China vs. India

Martin Wolf has a Financial Times column comparing the two Asian giants. It's worth a read.

He concludes that China will overgrow India because while both are the heirs of great civilizations ... China's civilization is inseparable from its state, while India's is inseparable from its social structure, above all from the role of caste.

This difference permeates the two countries' histories and contemporary performance. As Lord Desai of the London School of Economics has noted, "for India, the problem [is] achieving unity in diversity". China, however, is a "unitary hard state, which can pursue a single goal with determination and mobilise maximal resources in its achievement".

There are reasons why Mr. Wolf's prediction might indeed come true, but this one rings real hollow. If "unity in diversity" were such a growth-abater, surely EU would not have found many believers -- including Mr. Wolf. The entire capitalist premise is based on diverse ideas competing ferociously -- leading to new insights and innovations which defy and change history. For this to happen. socio-political-economic structures that accommodate and value diversity are essential. India has many ills, but on this front it has done extremely well.

Chinese state, in contrast, does not value diversity -- in fact, it crushes it. To the extent Chinese civilization is inseparable from its state, as Mr. Wolf avers, well then, it is hardly a civilization to gush over. Further, if the capitalist idea is valid -- we certainly believe it is as, no doubt, Mr. Wolf does too -- then, sooner or later, the Chinese edifice will come down crashing.

A key component of the Beijing's path to wealth has its banks gathering Chinese (very high) Yuan savings to buy US Dollars. Since the Chinese autocracy maintains the Yuan artificially too cheap (and thus the Dollar artificially too expensive), buying Dollars with Yuan seems counter-intuitive. Afterall, no one in history ever got rich buying assets at prices they know are artificially inflated!! When the currencies finally find their natural levels, Chinese banks would then hold Dollar assets worth much less than they paid for them, and Yuan liabilities much higher than these devalued assets can cover. This is when the fun will start.

What's really happening is that China is transferring its Yuan wealth to American consumers. We're OK with this since, as US residents, this keeps our inflation and credit card costs low!! How this is good for Chinese people, however, defies our understanding.

Also, read Rand's Charles Wolf on why China's problems are perhaps even more complex than India's.

Cheering the Prime Minister

At the India Today conclave, Dr. Manmohan Singh said the following as part of a very important speech:

If there is an ‘idea of India’ that the world should remember us by and regard us for, it is the idea of an inclusive and open society, a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual society. All countries of the world will evolve in this direction as we move forward into the 21st century. Liberal democracy is the natural order of social and political organisation in today’s world. All alternate systems, authoritarian and majoritarian in varying degrees, are an aberration. Democratic methods yield the most enduring solutions to even the most intractable problems.

This is essentially neo-conservative thought -- we are thrilled to hear this from the Prime Minister of India. Perhaps the pendulum hasn't swung as far as we feared. Now it's time to back up these terrific words with concrete actions to promote, and where necessary enforce, democracy -- starting with our own benighted South Asian neighbourhood.

From Morality to Pragmatism: A Pendulum Swung Too Far

For decades, India lectured the world on morality in geo-politics -- the thought being that high-minded rhetoric, and actions, were sufficient substitutes for our lack of military and economic strength.

Consequently, we became isolated from our natural allies, the liberal democracies of the West, instead toasting third world wolves like Arafat and Castro and Mugabe and Suharto in our, ironically, democratic castle. We also somehow credited Soviet-style totalitarianism with morality -- laying the blame for our non-aligned misery solely on the "imperial" West, i.e. America. Our leftist intellectuals romanticized our poverty while their political counterparts plotted democractic and Maoist revolutions (sometimes simultaneously!!) for control of the Indian soul.

Lord knows, we still have such America-baiting intellectuals and politicians around -- some are even in our Government. But, India has become a great deal more pragmatic in its geo-political conduct. Lets first cheer this development.

Next, lets tear our "pragmatic" new avatar to shreds. We think the pendulum has swung much too far from excessive morality to excessive pragmatism. Consider the following:

India has oil interests in Sudan -- so, we keep mum about the on-going savagery in Darfur.
India needs Iran's LNG -- so, we decline to press the Islamic Republic on its democracy deficit.
India needs Russian weaponry and oil concessions (not to mention support for our embarrassing pleas for a UNSC permanent seat; on this, see How to deal with the gang in New York) -- so, we overlook Mr. Putin's thuggery.
India intends building energy pipelines through Burma and Bangladesh -- so, we turn away from Ms. Suu Kyi's much-too-long house arrest and politico-religious fascism in places like Sylhet.

Now, we understand the need to be pragmatic -- and applaud our forward diplomacy to secure our long-term energy interests. But, the cost of this pragmatism has been high -- we have not just descended from our much-too-talkative moral high-horse, we seem to have lost our ability to speak about geo-political morality at all. And when we do stand up for democracy, as we recently did by canceling the SAARC summit to protest the royalist coup in Kathmandu, complex issues arise, as discussed at length by The Acorn, which really leave GOI in a bind.

We really need to find ways for reconciling our pragmatism with our morality. We will likely never fully succeed in this, but if we don't even try, lest we upset our energy suppliers, we might as well run our internal combustion engines on the blood of their victims. Conversely, if we are at all successful, we would blaze a new trail with a worthy idea for fellow democracies to emulate.

So, how should we promote our political values in tyrannies we, unfortunately, need to do business with?

Here's one thought -- its not a fully-formed thought, perhaps not even a practical thought, but hopefully it's a conversation starter.

India could create a statutorily protected Democracy Commission (ala the Election Commission) to promote our democratic values. This DC could be India's face as a protector, a safe haven, an inspiration, and a resource bank for foreign democracy activists being suppressed by tyrannies.

The DC must be independent of the Government of the day and, via EC-like statutory protection, should have maximum immunity against short-term political pressures. Thus, the Government of the day can neither influence the Commission, nor be held responsible for the Commission's actions.

The DC could be funded by voluntary contributions by Indians (who could, for example, give as they do to charities and/or divert a capped fraction of their taxes -- 0.02% of taxes, on average, would amount to ~$10mm/Rs.45crores per annum). [A good parallel is the US taxpayers' ability to check off a box in their annual tax returns that if checked, diverts $3 to fund presidential campaigns. This creates a voluntary mechanism for Americans to fund these campaigns.]

This arrangement will then allow GOI to fete Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharazzi, while the DC simultaneously providing resources to Prof. Shirin Ebadi in her duel with the Ayatollah regime, or for the GOI to honor the Myanmarese dictator Than Shwe even as the DC hosts Burmese democracy activists plotting a peaceful regime change! Who says we cannot walk and chew gum at the same time!

If Mr. Kharazzi and General Shwe object to the DC's activities, Shri. Natwar Singh could safely shrug his shoulders and claim helplessness, citing the DC's statutory independence -- then, he could raise his glass to the health of the visiting dignitaries!

On Nepal, the DC could really take up the matter of restoring democracy in Nepal (something we strongly support), while the GOI could address the pragmatic issues raised by The Acorn .

Let the GOI be as pragmatic as it needs to be, but at least we'd have a voluntary mechanism for Indians to express their -- statutorily protected -- moral contempt for some of the tyrants we are forced to do business with. Won't that be a great way to vocalize our moral view without sacrificing our pragmatic interests?

Rooting for Little Terrorist

As we settle in to watch the Oscars tomorrow, we'll be rooting for Ashvin Kumar's short film Little Terrorist. We are also huge fans of Hilary Swank from her role in the gut-socking 1999 film Boys Don't Cry (we haven't seen Million Dollar Baby yet, but have little doubt Ms. Swank is just as stunning here as in Boys).

And, finally, hopefully, Martin Scorcese will pick up his lifetime due in the form of his first Best Director Oscar.

The Great Indian Blog Mela

India Uncut has compiled this week's Indian blog mela. There's great stuff here -- not least because it leads with our own (ahem!) condemnation of the state of contemporary Indian culture!

The conversation then moves on and covers literature and cinema and television and politics and cricket among other subjects. Do check it out.

Alleged LeT Member in Bush Assassination Plot

Earlier this week, 23-year old American Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was indicted in US Federal Court for plotting, with Al Qaeda, an assasination attempt on President Bush. Stephen Schwarz, in his New York Post column, alerts us to Mr. Abu Ali's links to, of all groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba -- the same Pakistan-sponsored terror group that has long been murdering innocent people in Kashmir. Here's the quote:

... Abu Ali is also a familiar figure to U.S. law-enforcement officials and terrorism experts. In mid-2003, federal authorities shut down a Northern Virginia a network of born Muslims and American converts to Islam, headed by convert Randall (Ismail) Royer.

Known as the "paintball jihad," the defendants in the case were supporters of Lashkar-i-Taiba, a violent Wahhabi militia fighting against Indian authorities in Kashmir. They practiced for jihad by playing paintball in the woods, went to Kashmir to carry and use weapons, and then tried to explain away their weekend activities near Washington as harmless fun.

In April 2004 Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Of his codefendants, six pled guilty, three were convicted and two were acquitted. One got a life sentence and another got 85 years.
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, described by federal prosecutors as a member of the group, escaped the initial crackdown and fled to Saudi Arabia, where he was arrested later in 2003.

Mr. Abu Ali's supporters claim that he, a high school valedictorian in Virginia, has been in Saudi custody since June 2003 -- where he was tortured while Americans looked the other way. His parents have sued the Government for failing to protect his rights as an American citizen.

Liberal American opinion, such as this New York Times editorial, have been quick to condemn the US Government for civil rights issues raised by the matter. Per the Times, Mr. Abu Ali's case is "another demonstration of what has gone wrong in the federal war on terror". They are upset that the US did not bring him back home earlier, so that he could face justice in US court.

Mr. Abu Ali is entitled to a presumption of innocence -- and certainly we do not condone torture, even if, for example, such torture is technically at the hands of another nation with lesser scruples. In fact, if a nation uses an ally to inflict torture while claiming its own disdain for such torture, it -- in our view -- is morally more culpable than even the torture-inflictor.

Having said that, in this case the accusations of torture seem odd. Afterall, as Andy McCarthy points out in The Corner, US courts forbid all evidence obtained under torture -- so, if US were indeed looking away while Saudis did their thing, they were only damaging their case against Mr. Abu Ali. This makes little sense.

We have to wait for the facts to come out in court -- we will reserve our judgement till then. Still, this is a curious case whose facts, if true, alert us to the continuing Al Qaeda threat at the hands of people who one would ordinarily not suspect, and the links between regional terror groups like LeT and their global mentors like Al Qaeda.

Azadi Begins at Home

Our recent post about how India could wrest the "Azadi" argument in Kashmir has been generously linked by The Acorn and India Uncut on their excellent blogs.

Underlying our argument was Freedom House's observation that South Asia (ex-India) is highly illiberal -- thus, we argued, any discussion about Kashmiri future that dilutes liberal India's present role there, in favor of either illiberal Pakistan or an inevitably illiberal autonomy, is unacceptable.

As if to substantiate our point about Pakistan's illiberalism, our friends at The Acorn and India Uncut have this morning highlighted a new outrage by its ruling autocracy: it is threatening to punish Pakistani actress Meera for having kissed an Indian actor in Mahesh Bhatt's new film, Nazar. Apparantly, her kiss has been deemed "vulgar" and against "Islamic ethics and moral values"!!

Somehow the same Islamic values have not prevented the Pakistani army from intimidating Doctor Shazia Khalid who has accused an officer of rape.

Now, we are ourselves hardly cheerleaders for Bollywood, but cannot stand the idea of Pakistan's military thugs wasting time silencing free expression of an actress while dragging their feet in finding the officer-rapist of Dr. Shazia. The contemptible (and decidedly un-Islamic) misogyny of this autocracy is fully on display for the world to see. So much for Gen. Musharraf's enlightened moderation.

Before Pakistan gets hoarse screaming about azadi in Kashmir, it needs to learn that azadi and enlightenment begin at home.

Blogger Freedom in Iran

This is written in solidarity with the imprisoned and persecuted bloggers, and other voices of dissent, in the theocratic republic of Iran, whose foreign minister is currently being feted in India.

Wresting the Azadi Argument in Kashmir

At a recent New York dinner a few liberal Americans, and their angst-ridden Indian counterparts, challenged us on the irony of illiberal Pakistan's support for Kashmiri self-determination, versus liberal India's resistance to it. The following is our response -- a bit long (forgive us for this) but it is (we hope) a sound liberal argument countering India's unfortunately apologetic liberal consensus on this matter. Key passages are bolded for quick perusal.

Consider a hypothetical 10-year-old tsunami orphan, facing these terrible choices: either join an ill-run orphanage or become a bonded laborer or a street urchin. Her choosing freely from among these is hardly "free choice", is it? In other words, free choice absent good options is meaningless.

Why this principle doesn’t apply in Kashmir is baffling. Here, India is pressured to allow Kashmiris "free choice" from among terrible options all of which, as we shall see, would reduce their existing freedoms. Liberals aggressively demand Indian flexibility on Kashmir - implicitly condemning Kashmiris to an illiberal fate.

This attitude is rooted in a discomforting irony - Pakistani dictatorship champions Kashmiri "free choice" while Indian democracy resists it. Notwithstanding India’s legalistic albeit valid claims, this ideological inconsistency bothers Indians - when challenged, we stammer away our discomfort by referencing Kashmiri elections and Pakistani terrorism, and when really cornered, vague possibilities of Kashmiri autonomy. These, alas, don’t really address the core issue of Kashmiri free choice - and we know it.

Our discomfort with the vocabulary of freedom is unbecoming of India. We might secure Kashmir some day with silver and sword, but our ideological discomfort will forever bite. It’s already causing us to poorly negotiate - we are now discussing concessions that, while soothing our ill-concealed discomfort, are potentially terrible mistakes. India had best resolve this matter now, ahead of serious negotiations - for, it is bad form to negotiate from a position of discomfort.
Fortunately, there exists a moral framework where our liberal discomfort is easily addressed. With this, India can wrest the Azadi argument away from separatists.

Consider Freedom House’s 2005 Freedom in the World country ratings. Here, India is rated free, like the West, while Pakistan is rated not free, like Saudi Arabia. In fact, none of India’s neighbors are rated free, making us the lone exception in a decidedly illiberal South Asia. More interesting are Kashmir ratings. While Jammu and Kashmir is rated partly free, like Singapore, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is rated not free, like Palestine.

Kashmiri self-determination is, thus, really about Kashmiris being asked to choose between their current partly free status and either, a not free future with Pakistan, or an illiberal autonomy, mirroring South Asia ex India. This so-called Azadi that reduces freedom is political self-mutilation. If free choice has meaning only with good options, this is hardly that.

While liberals naively equate polities of democratic India with our illiberal neighbors’ - who are we to judge, they say, let Kashmiris choose freely for themselves - the moral framework asserts the self-evident superiority of secular democracy over communal dictatorship. Further, it deems freedom to choose valid only when such choice, in turn, improves freedom. Therefore, any Kashmiri choice involving illiberal Pakistan or freedom-abating autonomy is rejected on moral principle, not on dry legalisms alone.

Kashmir’s only acceptable free choice involves choosing between its current partly free status and a free future - matching the rest of India. Absent this, we have the absurd paradox of "free choice" which, upon exercise, eliminates the very freedom that made it possible - i.e., free choice reduced to "one person, one vote, once".

A people’s (even self-determined) regression from freedom is bad enough - after two decades of absorbing terrorism, we fully know its spillover consequences on the world. Thus, it’s just as important to defend a people’s existing freedom, as it is to support a not free people’s quest for it. The former is India’s moral and strategic imperative in Kashmir. We may reasonably negotiate with Pakistan on issues of terrorism, river waters, gas pipelines, and free trade, but there is no moral basis to settle these in the currency of Kashmiri freedom. Neither Indians nor Pakistanis, and crucially not even Kashmiris themselves, have the moral right to barter this freedom away.

How should Kashmir be transitioning to greater freedom from its current partly free status? It’s likely that this would occur naturally once Pakistan’s illiberal shadow is lifted. Nevertheless, India should be pro-actively defending Kashmiri freedom constantly - not selling it out by discussing freedom-abating options.

For starters, we could establish this Lakshman Rekha - India will not accept options that reduce existing Kashmiri freedoms rooted in India’s Constitution. This does not compel Kashmiri separatists to accept India’s Constitution per se; it demands they demonstrably embrace its liberal spirit instead. Also, absent substantial reform at home, Pakistan’s role in Kashmir is de-legitimized. Our freedom vocabulary will also help deflect American pressure - after all, President Bush himself has proclaimed spreading freedom as America’s foreign policy. Best of all, it has the comforting virtue of moral consistency.

Lamenting Contemporary Indian Culture

What influence will India have on 21st century thought and imagination?

Bollywood? Call us elitist, but we sure hope not.

A great power is marked not just by guns and gold -- but principally by exportable ideas that inspire the world. Like other great civilizations, India too has had its share of such ideas (e.g., Yoga, Syncreticism, Taj Mahal, etc.). Our lament is that these ideas are antiques and that contemporary Indian thought -- much like contemporary global thought -- is increasingly noisy, unoriginal, and (deliberately or otherwise) designed to shock, like a mirror reflecting our broken world.

Our December trip to Delhi brought home this reality to us. We were astonished by how rapidly Delhi has grown -- and grown rapidly ugly. Our buildings have no character, no voice, no message -- other than a plea that we avert our disapproving gaze. Our cities have become piled boxes -- like graves for the living.

Then, there is the ever-present Bollywood muzak -- played at decibels masking its intrinsic emptiness. At a New York ghazal festival a few years ago, globalized and literate Indians yawned at real ghazals, then burst into applause when Pankaj Udhas sang an insipid lyric set to the horrifying (to us!) tune of "My heart will go on" from the movie, Titanic. A ghazal mahotsav reduced to aping Celine Dion? We felt like committing khudkushi that evening!

You want to discuss Indian art? The two biggest stories on art we've read in recent times were really stories about India's growing affluence and commercialism -- Hussain's sale of 100 un-created paintings for 100 Crores, and the recent sale of a VS Gaitonde painting for $215,000. Read these stories and you'll see they are less about art, more about Indians who can now afford -- what they consider is -- art.

Literature? That which sells is all in English (frequently by Indians abroad) -- the words we devour, therefore, are smothering our beautiful languages. We acknowledge our own guilt in this by throwing up the haunting lines (we forget by who) from Junot Diaz's devastating 1996 book Drown:

The fact that I am writing to you in English already falsifies what I wanted to tell you. My subject: how to explain to you that I don't belong to English though I belong nowhere else

Our architecture is rotten. Our music is noise. Our art is a whore. Our literature is alien. Our much-celebrated exports are fake accents in call centers and cold bit-streams from clattering keyboards.

We are arriving now into cultural modernity even as modernism in culture is already passe. Dan Henninger has a terrific column in Wall Street Journal today demanding respite from this jarring modernism. Here are money quotes:

Modernism was a reaction to the industrial age or the machine age. It produced Cubism, Stravinsky's music and James Joyce's "Ulysses" (also voted the 20th century's most important novel by a panel of the Modern Library). Its most important cultural values included discordance, challenge, collision, violation, confusion. This is wholly out of sync with what people want or need in the current age.

Google, Web surfing, cell phones and 1,000 television channels have also brought us something other than "Grand Theft Auto" and Britney-on-demand. Everyone in the world watched the second World Trade Center tower fall in real time, and will do so the next time. The world we inhabit now is Iraq, Sudan, tsunami, weapons of mass destruction, Rwanda, Bosnia, Beslan. Knowing--and seeing with our own eyes--so much that is so bad is not normal. We don't need to be shocked by art. We now live in a constant state of shock.
We cannot hide from the world as it is, and should not. But we need respite. And sometimes we need solace.

Thats where culture comes in. We need to change the discordance of contemporary culture and imagine it anew. Hopefully Indians will be part of this new 21st century revolution.

Supporting Taslima Nasreen

Controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen is now seeking Indian residency. She has been persecuted in her native country solely for her outspoken -- and very edgy -- views and now lives in virtual exile in Sweden.

We advocate India granting her residency. She could live in Kolkata and serve as the enfant terrible of India's cultural scene, where we desperately need some excitement -- Bollywood simply does not cut it for us!

More seriously, we are averse to anyone being threatened for the views they hold -- no matter how provocative -- and India's openness to Ms. Nasreen would trigger a broader debate on this matter in South Asia, all of which ex-India is highly illiberal.

Two Readings

An interesting debate on Iraq between Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ali can be found here. Worth reading.

Also worth reading is Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran's February 14 speech cited by The Acorn . We generally agree with Mr. Saran except on a key point. He says:

As a flourishing democracy, India would certainly welcome more democracy in our neighbourhood, but that too is something that we may encourage and promote; it is not something that we can impose upon others.

We have, of course, repeatedly argued that India should make democracy a key objective for its neighborhood foreign policy, by persuasion where possible, by imposition where necessary. See also our February 7 post, coincidentally on the same subject India & SAARC: Tough Love or Dadagiri?

India & SAARC: Tough Love or Dadagiri?

Responding to our post Canceling SAARC was the Right Move, Rezwan calls India's aggressive attitude dadagiri. We think such reaction merits a broader discussion about how India should deal with its neighbors.

We have repeatedly called for India to forcibly drag a reluctant, and likely incapable by itself, South Asia into political modernity and have cited writings on this point. This aggressiveness would be good for the people of these nations, and it would be good for India's political, military, and economic security.

In this process, if we are to break a few eggs, so be it. When the peril to democracy and political liberty in our region becomes a clear & present threat, our neighbors' feelings are hardly that important. India should no longer accept dysfunctional conduct by them -- they must, at minimum, make serious commitments to raising the quality of their shattered polities to India's standards.

Rezwan ignores weakness in the region's liberty record, then calls India's own lapses into the discussion. This, of course, assumes that India and its smaller neighbors are at the same geo-political level. Lets be clear, they are not. For all its lapses, India stands heads & shoulders above the rest of the region; besides it is the big dog here -- and let no one forget this.

For a long time we held the view that, being the big dog, India needs to go the extra mile in relations with its neighbors. But this assumed that the neighbors would walk at least a few inches our way. They have not done so -- and then have blamed India for their colossal, and shameful, failures. Its time for these nations, sovereign though they may be, to quit sulking, to own up to their own self-manufactured ills, and to stop blaming India for their own perennial foolishness.

To those who disagree with this, lets ask what these neighbors have done for India? Sri Lanka's civil war led to the assassination of an Indian Prime Minister -- we have remained unable to bring the killer Velupillai Pirabhakaran to justice. Bangladesh, who we liberated, has paid us back through effectively a covert war -- the export of tens of millions of its citizens illegally into India (read Arun Shourie's brilliant book Governance for details). Nepal is now a failed State -- a haven for murderous Maoist ideologies much as Talibani Afghanistan was to Al Qaeda; this garbage is now spilling into India. Our sorrows with Pakistan are well chronicled and do not merit repeating.

This leaves tiny Bhutan and Maldives. Well, at least the former helped India kill and maim ULFA terrorists -- so we'll show it the respect it has earned. The latter is not a threat (although its links to Saudi Arabia need close watch) but it isn't a warm friend either.

Where does this leave us? 4 of 7 SAARC nations have brought tragedy upon India, 1 has helped us, and 1 is too small to offend us even if it tried. Is this not finally time for our neighbors to ask what they have done for India (any small thing at all would have been nice, but no good deed is in evidence) -- rather than constantly harping about what India has done for them?

So, in closing, here is the tough love message that an increasing number of Indians would like to offer our neighbors: We respect your sovereignty, but you need to appreciate we are the top dog. We'll let you have your space, but don't cross our red lines. Your internal affairs are your matter, but when you move to crush democracy or are incapable of modern governance, they are our matters too. Finally, we're open to doing business with you, but you need to get over your existential angst and stop defining yourself as India's victims -- we don't appreciate this falsehood at all.

Cancelling SAARC was the Right Move

The anti-democracy events in Kathmandu this week are appalling -- but hardly surprising. India's neighborhood is decidedly illiberal (see Freedom House's 2005 Freedom in the World report). It's indeed a miracle that India has successfully sustained its democracy in the midst of this chaos.

We have little sympathy for the Maoists and are astonished that they are able to freely cross into India and find support among their Indian comrades. These Maoist leaders, whether Indian or Nepalese, need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice, and soon. This does not, however, require any suspension of democracy as the strange King of Nepal seems to think. He is a man of destiny, however (see Jonathan Gregson's fascinating book Massacre at the Palace: The Doomed Royal Dynasty of Nepal), so his steps need very careful watching.

We have previously cited the need for India to push democracy in the region, by force if necessary. Dr. Manmohan Singh's decision not to travel to Dhaka is a blunt, and much needed, message to both Nepal and Bangladesh where illiberal polities are spawning viciously violent extremism. We applaud this decision and hope the Prime Minister can sustain his pressure on these errant neighbors.

He will face opposition though, from intelligent realists who think it better to engage these nations than to pressure them. As neo-conservative idealists, we obviously disagree on this one. Such engagement is essentially appeasement and makes India punch way below its weight. Our neighbors should be made to understand that, while sovereign, they live in India's shadow and are expected to mature quickly to political modernity. Absent this, they should not expect much sympathy in New Delhi.

Welcome to Our Free World, Iraq

The successful weekend elections in Iraq have vindicated all supporters of the America-led Arab Middle East reform initiative.

Early figures show that 57% of Iraqis voted in face of vile bullying from the terrorists.

These voters are the true freedom fighters -- for, their bravery will lead to enhanced freedom for all Iraqis. The so-called insurgents -- terrorists really -- in contrast, offer only chains as their vision for Iraq, and the broader Ummah.

How anybody -- especially Indian liberals -- can empathize with these terrorists or believe that these murderers carry the voice of Iraqi people is beyond us. Hopefully, they are now disabused of their false impressions.

We will, alas, hear from defeatists across the globe who will point out the only 25% Sunni participation in the weekend poll. We've heard their voices before -- in Kashmir, where they have condemned free elections because turnout was "low". In face of dire terrorist threats -- as the Sunnis faced in Iraq, and Kashmiris face daily -- any turnout is remarkable, an act of incalculable bravery. The election critics, instead of condemning the freedom-abating terrorists, inexplicably turn their rhetorical guns on the forces of freedom. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Here's raising a toast to the brave and freedom-embracing Iraqi people. Welcome to our free world.

Hurrah for President Bush

In his inaugration speech yesterday, President Bush committed America to bringing the untamed fire of freedom to the darkest corners of our world. He went on to say that America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one and that it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

Now it is the critics' turn. British newspapers are openly mocking the President's speech -- the tabloid Star labelling it the "Have I got nukes for you" speech. In America, Peggy Noonan, the influential conservative speechwriter for President Reagan, in a Wall Street Journal column, has gently mocked the speech as being heavenish, then mischievously pointed out that the world is not heaven. American isolationists, like Pat Buchanan, have called the speech Wilsonian -- referring to the expansive idealism of Woodrow Wilson that created the ill-fated League of Nations and could not prevent the Second World War. Democrats wonder how this ambition would be paid for.

We ourselves are strongly with the President on this. We have called him revolutionary in the past, and being neoconservative, we applaud his unapologetic salute to the flag of global freedom.

For what purpose, afterall, is a nation's silver and sword if not for bringing hope -- of liberty & equality -- to those less privileged? America itself is a nation built on the hopes of its people trying to expand their freedoms -- of early settlers, of later immigrants, of slaves, of suffragettes, of entrepreneurs, of believers in the American Dream, of Hollywood's dream merchants, of inventors, of voyagers, etc. If America, of all nations, shied away from her constant hope of freeing herself ever more, and freeing the world likewise, she will not remain.

Sure, the world is not heaven -- here pragmatic deals must sometimes be made with people not worthy of handshakes. Sure, the cost of liberty is high -- freedom has always demanded sacrifice of blood and treasure. So what? Should dreamers just stay in bed & stop aspiring? A world like that is blah.

We have repeatedly favored a similar bold policy for India -- a policy to spread democracy in our bombed-out neighbourhood. In this context, we'd like to draw the readers' attention to a recent paper on South Asia Analysis Group website advocating this perspective forcefully. To quote from it:

Why not offer accommodation and compromise only to neighbors willing to abide by our (unilaterally set) standards of democratic conduct? Conversely, to dilettantes and dictators, why not present Indian national power as a ever-threatening Damocles' sword? Most important, to neighborhood democrats, no matter what their specific views, why not present India as a protector, a safe haven, an inspiration, and a resource bank?

Why not indeed?

Justice Banerjee Report

Stratfor has reviewed the Justice Banerjee report (rejecting Muslim involvement in the Godhara fire) and found it partisan against BJP -- it will strengthen India's secular polity, via Bihar, and deepen internal fissures in BJP as it ponders its response. Stratfor's summary analysis is as follows:

An Indian government investigation of the 2002 Gujarat train fire that killed 59 Hindus and sparked riots that left more than 1,000 dead has surprisingly concluded that the entire incident was an accident, not a deliberate firebomb attack by a Muslim mob. While the ruling Indian National Congress Party (INC) and rival Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) trade accusations and denials of politicizing the event, the timely release of the commission's findings contributes to the INC's goal of reducing popular BJP support.

Frankly, notwithstanding our own deeply secular belief , we are far from persuaded by Justice Banerjee's, and Stratfor's, logic. On the former, while it's less than obvious that Muslim troublemakers were responsible for the train fire, Justice Banerjee hasn't convincingly debunked that theory either. On the latter, regardless of whether Muslims were responsible for Godhara, those who condemned BJP are unlikely to change their view now, nor are those who stood by it.

The only possible gain could be that Gujarat would become the issue in Bihar's elections -- which makes little sense, as the real issue there should be the obscene mismanagement of the state by the Laloo Yadav family. The 2004 Lok Sabha election was BJP's "accountability moment" -- on Gujarat, the need now is justice, not further political haymaking.

In any event, this line of thinking -- which essentially argues that Muslim non-involvement in the Godhara events renders illegitimate the subsequent retaliatory violence against them -- is fallacious. If we accept this line of thinking (which, alas, many Muslims & fellow secularists will), are we then to conclude, conversely, that if a Muslim conspiracy had been proven, then Hindu retaliation would have been justified? We think not and therefore are not sure where Justice Banerjee's conclusion leaves us.

We think this obsession with cause & effect -- or better put, root cause & effect -- is wrong. In this context, even if there was perfidy by some Muslim hoodlums (a claim Justice Banerjee disputes), we still cannot find any justification for what followed. No root cause can ever justify deliberate murder of innocent human beings -- Justice Banerjee's report implicitly hurts this big idea.

Too bad that in pursuit of political gains, our secular polity will milk this unholy cow for all its worth.

Zhao Ziyang

Zhao Ziyang, the ex-Chinese leader deposed & shunned by his mentor Deng Xiaoping during the Tiananmen crisis, is dead. He will be remembered for having opposed the violence rained down on student-reformers by Deng, Li Peng, and in Shanghai, by supreme-leader-to-be Jiang Zemin.

Some years ago, a number of manuscripts were smuggled out of China and published by Columbia University Professor Andrew Nathan as The Tiananmen Papers. These manuscripts (provided they were genuine) detailed the secret discussions of the Chinese politburo during the Tiananmen crisis. These were seen by some as an attempt by Zhao loyalists to reclaim his role in history -- as a man who understood & sympathized with the student-reformers. If so, the revisionists behind the book succeeded only partially. Our own impressions of Zhao from the book, for example, were indeed sympathetic but ultimately, we concluded, he did not have the strength or worse, conviction, to fully stand up against Deng. Had he done so, Zhao could have emerged an equal of Mao -- heralding the end of the revolution the latter had started.

Instead, the consequence of Zhao's weakness was his internal exile plus Deng's victory & veneration -- also, with his hardline posture in Shanghai, Jiang Zemin replaced Zhao as Deng's chosen successor. Hu Jintao was curiously in far-away Tibet and finds little mention in the manuscripts. Perhaps the fact that his hands were not blood-soiled made Deng pick him as Jiang's successor -- this was perhaps Deng's covert admission of his mistake in Tiananmen.

China has seemingly moved on from Tiananmen -- it has bought the short-term loyalties of its people with the glitter of hyper economic growth. But the shadows of Tiananmen will live on, must live on, and one day there surely will be a full reckoning for all the innocents killed there in 1989. Zhao Ziyang's passing is a milepost on that road to reckoning.

What is to be done on Iran

Only a week after India announced its 25 year, $40 Billion LNG deal with Iran, comes a fascinating Seymore Hersh report in The New Yorker that U.S. is preparing for a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear and military assets -- in a bid to weaken the theocracy in-charge, thereby catalyzing a secular, pro-West revolution in Tehran.

Covert U.S. opertives have been secreting radiocativity sensors in sensitive areas in Iran, have been coordinating with Pakistani intelligence (which is spilling the beans on its past covert role in Iran's nuclear enablement -- in return, A.Q. Khan is being allowed a quiet Pakistani retirement under house arrest), and the Pentagon has been revamping contingency plans for a broader invasion of Iran.

Per a retired U.S. intelligence operative, Mr. Hersh reports, “This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

We have been strong advocates of Neo-conservatism and its revolutionary strategy for the Arab middle east. Still, we are less sanguine about the war extending into Iran. Its not clear, however -- alas -- if India will have major influence here. Given this, what is to be done?

One thing is clear. Regardless of the present & future legitimacy of Iran's theocracy, we know from India's own experience that nuclear prowess tends to be an electrifying force in nations like ours. There should be little doubt that even secular Iranians (India's natural allies) would like to see their civillization gaining the respect of the world -- nuclear prowess is surely seen as helping in this. Thus, even after their theocratic overlords are toppled, Iran's people will still yearn for global respect -- & eventually nuclear capability (it worked magic for India, afterall). Neighbouring Pakistan's betrayal of this quest will likely never be forgotton -- rather should never be allowed to be forgotton.

While India does not support the nuclearization of Persian dictators, it will not support the West militarily disrespecting Persia's proud civillization either. While India (unlike Pakistan) did not aid Iran in developing nuclear capability, it will not (like Pakistan) stab its people's valid aspirations in the back either.

India will do well to carefully disseminate this message to Iran's proud people. This message will likely resonate across Iran's political spectrum -- including its likely future rulers, the secular democrats. A deep distrust between Iran's (Shia) democrats & Pakistan's (Sunni) dictators will represent a natural "strategic depth" for India -- in turn, a crucial element for victory in our own inevitable, final & existential, confrontation with Pakistan.

China

Even as we have been sceptical of the China story -- and argued against breathless genuflection to this would-be superpower, we are well aware of the conventional wisdom of China being the principal challenger to the US for superpower status.

In this context, we tip our hat to Martin Vander Weyer for his The Spectator essay on Why China will not be a Superpower (free registration required). Here he argues that China has no exportable culture, she is militarily overrated and her economy is not as successful as it is cracked up to be -- therefore, it’s time we abandoned our superstitious dread of Beijing.

Amen.