such a fatwa would have legal sanctity only in a country governed by Islamic law."
Is Mr. Jilani really implying that death penalty for offensive speech would be OK but for the fact that India does not follow Islamic law? Wow! This is a rather technically construed condemnation -- surely there are Muslim leaders who can find the courage to condemn these fatwa-issuing idiots without legalistic contortions? Are there any?
More by Nitin here.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
The Cartoon Controversy
Writing in National Review's generally sensible The Corner, Andrew Stuttaford draws attention to the incitement by UP minister Muhammad Yaqoob Qureshi. Mr. Stuttaford issues the following call to action:
Reactions, and indictments, please, from Denmark -- and India. Incitement is incitement is incitement. No buts.
This blog agrees with Mr. Stuttaford on the nature of Mr. Qureshi's offence -- we have, in fact, ourselves called for the minister to be tried for incitement.
But, we also want to make clear our disdain for the arrogance of the likes of Mr. Stuttaford. His suggestion that Denmark indict an Indian minister is ludicrous. Only India has the power to act here, as it should, not because we care much for the feelings of the bigoted Danish cartoonist or of his irresponsible supporters in the West, but because in India we do not threaten with murder even those for whom we reserve our maximum contempt. This is about Indian values -- Denmark is irrelevant to this.
Those meriting our contempt include not only the Danish cartoonist who started this bigotry train but also the Danish Government that declined to even give audience to its Muslim citizens and all such media and bloggers who have chosen to publish the bigoted filth that these cartoons represent. Freedom of expression comes with an expectation of responsibility -- the callous abdication of this by some in the West is a discredit to their otherwise great civilization.
We are neither Muslim nor have sympathy for jihadists, Islamists, and even the so-called "moderate Muslims" who are too scared to practice their moderation. But, equally, we Indians are not of the West and do not subscribe to the latter's constant tendency to diminish and ridicule non-Western cultures -- Indians know this Western trait well from our history.
This is why, while harshly rejecting the Islamist incitement and violence that has followed, we decline to endorse the contemptible Danish, European, and Western arrogance on this issue.
Our position in itself is worth little except that we are among the small number of Indians who've aggressively supported the West in its war on terror, war in Iraq, and in face of withering criticism, strategic Indo-US engagement. That we are upset should mean at least something to even the most myopic of Western commentators such as Mr. Stuttaford. Of course, given the nature of their blinding arrogance, it likely won't.
Reactions, and indictments, please, from Denmark -- and India. Incitement is incitement is incitement. No buts.
This blog agrees with Mr. Stuttaford on the nature of Mr. Qureshi's offence -- we have, in fact, ourselves called for the minister to be tried for incitement.
But, we also want to make clear our disdain for the arrogance of the likes of Mr. Stuttaford. His suggestion that Denmark indict an Indian minister is ludicrous. Only India has the power to act here, as it should, not because we care much for the feelings of the bigoted Danish cartoonist or of his irresponsible supporters in the West, but because in India we do not threaten with murder even those for whom we reserve our maximum contempt. This is about Indian values -- Denmark is irrelevant to this.
Those meriting our contempt include not only the Danish cartoonist who started this bigotry train but also the Danish Government that declined to even give audience to its Muslim citizens and all such media and bloggers who have chosen to publish the bigoted filth that these cartoons represent. Freedom of expression comes with an expectation of responsibility -- the callous abdication of this by some in the West is a discredit to their otherwise great civilization.
We are neither Muslim nor have sympathy for jihadists, Islamists, and even the so-called "moderate Muslims" who are too scared to practice their moderation. But, equally, we Indians are not of the West and do not subscribe to the latter's constant tendency to diminish and ridicule non-Western cultures -- Indians know this Western trait well from our history.
This is why, while harshly rejecting the Islamist incitement and violence that has followed, we decline to endorse the contemptible Danish, European, and Western arrogance on this issue.
Our position in itself is worth little except that we are among the small number of Indians who've aggressively supported the West in its war on terror, war in Iraq, and in face of withering criticism, strategic Indo-US engagement. That we are upset should mean at least something to even the most myopic of Western commentators such as Mr. Stuttaford. Of course, given the nature of their blinding arrogance, it likely won't.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Terrorism Watch
Via Indian Express, Rs 51-crore reward for Danish cartoonist's head, says UP Minister
The Minister for Minority Welfare and Haj in the Mulayam Singh Yadav government, Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, has announced a cash reward of Rs 51 crore for anyone who beheads the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Prophet Mohammad.
When contacted, UP Principal Secretary, Home, Alok Sinha told The Indian Express: "The minister's reaction was the voice of someone whose religious sentiments have been hurt. Moreover, since the reference was to a person who is far off, there is no question of an FIR being lodged against the minister."
However, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board member and Naib Imam of Aishbagh Idgah, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali, criticized the Minister's call for the killing of the cartoonist.
Yaqoob Qureishi, a third-rate loser, should be tried for soliciting murder and terrorism. India must not tolerate people who spout such garbage as Ministers in our governments.
The disgraceful defense of this terror-enabler by the UP Government merits wide-spread condemnation.
As a native of UP, and as one who has aggressively condemned the bigoted cartoons in question, this blogger is appalled by the cynical spinelessness of the state government. Its spokesperson, Alok Sinha, should be immediately fired.
The Minister for Minority Welfare and Haj in the Mulayam Singh Yadav government, Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, has announced a cash reward of Rs 51 crore for anyone who beheads the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Prophet Mohammad.
When contacted, UP Principal Secretary, Home, Alok Sinha told The Indian Express: "The minister's reaction was the voice of someone whose religious sentiments have been hurt. Moreover, since the reference was to a person who is far off, there is no question of an FIR being lodged against the minister."
However, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board member and Naib Imam of Aishbagh Idgah, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali, criticized the Minister's call for the killing of the cartoonist.
Yaqoob Qureishi, a third-rate loser, should be tried for soliciting murder and terrorism. India must not tolerate people who spout such garbage as Ministers in our governments.
The disgraceful defense of this terror-enabler by the UP Government merits wide-spread condemnation.
As a native of UP, and as one who has aggressively condemned the bigoted cartoons in question, this blogger is appalled by the cynical spinelessness of the state government. Its spokesperson, Alok Sinha, should be immediately fired.
Inner Mongolia
Mongolia traditionally included Outer Mongolia - now an independent republic - with an area of 604,000 square miles and Inner Mongolia with an area of 455,480 square miles. This landlocked territory was the epicenter of the largest ever contiguous empire in history under Genghis Khan in the 13th century. It was a part of the Mongol-Turkic Central Asian steppes. The Mongol tribes produced leaders whose forces expanded into Burma, China, India, Iran, Russia and Tibet.
The land was the focus of Sino-Russian rivalry since the 17th century. Qing dynasty China annexed Inner Mongolia in 1636 CE and Outer Mongolia in 1691 CE. Outer Mongolia broke away in 1911 although the Chinese briefly recaptured it in 1919 during the Russian civil war. Soviet intervention in 1921 led to the expulsion of the Chinese and the establishment of an independent republic in Outer Mongolia.
The Chinese continued to administer Inner Mongolia until 1937 when De Wang - a Mongol prince - declared independence under Japanese sponsorship. The defeat of Japan in World War 2 in 1945 witnessed the emergence of multiple political units in Inner Mongolia. Stalin pre-occupied with expanding his hold in Europe just after World War 2 had failed to ensure the merger of Inner Mongolia with Outer Mongolia. The Chinese Red Army consolidated control over Inner Mongolia between 1947 and 1949.
Although Han Chinese had started settling in Inner Mongolia in the late 1800s, there was a huge influx of ethnic Chinese after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. The Han Chinese today constitute 80% of Inner Mongolia's population of 23 million. The remainder is indigenous Mongols. The proportion of Han Chinese is much higher here than in Tibet or East Turkestan/Xinjiang. Inner Mongolia should perhaps be now called Outer China. Beijing transferred two-thirds of the territory of Inner Mongolia to five adjoining traditionally Han Chinese provinces in 1969. It reversed this policy decision in 1979.
Tibet and Inner Mongolia have a shared religious identity that acknowledges the leadership of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. The Red Army had destroyed monasteries and killed several thousand Mongols during the Cultural Revolution. There has since been a resurgence of Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia. Monasteries have been rebuilt and religious practice revived. The study of Tibetan has been reintroduced in lamaseries. These developments have heightened ethnic consciousness.
Expatriate Mongol groups based in the United States and elsewhere advocate independence for Inner Mongolia. The prospects of secession are nil given the demographic equation. Nevertheless, the territory merits close attention on the part of Indian decision makers. South Bloc has a huge asset in the Dalai Lama, who is the acknowledged spiritual leader of both the Tibetans and the Mongols.
The land was the focus of Sino-Russian rivalry since the 17th century. Qing dynasty China annexed Inner Mongolia in 1636 CE and Outer Mongolia in 1691 CE. Outer Mongolia broke away in 1911 although the Chinese briefly recaptured it in 1919 during the Russian civil war. Soviet intervention in 1921 led to the expulsion of the Chinese and the establishment of an independent republic in Outer Mongolia.
The Chinese continued to administer Inner Mongolia until 1937 when De Wang - a Mongol prince - declared independence under Japanese sponsorship. The defeat of Japan in World War 2 in 1945 witnessed the emergence of multiple political units in Inner Mongolia. Stalin pre-occupied with expanding his hold in Europe just after World War 2 had failed to ensure the merger of Inner Mongolia with Outer Mongolia. The Chinese Red Army consolidated control over Inner Mongolia between 1947 and 1949.
Although Han Chinese had started settling in Inner Mongolia in the late 1800s, there was a huge influx of ethnic Chinese after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. The Han Chinese today constitute 80% of Inner Mongolia's population of 23 million. The remainder is indigenous Mongols. The proportion of Han Chinese is much higher here than in Tibet or East Turkestan/Xinjiang. Inner Mongolia should perhaps be now called Outer China. Beijing transferred two-thirds of the territory of Inner Mongolia to five adjoining traditionally Han Chinese provinces in 1969. It reversed this policy decision in 1979.
Tibet and Inner Mongolia have a shared religious identity that acknowledges the leadership of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. The Red Army had destroyed monasteries and killed several thousand Mongols during the Cultural Revolution. There has since been a resurgence of Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia. Monasteries have been rebuilt and religious practice revived. The study of Tibetan has been reintroduced in lamaseries. These developments have heightened ethnic consciousness.
Expatriate Mongol groups based in the United States and elsewhere advocate independence for Inner Mongolia. The prospects of secession are nil given the demographic equation. Nevertheless, the territory merits close attention on the part of Indian decision makers. South Bloc has a huge asset in the Dalai Lama, who is the acknowledged spiritual leader of both the Tibetans and the Mongols.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Waging War
Speaking on The Charlie Rose Show today, US defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a curious observation about Iraq which got us thinking about the philosophy of waging war.
Mr. Rumsfeld spoke about the tension between America's need for sufficient forces in theater to create an environment where Iraqis can reconstruct their nation and the risk of excessive force commitment that alienates them.
We think this tension -- and Mr. Rumsfeld's consequent impulse to carefully calibrate force levels in Iraq -- is a dangerous manifestation of bourgeois sentimentalism that, alas, marks democratic societies. We fear the very idea of unleashing our maximum dogs of war.
In truth, it's impossible to calibrate with precision the consequences of the blunt instrument that war is. It's precisely this reason why war should be a last resort. Responsible governments must do all things possible to avert war but, when war becomes inevitable, they must do all things necessary to achieve overwhelming triumph.
Such triumph is not about raising one's flag over the enemy's capital, or toppling his baroque statues, but about destroying his will to power, his expectation of a come-back, and his appetite for continuing the fight. Japan's psychological state after Nagasaki is a perfect example. Such triumph comes not through effete calibration of force, rather through its deliberate over-application.
Then, on the still-warm ashes of the enemy's crushed aspirations, the victor can build his palaces of peace for history to applaud.
This is the lesson of every war won, and lost. It is tragic and amusing that democracies forget this lesson again and again -- because we are brought up with innate aversion to using violence as a device for settling issues. There is a naive sentimentalism at play here -- which while endearing and even acceptable in times of peace, must be set aside when war becomes necessary. Ironically, such peace-driven sentimentality stretches out war and ends up hurting a lot more people than would be the case if war is waged with overwhelming force in the first place.
America ignored this lesson in Iraq -- it failed to crush the will of Iraq's Sunni heartland, and now is struggling to manage a nuisance insurgency. Iraq is not evidence that neo-conservative ideas are utopian and impractical -- rather, it is evidence of the fact the poorly waged wars are seldom easy to win.
Come to think of it, this is not new wisdom at all. Isn't this what Lord Krishna said to Arjun when the latter was struggling with his pathetic sentimentalism rather than doing what a soldier should do -- crush the enemy without remorse?
Mr. Rumsfeld spoke about the tension between America's need for sufficient forces in theater to create an environment where Iraqis can reconstruct their nation and the risk of excessive force commitment that alienates them.
We think this tension -- and Mr. Rumsfeld's consequent impulse to carefully calibrate force levels in Iraq -- is a dangerous manifestation of bourgeois sentimentalism that, alas, marks democratic societies. We fear the very idea of unleashing our maximum dogs of war.
In truth, it's impossible to calibrate with precision the consequences of the blunt instrument that war is. It's precisely this reason why war should be a last resort. Responsible governments must do all things possible to avert war but, when war becomes inevitable, they must do all things necessary to achieve overwhelming triumph.
Such triumph is not about raising one's flag over the enemy's capital, or toppling his baroque statues, but about destroying his will to power, his expectation of a come-back, and his appetite for continuing the fight. Japan's psychological state after Nagasaki is a perfect example. Such triumph comes not through effete calibration of force, rather through its deliberate over-application.
Then, on the still-warm ashes of the enemy's crushed aspirations, the victor can build his palaces of peace for history to applaud.
This is the lesson of every war won, and lost. It is tragic and amusing that democracies forget this lesson again and again -- because we are brought up with innate aversion to using violence as a device for settling issues. There is a naive sentimentalism at play here -- which while endearing and even acceptable in times of peace, must be set aside when war becomes necessary. Ironically, such peace-driven sentimentality stretches out war and ends up hurting a lot more people than would be the case if war is waged with overwhelming force in the first place.
America ignored this lesson in Iraq -- it failed to crush the will of Iraq's Sunni heartland, and now is struggling to manage a nuisance insurgency. Iraq is not evidence that neo-conservative ideas are utopian and impractical -- rather, it is evidence of the fact the poorly waged wars are seldom easy to win.
Come to think of it, this is not new wisdom at all. Isn't this what Lord Krishna said to Arjun when the latter was struggling with his pathetic sentimentalism rather than doing what a soldier should do -- crush the enemy without remorse?
Thursday, February 16, 2006
India's Civic Identity
The Indian Republic is approximately 1,262,000 square miles in territory. It has a population of 1,100 million people. Its institutional inheritance and shared civic norms help unite a varied and heterogeneous land.
Independent India is premised on a civic identity. This includes its institutions, its constitution, the rule of law and due process. The emphasis is on liberty, equality and individual rights. The institutions include the Indian administrative service - once the steel arm of empire, the Indian army, the Indian judiciary, the Indian railway and the Indian print media. The Indian middle class of 300 million further strengthens national cohesion. This focus on the civic rather than on race or religion distinguishes India from its neighbors. The accent is on liberal political values.
This civic identity has been under threat since the late 1960s, first by the super-imposition of language-based administrative units and then caste-based public sector recruitment.
British India had multi-ethnic administrative units such as the Bengal, Bombay and Madras Presidencies. The princely states of Hyderabad, Kashmir and Travancore were also multi-ethnic. Administrative units demarcated by language were only created in the late 1960s. This included Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra, the 7 states of the North East and the Punjab.
The Indian constitution did not envisage caste-based affirmative action as a permanent fixture either. The original intent was to introduce caste-based reservations for a limited duration of time to address legitimate issues of social justice and to then jettison it in the mid 1960s. The unanticipated continuation and extension of caste-based reservations to a whole slew of non-scheduled castes and tribes only began in the late 1960s.
Fortunately, the politics of language have receded. Caste politics have also stabilized despite pockets of Maoist violence. The current administration now plans to use religion as a yardstick to apportion public and private resources.
The Government intends to introduce reservations in the public sector for Muslims, support religious minority schools, assess the religious composition of the military and survey the socio-economic conditions of Muslims in different parts of the country in order to design a religion-based affirmative action package. Efforts are underway to over-rule the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Illegal Migrants Determination Act. These initiatives will further undermine the civic identity of the Indian state.
The Congress party hopes to gain electoral advantage in doing so. However, this short-sighted policy will only lead to the resurgence of religion-based politics, one that will sweep the party away. It is time to revert to the original vision of the Indian constitution. The emphasis should be on civic norms and institutions, not ascriptive definitions of race, caste and religion.
Independent India is premised on a civic identity. This includes its institutions, its constitution, the rule of law and due process. The emphasis is on liberty, equality and individual rights. The institutions include the Indian administrative service - once the steel arm of empire, the Indian army, the Indian judiciary, the Indian railway and the Indian print media. The Indian middle class of 300 million further strengthens national cohesion. This focus on the civic rather than on race or religion distinguishes India from its neighbors. The accent is on liberal political values.
This civic identity has been under threat since the late 1960s, first by the super-imposition of language-based administrative units and then caste-based public sector recruitment.
British India had multi-ethnic administrative units such as the Bengal, Bombay and Madras Presidencies. The princely states of Hyderabad, Kashmir and Travancore were also multi-ethnic. Administrative units demarcated by language were only created in the late 1960s. This included Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra, the 7 states of the North East and the Punjab.
The Indian constitution did not envisage caste-based affirmative action as a permanent fixture either. The original intent was to introduce caste-based reservations for a limited duration of time to address legitimate issues of social justice and to then jettison it in the mid 1960s. The unanticipated continuation and extension of caste-based reservations to a whole slew of non-scheduled castes and tribes only began in the late 1960s.
Fortunately, the politics of language have receded. Caste politics have also stabilized despite pockets of Maoist violence. The current administration now plans to use religion as a yardstick to apportion public and private resources.
The Government intends to introduce reservations in the public sector for Muslims, support religious minority schools, assess the religious composition of the military and survey the socio-economic conditions of Muslims in different parts of the country in order to design a religion-based affirmative action package. Efforts are underway to over-rule the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Illegal Migrants Determination Act. These initiatives will further undermine the civic identity of the Indian state.
The Congress party hopes to gain electoral advantage in doing so. However, this short-sighted policy will only lead to the resurgence of religion-based politics, one that will sweep the party away. It is time to revert to the original vision of the Indian constitution. The emphasis should be on civic norms and institutions, not ascriptive definitions of race, caste and religion.
The Behzti Saga
Christie Davies revisits the riot that ended the production of Behzti at the Birmingham Rep at the end of 2004 and the text of the play - and finds a very poor play and a public relations disaster for British Sikhs.
Link courtesy: The Social Affairs Unit (UK) & National Review
Link courtesy: The Social Affairs Unit (UK) & National Review
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
The Softening Of India
Via Times of India, A 'cool off' time for CBSE examinees
"From this year onwards, CBSE (Central Board Of Secondary Education) will provide an additional 15 minutes to help students relax and bring a near synchronisation in speed and accuracy while answering questions," said CBSE Chairman Ashok Ganguly.
Under the new system, the examination will start at 10:30 am but students will be given question papers along with sealed answer sheets at 10:15 am.
"For the next 15 minutes, students can fill up the cover page details including their respective roll numbers and utilise the time to carefully read the question papers that will have an average 24 to 28 questions," Ganguly told reporters.
"It will not only help lakhs of students to de-stress themselves but also in planning answers that require application and creativity."
Why not neck massages while we are at it? And this is not for the really competitive IIT-JEE -- rather for the somewhat basic CBSE exam. Our much vaunted young men & women are clearly going soft.
"From this year onwards, CBSE (Central Board Of Secondary Education) will provide an additional 15 minutes to help students relax and bring a near synchronisation in speed and accuracy while answering questions," said CBSE Chairman Ashok Ganguly.
Under the new system, the examination will start at 10:30 am but students will be given question papers along with sealed answer sheets at 10:15 am.
"For the next 15 minutes, students can fill up the cover page details including their respective roll numbers and utilise the time to carefully read the question papers that will have an average 24 to 28 questions," Ganguly told reporters.
"It will not only help lakhs of students to de-stress themselves but also in planning answers that require application and creativity."
Why not neck massages while we are at it? And this is not for the really competitive IIT-JEE -- rather for the somewhat basic CBSE exam. Our much vaunted young men & women are clearly going soft.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Sri Lanka
Time magazine writes about An Island on the Edge
Says a European diplomat in Colombo: "Killing is how Sri Lanka does politics."
Says a European diplomat in Colombo: "Killing is how Sri Lanka does politics."
More European Bigotry
Via Hindustan Times, Now, Durga shown endorsing whisky
A disco bar in Greece has invited angry reactions from Indian community by prominently displaying a poster of goddess Durga promoting a whisky brand.
Large posters inside and outside the Balon Oriental Disco Bar in Athens depict the goddess carrying bottles of Southern Comfort Whisky.
“The Indian community in Athens has been trying for the last three months to have the posters removed. But they have totally ignored us,” says Paramjit Singh, originally from Jalandhar, now settled in Greece.
Simply outrageous.
A disco bar in Greece has invited angry reactions from Indian community by prominently displaying a poster of goddess Durga promoting a whisky brand.
Large posters inside and outside the Balon Oriental Disco Bar in Athens depict the goddess carrying bottles of Southern Comfort Whisky.
“The Indian community in Athens has been trying for the last three months to have the posters removed. But they have totally ignored us,” says Paramjit Singh, originally from Jalandhar, now settled in Greece.
Simply outrageous.
United States-India Strategic Partnership
India tested the nuclear device in 1974 and in 1998. It enunciated a strategic doctrine in 1999 that entailed a (i) no first-use policy; (ii) a policy of minimum credible deterrence; (iii) a moratorium on nuclear testing; and (iv) strict adherence to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. The nuclear tests had provided India with immense strategic wherewithal and transformed it into a significant player in the international realm. Many in the United States began to view India in a different light despite the earlier history of suspicion and distrust.
The United States and India have since derived a strategic commonality. There has been a congruence in perspectives vis-a-vis the threat posed by China as a "super-power in waiting", the Islamist challenge to global stability and shared democratic values. Some American strategists envision India as a potential key ally along with Australia, Britain, Canada and Japan. There is talk of the United States offering India F-16s, increased cooperation in outer space in terms of launch vehicles and satellites, and the provision of Patriot and Arrow missiles. The United States-India nuclear deal, as initially conceptualized in July, 2005 fell into the same vision of strategic congruence. The proposed nuclear deal entailed American support to help meet Indian energy needs.
The American assistance was premised on the understanding that India in turn needed to fulfill its role as a responsible nuclear power. This reportedly entailed the requirement to (a) separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities; (b) throw open its civilian nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency; and (c) legally commit to the international nonproliferation regime. So far so good.
However, the proposed deal necessitates Congressional approval. The United States will need to revise existing legislation to waive restrictions on the transfer of nuclear technology to states that are not party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The bottlenecks arise at this point. The United States and India are both democracies with multiple interest groups and ideological viewpoints. Neither country has a monolithic policy environment.
Several non-proliferation ayatollahs in the United States Congress, the Department of State, think tanks and academic institutions harbor a deep suspicion of India that go back to the years of the cold war. There are entrenched pockets of skepticism at India's nuclear ambitions. Such ideologues insist that the United States not reward those countries which had violated the nonproliferation treaty.
The Bush administration, it appears, has been compelled to shift goal posts since the initial announcement of the planned United States-India nuclear deal in July, 2005. Press reports suggest that it now demands that India designate most of its nuclear facilities as "civilian nuclear facilities" open to international inspection. There is intense pressure for India to cap its production of fissile material. There are increased calls that India place its fast breeder reactors and pressurized heavy water reactions under the international safeguards regime. Fast breeder reactors produce five times the fissile material as conventional reactors.
The new demands are intended to ensure speedy ratification of the proposed nuclear deal by the United States Congress. However, they would also roll back and cap India's nuclear capability. This is clearly unacceptable. Many Indian decision makers are justifiably alarmed by the sudden demands given the history of the United States going back on its earlier word to supply fuel to the Tarapur nuclear plant, exerting pressure on the Narasimha Rao administration to cancel the planned nuclear tests in the early 1990s, and blocking Russia from providing cryogenic engines to India.
The United States has 140 nuclear power, test and research reactors of which only 4 are international safeguards. China has only two nuclear facilities under international safeguards. India already has 4 nuclear reactors out of a total of its 23 reactors under international inspection. Of the 915 nuclear facilities worldwide under international safeguards, only 11 belong to the five "nuclear powers". This is an illustration of double standards. India will need to exercise caution before designating an entire slew of reactions as civilian facilities placed under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. India can not place the fast breeder reactor under international inspection. The civilian power reactors that feed these with plutonium can not be placed under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards either.
India perhaps has 31% of the world's known deposits of thorium. This is the world's highest thorium reserves and would allow India to eventually achieve energy independence and increase its stockpile of fissile material. India might have additional reserves of Uranium as well given recent discoveries in Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand and Meghalaya. India is already a defacto nuclear weapons state.
The Manmohan Singh administration had negotiated in stealth given the sensitivity of the issues at hand. This had inadvertently served to reinforce the fear amongst several Indians that the proposed deal would be a sell out. It is clear that more debate, discussion and thought will need to go into the proposed United States-India nuclear deal. Given policy reservations in both camps, it is entirely possible that the nuclear deal will not be finalized anytime soon.
However, all is not lost. Continued cooperation in the strategic realm is inevitable. This is not a make or break deal. India's need for civilian nuclear power will remain. The need to delink its military and civilian nuclear facilities is inevitable. Once delinked, it might well make sense for India to privatize its civilian nuclear facilities and reduce the monopoly of the Department of Atomic Energy. Meanwhile, America's interest in seeing a strong India counter-balance China will not change either.
I see no reason to rush things. India will need to drive a hard bargain before the current draft of the nuclear deal is finalized. There can not be any short cuts and there can not be a cap in the production of fissile materials as yet given current levels of nuclear stockpiles in India. It will need to ensure nuclear parity with Britain and France given the real threat at its northern frontier.
The country is fortunate to have Dr. Abdul Kalam, a pre-eminent scientist, as President of the Republic. One can be reassured therefore that no decision will be made that will compromise India's long term interest under his watch.
The United States and India have since derived a strategic commonality. There has been a congruence in perspectives vis-a-vis the threat posed by China as a "super-power in waiting", the Islamist challenge to global stability and shared democratic values. Some American strategists envision India as a potential key ally along with Australia, Britain, Canada and Japan. There is talk of the United States offering India F-16s, increased cooperation in outer space in terms of launch vehicles and satellites, and the provision of Patriot and Arrow missiles. The United States-India nuclear deal, as initially conceptualized in July, 2005 fell into the same vision of strategic congruence. The proposed nuclear deal entailed American support to help meet Indian energy needs.
The American assistance was premised on the understanding that India in turn needed to fulfill its role as a responsible nuclear power. This reportedly entailed the requirement to (a) separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities; (b) throw open its civilian nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency; and (c) legally commit to the international nonproliferation regime. So far so good.
However, the proposed deal necessitates Congressional approval. The United States will need to revise existing legislation to waive restrictions on the transfer of nuclear technology to states that are not party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The bottlenecks arise at this point. The United States and India are both democracies with multiple interest groups and ideological viewpoints. Neither country has a monolithic policy environment.
Several non-proliferation ayatollahs in the United States Congress, the Department of State, think tanks and academic institutions harbor a deep suspicion of India that go back to the years of the cold war. There are entrenched pockets of skepticism at India's nuclear ambitions. Such ideologues insist that the United States not reward those countries which had violated the nonproliferation treaty.
The Bush administration, it appears, has been compelled to shift goal posts since the initial announcement of the planned United States-India nuclear deal in July, 2005. Press reports suggest that it now demands that India designate most of its nuclear facilities as "civilian nuclear facilities" open to international inspection. There is intense pressure for India to cap its production of fissile material. There are increased calls that India place its fast breeder reactors and pressurized heavy water reactions under the international safeguards regime. Fast breeder reactors produce five times the fissile material as conventional reactors.
The new demands are intended to ensure speedy ratification of the proposed nuclear deal by the United States Congress. However, they would also roll back and cap India's nuclear capability. This is clearly unacceptable. Many Indian decision makers are justifiably alarmed by the sudden demands given the history of the United States going back on its earlier word to supply fuel to the Tarapur nuclear plant, exerting pressure on the Narasimha Rao administration to cancel the planned nuclear tests in the early 1990s, and blocking Russia from providing cryogenic engines to India.
The United States has 140 nuclear power, test and research reactors of which only 4 are international safeguards. China has only two nuclear facilities under international safeguards. India already has 4 nuclear reactors out of a total of its 23 reactors under international inspection. Of the 915 nuclear facilities worldwide under international safeguards, only 11 belong to the five "nuclear powers". This is an illustration of double standards. India will need to exercise caution before designating an entire slew of reactions as civilian facilities placed under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. India can not place the fast breeder reactor under international inspection. The civilian power reactors that feed these with plutonium can not be placed under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards either.
India perhaps has 31% of the world's known deposits of thorium. This is the world's highest thorium reserves and would allow India to eventually achieve energy independence and increase its stockpile of fissile material. India might have additional reserves of Uranium as well given recent discoveries in Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand and Meghalaya. India is already a defacto nuclear weapons state.
The Manmohan Singh administration had negotiated in stealth given the sensitivity of the issues at hand. This had inadvertently served to reinforce the fear amongst several Indians that the proposed deal would be a sell out. It is clear that more debate, discussion and thought will need to go into the proposed United States-India nuclear deal. Given policy reservations in both camps, it is entirely possible that the nuclear deal will not be finalized anytime soon.
However, all is not lost. Continued cooperation in the strategic realm is inevitable. This is not a make or break deal. India's need for civilian nuclear power will remain. The need to delink its military and civilian nuclear facilities is inevitable. Once delinked, it might well make sense for India to privatize its civilian nuclear facilities and reduce the monopoly of the Department of Atomic Energy. Meanwhile, America's interest in seeing a strong India counter-balance China will not change either.
I see no reason to rush things. India will need to drive a hard bargain before the current draft of the nuclear deal is finalized. There can not be any short cuts and there can not be a cap in the production of fissile materials as yet given current levels of nuclear stockpiles in India. It will need to ensure nuclear parity with Britain and France given the real threat at its northern frontier.
The country is fortunate to have Dr. Abdul Kalam, a pre-eminent scientist, as President of the Republic. One can be reassured therefore that no decision will be made that will compromise India's long term interest under his watch.
The Next POTUS?
It's early yet to predict who will emerge the next President of the United States.
Still, keen observers are taking notes.
In our mind, Mark Warner (recently retired governor of Virginia) is the clear front-runner.
He is a democrat governor from a predominantly republican state. Post-Kennedy in 1960, only southern democrat governors (Carter, Clinton) have won the presidency, while multiple northern senators have lost. Even Kennedy won by taking on Lyndon Johnson from Texas as his running mate.
Warner is a fresh face, very attractive speaker, immensely competent, and wildly popular in conservative Virginia. Needless to say, his appeal can overcome the stale red-blue divide that's marked the last two elections. We think he can beat anyone republicans can put up in opposition.
With a running mate from Pennsylvania or Ohio, Mr. Warner can take the presidency quite easily. Mrs. Clinton will have money -- but nothing quite like this winning formula.
We are usually pro-republican -- but, at this early stage, our money is on Mark Warner.
Still, keen observers are taking notes.
In our mind, Mark Warner (recently retired governor of Virginia) is the clear front-runner.
He is a democrat governor from a predominantly republican state. Post-Kennedy in 1960, only southern democrat governors (Carter, Clinton) have won the presidency, while multiple northern senators have lost. Even Kennedy won by taking on Lyndon Johnson from Texas as his running mate.
Warner is a fresh face, very attractive speaker, immensely competent, and wildly popular in conservative Virginia. Needless to say, his appeal can overcome the stale red-blue divide that's marked the last two elections. We think he can beat anyone republicans can put up in opposition.
With a running mate from Pennsylvania or Ohio, Mr. Warner can take the presidency quite easily. Mrs. Clinton will have money -- but nothing quite like this winning formula.
We are usually pro-republican -- but, at this early stage, our money is on Mark Warner.
Puzzling Supreme Court Ruling
Via BBC, India media ban over 'toxic' ship
India's supreme court has temporarily banned all demonstrations and media articles on the decommissioned French aircraft carrier, the Clemenceau.
The ban runs until Friday and anyone breaking it will be held in contempt of court, Judge Arijit Pasayat said.
"We are shocked to find demonstrations are held and articles written, and if anyone is found to be doing so, he should prima facie be held for contempt of court and suitable action be taken against him," Judge Arijit Pasayat told the court.
We are confused by this ruling. Does India's Supreme Court really have the authority to preempt even peaceful exercise of democracy -- i.e., demonstrations over a particular matter or press reports about the same? Or is this ruling one more example of judicial overreach which -- unfortunately -- is not atypical in India?
Can someone who understands Indian law please explain this to us.
India's supreme court has temporarily banned all demonstrations and media articles on the decommissioned French aircraft carrier, the Clemenceau.
The ban runs until Friday and anyone breaking it will be held in contempt of court, Judge Arijit Pasayat said.
"We are shocked to find demonstrations are held and articles written, and if anyone is found to be doing so, he should prima facie be held for contempt of court and suitable action be taken against him," Judge Arijit Pasayat told the court.
We are confused by this ruling. Does India's Supreme Court really have the authority to preempt even peaceful exercise of democracy -- i.e., demonstrations over a particular matter or press reports about the same? Or is this ruling one more example of judicial overreach which -- unfortunately -- is not atypical in India?
Can someone who understands Indian law please explain this to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)