Agence France Press reported Pope Benedict XVI's regret yesterday that "the great importance paid to conjugal love in modern societies" did not result in a willingness to have more children. He lamented the difficulty "to perceive and understand the value of the appeal to collaborate with God in the procreation of human life". The Pope added that "the fundamental vocation of the family is to be the first and the principal place to welcome new life" and urged the introduction of "legislative conditions favorable to family life".
I presume he meant that Governments offer stipends and tax breaks to young couples having more children. Such policies have failed in Europe, Israel and Japan to date. Educated women tend to prefer fewer children regardless of the financial inducements. The Pontiff's observations were in light of statistics that previously devout Catholic societies such as France, Italy, Portugal and Spain have the lowest birth rates in the world today.
Each individual is entitled to his or her opinion. The Pope, Hindu nationalists in India, Buddhist activists in Sri Lanka, Jewish fundamentalists in Israel and ethnic Chinese activists in Singapore share similar views on the need to beget more children. In each of these examples, there is an unstated subliminal fear of Islam's reported high birth rates, not realizing that the educated, regardless of religion, tend to opt for fewer children. Empowered women rarely desire repeated pregnancies.
The world is already over-populated. One forgets the plight of thousands of abandoned children left in orphanages through out the world. Is it not more important to meet their needs and those of destitute families before urging the faithful "to go forth and multiply"?
There is light at the end of the tunnel. Unmarried and gay couples in England and Wales gained adoption rights under a land mark new law that came into force yesterday offering hope to thousands of abandoned children.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Friday, December 30, 2005
Surely The Prime Minister Jests
Via Pakistan's Daily Dawn, Kuldip Nayar reports on his recent meeting with Dr. Manmohan Singh and National Security Adviser M K Naraynan:
WHEN I met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, barely 24 hours before the Bangalore shootout, they were worried about terrorist attacks in the country because such were the intelligence reports. Narayanan was more specific and said that the target could be Bangalore or Hyderabad because the two cities had come to symbolize India’s high technology and fast growth.
Narayanan had no doubt that there was a nexus between the terrorists from Bangladesh and the ISI of Pakistan. They were spreading in the country and looking for soft targets. “It is a serious situation,” he said. He had been vainly requesting top Pakistani and Bangladesh officials to stop terrorism in India.
The prime minister said that despite the promise by President General Pervez Musharraf to him last August not to allow cross-border terrorism, it had not stopped. The training camps were intact and the apparatus of terrorism had not been dismantled in any way. Narayanan said that the infiltration had increased and that cross-border terrorism was “higher than before.”
There was anguish in the prime minister’s voice when he said that he was prepared to talk to Pakistan on any subject, Kashmir or whatever else, and try to find a solution but what could he do in the face of unabated cross-border terrorism? “I still have faith in General Musharraf and hope he will do something to stop it,” said the prime minister.
We are struck by Mr. Narayanan's comment that he's been "requesting" Pakistan & Bangladesh to stop terrorism in India. Hello? Isn't that his responsibility? Also, why does he think that making polite requests of terrorist patrons will help resolve the issue?!
Dr. Singh's "anguish" over terrorism and his "faith" in General Musharraf is even more puzzling.
What world is our leadership living in?! Hopefully there's more to Indian security than making "requests" and having "faith"?
WHEN I met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, barely 24 hours before the Bangalore shootout, they were worried about terrorist attacks in the country because such were the intelligence reports. Narayanan was more specific and said that the target could be Bangalore or Hyderabad because the two cities had come to symbolize India’s high technology and fast growth.
Narayanan had no doubt that there was a nexus between the terrorists from Bangladesh and the ISI of Pakistan. They were spreading in the country and looking for soft targets. “It is a serious situation,” he said. He had been vainly requesting top Pakistani and Bangladesh officials to stop terrorism in India.
The prime minister said that despite the promise by President General Pervez Musharraf to him last August not to allow cross-border terrorism, it had not stopped. The training camps were intact and the apparatus of terrorism had not been dismantled in any way. Narayanan said that the infiltration had increased and that cross-border terrorism was “higher than before.”
There was anguish in the prime minister’s voice when he said that he was prepared to talk to Pakistan on any subject, Kashmir or whatever else, and try to find a solution but what could he do in the face of unabated cross-border terrorism? “I still have faith in General Musharraf and hope he will do something to stop it,” said the prime minister.
We are struck by Mr. Narayanan's comment that he's been "requesting" Pakistan & Bangladesh to stop terrorism in India. Hello? Isn't that his responsibility? Also, why does he think that making polite requests of terrorist patrons will help resolve the issue?!
Dr. Singh's "anguish" over terrorism and his "faith" in General Musharraf is even more puzzling.
What world is our leadership living in?! Hopefully there's more to Indian security than making "requests" and having "faith"?
Mr. Vajpayee's Legacy
Yesterday, we quipped "good riddance" upon learning of Mr. Vajpayee's retirement from elective politics. In our judgment, his legacy is cowardice -- in Kandahar, after Dec 13, 2001 and, worst of all, during the Gujarat pogrom.
Many -- especially our co-travelers on India's political right -- will consider him more charitably. This is a mistake and it's important that this flawed and fawning impression not emerge as history's verdict on his legacy.
Our critique of Mr. Vajpayee is bitter-sweet. Many years ago, when we are a child growing up in Delhi, he was our Member of Parliament. He even handed us a prize of some sort at a community event -- that was an exhilarating and indelible moment for a child, being our first, personal, brush with political power. Later, he was MP from Lucknow -- a city we have our roots in. Many of our extended family are part of the sangh parivar -- hence, strong supporters of Mr. Vajpayee.
Notwithstanding all this, the fact remains that Mr. Vajpayee tried to make virtue of his sphinx-like utterings -- and of the long silences that interrupted his vocalization. This was a very clever tactic that did get him the keys to Delhi's kingdom -- but, in the end, could not stabilize the tremble in his knees.
Indian Express' lead editorial shares our negative assessment. The newspaper, in effect, says that Mr. Vajpayee could have been a contender but, alas, was anything but. Just consider how he chose to end his long -- way too long -- political career.
By naming Pramod Mahajan as the man best suited to play the role of Lakshman -- ie, the next leader of the party -- Vajpayee has not only complicated matters for the prospective president, he has also devalued the party's decision-making process and exposed the sharp differences which have marked it. That the party chose not to comment on the remarks of its most important functionary is proof enough of the sourness of the apple it has been given.
This lack of finesse in a man who has successfully led an unwieldy coalition of 25-odd parties may surprise some. Yet, in many ways, the obfuscation is entirely characteristic of the former prime minister, who has been known to change his stance completely on issues of crucial importance -- even within the space of a few short weeks. Indeed, the big blot on his record as prime minister -- his inability to take a principled stand when confronted with the 2001 (sic) Gujarat riots -- arose from this flaw. Instead of holding Narendra Modi to the principle of raj dharma, he chose to almost condone the Gujarat mayhem publicly just a few days later. The mark of a great political leader is to prove statesmanly in difficult times. By that reckoning, Vajpayee didn't quite make the mark.
Many -- especially our co-travelers on India's political right -- will consider him more charitably. This is a mistake and it's important that this flawed and fawning impression not emerge as history's verdict on his legacy.
Our critique of Mr. Vajpayee is bitter-sweet. Many years ago, when we are a child growing up in Delhi, he was our Member of Parliament. He even handed us a prize of some sort at a community event -- that was an exhilarating and indelible moment for a child, being our first, personal, brush with political power. Later, he was MP from Lucknow -- a city we have our roots in. Many of our extended family are part of the sangh parivar -- hence, strong supporters of Mr. Vajpayee.
Notwithstanding all this, the fact remains that Mr. Vajpayee tried to make virtue of his sphinx-like utterings -- and of the long silences that interrupted his vocalization. This was a very clever tactic that did get him the keys to Delhi's kingdom -- but, in the end, could not stabilize the tremble in his knees.
Indian Express' lead editorial shares our negative assessment. The newspaper, in effect, says that Mr. Vajpayee could have been a contender but, alas, was anything but. Just consider how he chose to end his long -- way too long -- political career.
By naming Pramod Mahajan as the man best suited to play the role of Lakshman -- ie, the next leader of the party -- Vajpayee has not only complicated matters for the prospective president, he has also devalued the party's decision-making process and exposed the sharp differences which have marked it. That the party chose not to comment on the remarks of its most important functionary is proof enough of the sourness of the apple it has been given.
This lack of finesse in a man who has successfully led an unwieldy coalition of 25-odd parties may surprise some. Yet, in many ways, the obfuscation is entirely characteristic of the former prime minister, who has been known to change his stance completely on issues of crucial importance -- even within the space of a few short weeks. Indeed, the big blot on his record as prime minister -- his inability to take a principled stand when confronted with the 2001 (sic) Gujarat riots -- arose from this flaw. Instead of holding Narendra Modi to the principle of raj dharma, he chose to almost condone the Gujarat mayhem publicly just a few days later. The mark of a great political leader is to prove statesmanly in difficult times. By that reckoning, Vajpayee didn't quite make the mark.
Gender Progress At IITs
Via Times of India, Anjali Joseph reports: 'Women at IIT an endangered species'
This is unfortunately not news, except for this quote from an IIT Mumbai student:
"There are 34 girls and over 500 boys in our year," says first year civil engineering student Vidushi Jain.
Well, Vidushi -- if it helps at all, you live in times of great advance. When this blogger was at IIT, his class of 250 or so had all of 2 women!!
This is unfortunately not news, except for this quote from an IIT Mumbai student:
"There are 34 girls and over 500 boys in our year," says first year civil engineering student Vidushi Jain.
Well, Vidushi -- if it helps at all, you live in times of great advance. When this blogger was at IIT, his class of 250 or so had all of 2 women!!
Worse Than Crocodile Tears
Indian Express' lead editorial today is remarkable for its anti-terror toughness one typically only finds only on blogs.
A political-policy approach that started from killing an anti-terrorist law (Pota) because of pamphleteering, is now dangerously close to being seen as one that kills the anti-terror spirit because of pusillanimity. If the Congress thinks this doesn’t matter because it can always accuse the BJP of communalising terrorism, it must understand voters won’t be thrilled either with a party that seems to communalise the fight against terrorism. And whom do voters see as the government’s face on security issues? Shivraj Patil. The strikingly ineffective figure Patil cuts when representing official security policy suggests he would rather just nicely ask the terrorists to go away. Ministers, mind you, have to go away when they are asked.
Perhaps this is a welcome sign that sensible Indians are finally getting fed up with their government's soft attitude on terror. Incidentally, this includes our unacceptable "peace" talks with monsters across the western frontier where all this terror emanates. Hopefully, those who demand toughness on terror will also encourage the government to walk away from the ridiculous discussions with the illegitimate dictator in Islamabad.
On the other hand, it's sadly true that the same enraged Indians will soon cheer, by the hundreds of millions, their heroes playing cricket matches in the epicenter of global terrorism -- where the killers of our people come from.
BCCI should be boycotting these matches, our players should be refusing to play, and our citizens should be switching off live telecasts. None of this will happen, of course, because our outrage is infinitely more artificial than crocodile tears.
Nothing could be more disgraceful. No wonder we get the pathetic governments we deserve.
A political-policy approach that started from killing an anti-terrorist law (Pota) because of pamphleteering, is now dangerously close to being seen as one that kills the anti-terror spirit because of pusillanimity. If the Congress thinks this doesn’t matter because it can always accuse the BJP of communalising terrorism, it must understand voters won’t be thrilled either with a party that seems to communalise the fight against terrorism. And whom do voters see as the government’s face on security issues? Shivraj Patil. The strikingly ineffective figure Patil cuts when representing official security policy suggests he would rather just nicely ask the terrorists to go away. Ministers, mind you, have to go away when they are asked.
Perhaps this is a welcome sign that sensible Indians are finally getting fed up with their government's soft attitude on terror. Incidentally, this includes our unacceptable "peace" talks with monsters across the western frontier where all this terror emanates. Hopefully, those who demand toughness on terror will also encourage the government to walk away from the ridiculous discussions with the illegitimate dictator in Islamabad.
On the other hand, it's sadly true that the same enraged Indians will soon cheer, by the hundreds of millions, their heroes playing cricket matches in the epicenter of global terrorism -- where the killers of our people come from.
BCCI should be boycotting these matches, our players should be refusing to play, and our citizens should be switching off live telecasts. None of this will happen, of course, because our outrage is infinitely more artificial than crocodile tears.
Nothing could be more disgraceful. No wonder we get the pathetic governments we deserve.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Secularism
Via Hindustan Times, read Barkha Dutt on secularism. Great writing and profound insight.
In my growing years, like many of my friends, I wore my scepticism like a badge of honour. On the sun-bathed lawns of St. Stephen’s College, we embraced rebellion, and as we got ready for our march to modernity, our freshly acquired liberalism had no space for petty denominations of identity — caste, region, religion. We belonged to a larger truth, a bigger India. The irony never struck us at the time — in a college Christian by birth, we believed that we needed to be pagan to be progressive.
It was only many years later, when journalism turned my simple ideas on their head, that I realised that agnostics like myself could only end up on the losing side of the battle for secularism. We had ended up misreading the signposts — in our firm walk away from religion, we had somehow lost our way, and ended up pretty far from culture as well, in a country where the two are inextricably woven together.
Link courtesy: Mangs
In my growing years, like many of my friends, I wore my scepticism like a badge of honour. On the sun-bathed lawns of St. Stephen’s College, we embraced rebellion, and as we got ready for our march to modernity, our freshly acquired liberalism had no space for petty denominations of identity — caste, region, religion. We belonged to a larger truth, a bigger India. The irony never struck us at the time — in a college Christian by birth, we believed that we needed to be pagan to be progressive.
It was only many years later, when journalism turned my simple ideas on their head, that I realised that agnostics like myself could only end up on the losing side of the battle for secularism. We had ended up misreading the signposts — in our firm walk away from religion, we had somehow lost our way, and ended up pretty far from culture as well, in a country where the two are inextricably woven together.
Link courtesy: Mangs
Polio
We highly recommend The Last Child, a terrific documentary about the global effort to eradicate polio.
One key learning is that while India is close to ending the disease, owing to all manner of rumor and superstition many people are still scared to have their kids immunized.
What truly threw us is the fact that many in rural minority communities -- in our home state of UP, for instance -- feel that the polio vaccine is part of a majority conspiracy to make their kids impotent. The documentary actually shows people running away when health-care volunteers come by to offer free inoculation.
This situation is unconscionable -- a result of our poisoned inter-faith relations. Innocent kids end up carrying the consequent burden for the rest of their lives. How can this be acceptable in 21st century India?
This is one more reminder why we need to overcome our valid frustrations with India's imperfect secularism and keep working towards a truly secular society, where communities are able to trust one another and innocent kids are no longer paralyzed because their parents irrationally think the majority community is trying to impose population control on them.
One key learning is that while India is close to ending the disease, owing to all manner of rumor and superstition many people are still scared to have their kids immunized.
What truly threw us is the fact that many in rural minority communities -- in our home state of UP, for instance -- feel that the polio vaccine is part of a majority conspiracy to make their kids impotent. The documentary actually shows people running away when health-care volunteers come by to offer free inoculation.
This situation is unconscionable -- a result of our poisoned inter-faith relations. Innocent kids end up carrying the consequent burden for the rest of their lives. How can this be acceptable in 21st century India?
This is one more reminder why we need to overcome our valid frustrations with India's imperfect secularism and keep working towards a truly secular society, where communities are able to trust one another and innocent kids are no longer paralyzed because their parents irrationally think the majority community is trying to impose population control on them.
Azad Baluchistan?
Pakistan continues to sponsor acts of terrorism in India. The bomb blasts in New Delhi in October and today's incidents in Bangalore only confirm that. India will now need to resume its earlier policy of supporting Baluchi and Sindhi nationalists in Pakistan as an effective counter to that country's Punjabi dominated military establishment.
There has been significant unrest in Baluchistan in recent months unreported in the international media. Baluchistan, a province of 134,050 square miles, has a population of 7 million. It constitutes 43% of the land area of Pakistan. The British colonial authorities had annexed Baluchistan in 1887. Jinnah coerced the Khan of Kalat to accede to the Pakistani union in 1947. There have been four armed revolts in Baluchistan since then. The first guerilla campaign was in 1948 and did not last long. Its significance however lay in Afghanistan's territorial claim to Baluchistan. The second rebellion occurred in 1964. The third uprising took place in 1974. 15,000 Baluchis fought 80,000 Pakistani troops. 10,000 people had died in that insurrection that ended with the rise to power of General Zia-ul-Haq.
The fourth and as yet low key revolt spear-headed by the Baluchistan Liberation Army started with attacks on the gas fields of Sui in January, 2005 where 15 Pakistani military personnel were killed. The unrest had been triggered by the military-mullah nexus underpinning General Musharraf's power base, one that had alienated the traditional tribal leadership and the emerging urban middle class in Baluchistan. The Pakistani authorities immediately moved in the military to quell the unrest.
There were rocket attacks on a military camp on December 14, 2005. An attack on a military helicopter the very next day injured one Pakistani army general. The Pakistani military launched helicopter air attacks on two Baluchi training camps on December 22. The rebels in turn fired rockets on three military garrisons in retaliation. There were attacks on rail lines, oil and gas fields and on government buildings. The Pakistani army killed 20 Baluch tribesmen and injured 80 on December 24, 2005 in Dera Bugti, the hotbed of the Baluchi insurgency. Rebels blew up a small stretch of the gas pipeline of Sui on December 27. There was also a complete anti-Government shut down in Baluchistan on that day. Reports suggest that 200 people have been killed in the crackdown on Baluchi separatists in recent weeks. There were protests in the North West Frontier Province today on the proposed Kalabagh dam which would deprive Baluchistan and Sindh of much needed Indus water while submerging a wide tracts of land in the NWFP.
India should capitalize on this and openly support the cause for Baluchi independence. It might inadvertently have the support of both Afghanistan and Iran in this regard. It is time to neutralize the threat from Islamabad once and for all, American interests to the contrary notwithstanding. As one Baluchi elder had remarked "I have been a Baloch for several centuries, a Muslim for 1,400 years but a Pakistani for just 58 years". Baluchistan in open revolt would make the case for unrest in Sindh all the more feasible. Tit for tat.
There has been significant unrest in Baluchistan in recent months unreported in the international media. Baluchistan, a province of 134,050 square miles, has a population of 7 million. It constitutes 43% of the land area of Pakistan. The British colonial authorities had annexed Baluchistan in 1887. Jinnah coerced the Khan of Kalat to accede to the Pakistani union in 1947. There have been four armed revolts in Baluchistan since then. The first guerilla campaign was in 1948 and did not last long. Its significance however lay in Afghanistan's territorial claim to Baluchistan. The second rebellion occurred in 1964. The third uprising took place in 1974. 15,000 Baluchis fought 80,000 Pakistani troops. 10,000 people had died in that insurrection that ended with the rise to power of General Zia-ul-Haq.
The fourth and as yet low key revolt spear-headed by the Baluchistan Liberation Army started with attacks on the gas fields of Sui in January, 2005 where 15 Pakistani military personnel were killed. The unrest had been triggered by the military-mullah nexus underpinning General Musharraf's power base, one that had alienated the traditional tribal leadership and the emerging urban middle class in Baluchistan. The Pakistani authorities immediately moved in the military to quell the unrest.
There were rocket attacks on a military camp on December 14, 2005. An attack on a military helicopter the very next day injured one Pakistani army general. The Pakistani military launched helicopter air attacks on two Baluchi training camps on December 22. The rebels in turn fired rockets on three military garrisons in retaliation. There were attacks on rail lines, oil and gas fields and on government buildings. The Pakistani army killed 20 Baluch tribesmen and injured 80 on December 24, 2005 in Dera Bugti, the hotbed of the Baluchi insurgency. Rebels blew up a small stretch of the gas pipeline of Sui on December 27. There was also a complete anti-Government shut down in Baluchistan on that day. Reports suggest that 200 people have been killed in the crackdown on Baluchi separatists in recent weeks. There were protests in the North West Frontier Province today on the proposed Kalabagh dam which would deprive Baluchistan and Sindh of much needed Indus water while submerging a wide tracts of land in the NWFP.
India should capitalize on this and openly support the cause for Baluchi independence. It might inadvertently have the support of both Afghanistan and Iran in this regard. It is time to neutralize the threat from Islamabad once and for all, American interests to the contrary notwithstanding. As one Baluchi elder had remarked "I have been a Baloch for several centuries, a Muslim for 1,400 years but a Pakistani for just 58 years". Baluchistan in open revolt would make the case for unrest in Sindh all the more feasible. Tit for tat.
Encircled With Chaos
We understand the dictators in Beijing worry about being encircled by strong democracies.
American allies Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Mongolia, and India are all China's neighbors, checking its aspiration to emerge as the unrivalled Asian power.
This is good strategy with long historical precedence.
Of course, China is not sitting there silent. Its out-of-the-box counter-strategy is truly fascinating.
Instead of encircling its rivals with strong powers, it's trying to hem them in with chaos.
Consider India. Our neighborhood is a study in political anarchy. Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives, and Burma are all burning.
Consider South Korea and Japan. Their neighbors in Pyongyang are anything but predictable.
In most of these cases, there's a Chinese footprint behind the anarchy.
Which is worse? Being encircled by strength or by chaos?
American allies Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Mongolia, and India are all China's neighbors, checking its aspiration to emerge as the unrivalled Asian power.
This is good strategy with long historical precedence.
Of course, China is not sitting there silent. Its out-of-the-box counter-strategy is truly fascinating.
Instead of encircling its rivals with strong powers, it's trying to hem them in with chaos.
Consider India. Our neighborhood is a study in political anarchy. Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives, and Burma are all burning.
Consider South Korea and Japan. Their neighbors in Pyongyang are anything but predictable.
In most of these cases, there's a Chinese footprint behind the anarchy.
Which is worse? Being encircled by strength or by chaos?
Terrorism
Via Indian Express, Terror hits Bangalore, target is IISc
Nitin calls it Bangalore's Pearl Harbour
Stratfor comments:
In a sense, who did this is less important for the international system than that it was done. Bangalore has been a pivot of international technical development and outsourcing and, with an increasingly turbulent China, a relatively safe haven. One attack does not change this fact by any means. But continuing uncertainty as to whether there might be more attacks would begin to erode the global sense of comfort with Bangalore. The Indians have to nail this down, at least figuring out who did it.
Cheap cars packed with people, relatively few casualties in spite of apparently random fire, dud grenades, no one sending faxes taking credit -- none of this makes sense. And it makes defending against the threat difficult.
We mourn Professor Puri of IIT Delhi who tragically lost his life in this cowardly attack.
Is it not time for India to finally stop treating these attacks as "crimes" -- complete with (as Bangalore Guy shows) fumbled police investigations and trials for foot-soldiers of terror?
We know where these attacks are masterminded and we know who funds and plans these. India would be far better off decapitating the heads of these monstrous terrorist organizations.
We don't know if India has an Israel-like capability -- or even the spine -- to kill or capture evil terrorists abroad. Perhaps its finally time to create such a capability and go after the terrorist monsters Hafeez Syed and Masood Azhar personally.
Nitin calls it Bangalore's Pearl Harbour
Stratfor comments:
In a sense, who did this is less important for the international system than that it was done. Bangalore has been a pivot of international technical development and outsourcing and, with an increasingly turbulent China, a relatively safe haven. One attack does not change this fact by any means. But continuing uncertainty as to whether there might be more attacks would begin to erode the global sense of comfort with Bangalore. The Indians have to nail this down, at least figuring out who did it.
Cheap cars packed with people, relatively few casualties in spite of apparently random fire, dud grenades, no one sending faxes taking credit -- none of this makes sense. And it makes defending against the threat difficult.
We mourn Professor Puri of IIT Delhi who tragically lost his life in this cowardly attack.
Is it not time for India to finally stop treating these attacks as "crimes" -- complete with (as Bangalore Guy shows) fumbled police investigations and trials for foot-soldiers of terror?
We know where these attacks are masterminded and we know who funds and plans these. India would be far better off decapitating the heads of these monstrous terrorist organizations.
We don't know if India has an Israel-like capability -- or even the spine -- to kill or capture evil terrorists abroad. Perhaps its finally time to create such a capability and go after the terrorist monsters Hafeez Syed and Masood Azhar personally.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Outrage In Malaysia
Malaysia gives man Muslim burial, ignoring widow's wishes : Reuters
Muslim burial for Malaysian hero : BBC
M Moorthy, 36, was a Hindu when he became a national hero in 1997 as a member of the first Malaysian expedition to conquer Mount Everest.
But when he died a week ago family supporters and state Islamic officials jostled one another at the mortuary as each tried to claim his body.
An Islamic Sharia court subsequently upheld a claim by his former colleagues in the army that he had become a Muslim last year.
However his family, who want him to have a Hindu funeral, were not allowed to appear before the court to dispute his conversion because they are not Muslims.
Shame on you, Malaysia. You have a long way to go before you can be considered a peer of the secular democracies of the world.
Muslim burial for Malaysian hero : BBC
M Moorthy, 36, was a Hindu when he became a national hero in 1997 as a member of the first Malaysian expedition to conquer Mount Everest.
But when he died a week ago family supporters and state Islamic officials jostled one another at the mortuary as each tried to claim his body.
An Islamic Sharia court subsequently upheld a claim by his former colleagues in the army that he had become a Muslim last year.
However his family, who want him to have a Hindu funeral, were not allowed to appear before the court to dispute his conversion because they are not Muslims.
Shame on you, Malaysia. You have a long way to go before you can be considered a peer of the secular democracies of the world.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Smashmouth In Serendip
Nitin feels -- based on his reading of Sri Lankan bloggers -- that some form of federalism will resolve the Sri Lankan civil war. As always, we take his perspective very seriously.
However, our reading of William McGowan's Only Man is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka leaves us far less sanguine. The core dispute there is too large a volcano for the tiny paradise to absorb.
We are, therefore, not interested in the resolution of the civil war, per se. Why attempt the impossible?
India's interest there is much clearer -- and more achievable. We want Pirbhakaran dragged into an Indian court and made to answer for murdering an Indian Prime Minister. If he's man enough to swallow his cyanide pill instead of hiding behind his child soldiers, we'll take that too.
This is about one man, not about the Tamil people nor about peace in Sri Lanka.
Our 80s intervention failed precisely because our objectives were not clear -- we didn't know who the enemy was and were not clear on what our end-game was. Consequently, we became convenient punching bags for political extremists on all sides -- while we absorbed vicious losses.
Indians recoil from military intervention now because they believe it to be a repeat of the 80s. It is emphatically not -- indeed, we too believe India shouldn't become an arbiter of an impossible civil war. Rather, India should fight there for its own narrow interests. Defined in these terms -- with a clear definition of victory, i.e. Pirbhakaran in a cage -- Indians, including a vast majority of Tamils, will support the war. Let's not forget, Pirbhakaran embarrassed Indian Tamils by having Rajiv Gandhi killed in Chennai. Surely, their memory is still quite fresh.
For Vaiko to suggest that Indian Tamils will favor the terrorist LTTE over their own troops is extremely offensive and patronizing to the former. This is akin to questioning their patriotism -- indeed, just as offensive as questioning the loyalty of Indian Muslims during our Pakistan wars.
Vaiko threatens that Tamil Nadu will become Kashmir if India were to move against the interests of Sri Lankan Tamils. First, LTTE's interests are not Tamil interests -- in fact, in our judgment, they are exactly the opposite. Second, last we checked, Tamil Nadu is aspiring to emerge a better Bangalore -- if Vaiko wants to turn Tamil prosperity into the ashes of insurgency, well, good luck to him in keeping the loyalty of his own people. We credit the Tamil, among whom we've lived, with far greater intelligence than Vaiko apparently does.
New Delhi really needs to quit worrying about non-issues like Vaiko and begin flexing its muscles for a smashmouth intervention into Serendip. That it likely won't is a disgrace that right-minded Indians should not accept without aggressive protest.
However, our reading of William McGowan's Only Man is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka leaves us far less sanguine. The core dispute there is too large a volcano for the tiny paradise to absorb.
We are, therefore, not interested in the resolution of the civil war, per se. Why attempt the impossible?
India's interest there is much clearer -- and more achievable. We want Pirbhakaran dragged into an Indian court and made to answer for murdering an Indian Prime Minister. If he's man enough to swallow his cyanide pill instead of hiding behind his child soldiers, we'll take that too.
This is about one man, not about the Tamil people nor about peace in Sri Lanka.
Our 80s intervention failed precisely because our objectives were not clear -- we didn't know who the enemy was and were not clear on what our end-game was. Consequently, we became convenient punching bags for political extremists on all sides -- while we absorbed vicious losses.
Indians recoil from military intervention now because they believe it to be a repeat of the 80s. It is emphatically not -- indeed, we too believe India shouldn't become an arbiter of an impossible civil war. Rather, India should fight there for its own narrow interests. Defined in these terms -- with a clear definition of victory, i.e. Pirbhakaran in a cage -- Indians, including a vast majority of Tamils, will support the war. Let's not forget, Pirbhakaran embarrassed Indian Tamils by having Rajiv Gandhi killed in Chennai. Surely, their memory is still quite fresh.
For Vaiko to suggest that Indian Tamils will favor the terrorist LTTE over their own troops is extremely offensive and patronizing to the former. This is akin to questioning their patriotism -- indeed, just as offensive as questioning the loyalty of Indian Muslims during our Pakistan wars.
Vaiko threatens that Tamil Nadu will become Kashmir if India were to move against the interests of Sri Lankan Tamils. First, LTTE's interests are not Tamil interests -- in fact, in our judgment, they are exactly the opposite. Second, last we checked, Tamil Nadu is aspiring to emerge a better Bangalore -- if Vaiko wants to turn Tamil prosperity into the ashes of insurgency, well, good luck to him in keeping the loyalty of his own people. We credit the Tamil, among whom we've lived, with far greater intelligence than Vaiko apparently does.
New Delhi really needs to quit worrying about non-issues like Vaiko and begin flexing its muscles for a smashmouth intervention into Serendip. That it likely won't is a disgrace that right-minded Indians should not accept without aggressive protest.
Random Thoughts on the North East
India's resource-rich North East reminds me of the North Caucasus. This arc of instability can be explained not only in terms of the inept handling of multiple insurgencies but also in the context of a fragile neighborhood. The region lies south of China's restive Tibet region (471,700 square miles), east of the fast unraveling Nepal and west of Burma's fractured polity. Bangladesh to its south is not exactly stable either.
This region is a faultline prone to instability. There has been insufficient investment. Illicit immigration from neighboring states has not helped demographic equations. Cross-border terrorism continues to foment instability. The military has its hands tied and the multiple insurrections recur periodically. The Government is unable to stem the intermittent episodes of violence.
New Delhi has no credible policy to deal with the root causes of the conflict. Increased instability in the North East, the continued rise of a radical fundamentalism in Bangladesh and the collapse of the Nepalese administration will bleed India. The Government needs to address problems before they strike. Alas, it is incapable of doing so.
Arunachal Pradesh (32,000 square miles), Mizoram (8,134 square miles) and Meghalaya are perhaps the only enclaves of stability in an otherwise turbulent region.
But then, China still claims Arunachal Pradesh as its own. Naga rebels have endeavored to forment unrest among their as yet un-Christianized co-tribals in that state. A Mizo insurrection, supported by China and Pakistan, in the 1960s, was resolved in the 1980s by Rajiv Gandhi conceding a large degree of autonomy to the state and an explicit recognition of the role of the Church. 85% of the population is now Christian and 10% Buddhist. The Buddhists, however, allege that they are persecuted. Meghalaya remains tranquil for now.
The rest of the region however is precariously poised. The oil rich state of Assam has an area of 30,452 square miles. The mutually opposing Assamese, Bodo and Karbi nationalisms have been at odds with each other since the 1980s. The influx of immigrants has led to an added degree of complexity in the fragile demographic balance. The indigenous tribal population in neighboring Tripura has been reduced to 30% given the Bengali influx.
Nagaland, a state of 6,366 square miles, has been in revolt since the 1950s. The Nagas and Kukis continue their divergent secessionist campaigns. The medieval principality of Manipur is a state of 8,628 square miles. 40% of the population is Naga and 50% is Meithei. Two insurgencies with opposing demands persist, one that will split Manipur at the expense of the Meithei.
The extended neighborhood is no better. Impoverished fractured Nepal boils in a simmering Maoist cauldron. What is of concern is the Maoist corridor linking Nepal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh. Bhutan is likely to face future unrest in its southern districts given the restive Nepali minority there.
Burma in turn is a land of multiple war lords presiding over landlocked ethnic enclaves and the drug trade. The tribal Kachins, Chins, Shans, Karens and other groups in Burma have been in open revolt against military-ruled Rangoon since independence. Meanwhile, the Buddhist Chakmas in the neighboring Chittagong hill tracts (5,093 square miles) in Bangladesh remain restive. The rise in religious extremism in that country poses a security threat.
This is indeed a bewildering picture. But the situation is not beyond redemption. For one, the tribal enclaves are all landlocked regions in need of access to the sea and free trade. The bureaucrats in New Delhi need to think pluralism, multi-layered devolution, investment and private enterprise. Mizoram offers a model. There is a need to buy over the rebels. A free trade area linking Nepal, Bhutan, Eastern UP, Bihar, India's North East and Burma under Indian sponsorship will help all concerned. Tibet will need to be inducted at an appropriate time. This will stabilize the extended region and reinforce the shared civilizational inheritance.
New Delhi will need to focus on Nepal and Burma. Its Gurkha regiment should help restore stability in Nepal. It should continue to strengthen military and economic links with Rangoon. Oil rich but landlocked Assam will then once again prosper at the cross roads of trade.
This region is a faultline prone to instability. There has been insufficient investment. Illicit immigration from neighboring states has not helped demographic equations. Cross-border terrorism continues to foment instability. The military has its hands tied and the multiple insurrections recur periodically. The Government is unable to stem the intermittent episodes of violence.
New Delhi has no credible policy to deal with the root causes of the conflict. Increased instability in the North East, the continued rise of a radical fundamentalism in Bangladesh and the collapse of the Nepalese administration will bleed India. The Government needs to address problems before they strike. Alas, it is incapable of doing so.
Arunachal Pradesh (32,000 square miles), Mizoram (8,134 square miles) and Meghalaya are perhaps the only enclaves of stability in an otherwise turbulent region.
But then, China still claims Arunachal Pradesh as its own. Naga rebels have endeavored to forment unrest among their as yet un-Christianized co-tribals in that state. A Mizo insurrection, supported by China and Pakistan, in the 1960s, was resolved in the 1980s by Rajiv Gandhi conceding a large degree of autonomy to the state and an explicit recognition of the role of the Church. 85% of the population is now Christian and 10% Buddhist. The Buddhists, however, allege that they are persecuted. Meghalaya remains tranquil for now.
The rest of the region however is precariously poised. The oil rich state of Assam has an area of 30,452 square miles. The mutually opposing Assamese, Bodo and Karbi nationalisms have been at odds with each other since the 1980s. The influx of immigrants has led to an added degree of complexity in the fragile demographic balance. The indigenous tribal population in neighboring Tripura has been reduced to 30% given the Bengali influx.
Nagaland, a state of 6,366 square miles, has been in revolt since the 1950s. The Nagas and Kukis continue their divergent secessionist campaigns. The medieval principality of Manipur is a state of 8,628 square miles. 40% of the population is Naga and 50% is Meithei. Two insurgencies with opposing demands persist, one that will split Manipur at the expense of the Meithei.
The extended neighborhood is no better. Impoverished fractured Nepal boils in a simmering Maoist cauldron. What is of concern is the Maoist corridor linking Nepal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh. Bhutan is likely to face future unrest in its southern districts given the restive Nepali minority there.
Burma in turn is a land of multiple war lords presiding over landlocked ethnic enclaves and the drug trade. The tribal Kachins, Chins, Shans, Karens and other groups in Burma have been in open revolt against military-ruled Rangoon since independence. Meanwhile, the Buddhist Chakmas in the neighboring Chittagong hill tracts (5,093 square miles) in Bangladesh remain restive. The rise in religious extremism in that country poses a security threat.
This is indeed a bewildering picture. But the situation is not beyond redemption. For one, the tribal enclaves are all landlocked regions in need of access to the sea and free trade. The bureaucrats in New Delhi need to think pluralism, multi-layered devolution, investment and private enterprise. Mizoram offers a model. There is a need to buy over the rebels. A free trade area linking Nepal, Bhutan, Eastern UP, Bihar, India's North East and Burma under Indian sponsorship will help all concerned. Tibet will need to be inducted at an appropriate time. This will stabilize the extended region and reinforce the shared civilizational inheritance.
New Delhi will need to focus on Nepal and Burma. Its Gurkha regiment should help restore stability in Nepal. It should continue to strengthen military and economic links with Rangoon. Oil rich but landlocked Assam will then once again prosper at the cross roads of trade.
A Desolation Called Peace
Via Reuters, Suspected rebel attack kills 10 Sri Lankan soldiers
The terrorist in striped fatigues is baiting Colombo -- and New Delhi, where Mahinda Rajapakse is visiting -- to go to war. He is betting that Colombo is not strong enough, and Delhi not willing enough, to rise to his challenge.
It's finally time for India to brutally surprise the killer of our former Prime Minister.
Our bitter experience in the 80s shapes India's view of Sri Lanka. This is a mistake. Then, we did not have as much at stake -- we were fighting for another people and our forces had their hands tied behind their backs.
Since then, an Indian leader has been killed and we need to extract justice by hunting down Pirbhakaran. If we go to war now, there will be no limits on what our soldiers can unleash. The notion that a ragtag terrorist group can withstand a withering Indian assault -- motivated by a burning sense of vengeance -- is untenable.
So, let's go to war. Let's end this LTTE nonsense in our backyard. Let's assert our power and authority. Let's make an example out of the striped terrorists. Let's show all other mischief-makers in our sphere of influence what happens when India is finally fed up and ready to spill blood.
Let's finally show some spine and unleash hell on monsters who've long had it coming. Let's make a desolation in Tiger-land, then call it peace -- if that's what it takes.
The terrorist in striped fatigues is baiting Colombo -- and New Delhi, where Mahinda Rajapakse is visiting -- to go to war. He is betting that Colombo is not strong enough, and Delhi not willing enough, to rise to his challenge.
It's finally time for India to brutally surprise the killer of our former Prime Minister.
Our bitter experience in the 80s shapes India's view of Sri Lanka. This is a mistake. Then, we did not have as much at stake -- we were fighting for another people and our forces had their hands tied behind their backs.
Since then, an Indian leader has been killed and we need to extract justice by hunting down Pirbhakaran. If we go to war now, there will be no limits on what our soldiers can unleash. The notion that a ragtag terrorist group can withstand a withering Indian assault -- motivated by a burning sense of vengeance -- is untenable.
So, let's go to war. Let's end this LTTE nonsense in our backyard. Let's assert our power and authority. Let's make an example out of the striped terrorists. Let's show all other mischief-makers in our sphere of influence what happens when India is finally fed up and ready to spill blood.
Let's finally show some spine and unleash hell on monsters who've long had it coming. Let's make a desolation in Tiger-land, then call it peace -- if that's what it takes.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Despicable Bigotry, If True
Via New York Post, some Muslim employees in Egypt's U.S. embassy being investigated for routinely denying visas to Coptic Christians
If true, such bigotry by these US embassy employees is truly mind-numbing -- and inexcusable.
(Link courtesy: National Review Online)
If true, such bigotry by these US embassy employees is truly mind-numbing -- and inexcusable.
(Link courtesy: National Review Online)
Kashmir
Via Hindustan Times, India, Pakistan discussing Kashmir self-rule
This is sacrilege.
We've strongly opposed any discussion of Kashmiri autonomy. See also, No Autonomy For Kashmir -- Redux.
Update: Who needs self-governance? at The Acorn.
This is sacrilege.
We've strongly opposed any discussion of Kashmiri autonomy. See also, No Autonomy For Kashmir -- Redux.
Update: Who needs self-governance? at The Acorn.
India: Constitution: Schools, Caste and Religion
The Supreme Court ruled in August, 2005 that the Government lacked the constitutional prerogative to enforce caste-based reservations or interfere in the fee structure of private unaided educational institutions. The Congress-led administration tabled legislation this month to circumvent this ruling. Parliament passed the 104th Amendment to the Constitution on December 22, 2005, allowing the Government to enforce caste-based reservations and influence the fee structure in private universities and schools. The Amendment exempts religious and linguistic minority schools from its purview. Article 30(1) of the Constitution had given such schools freedom to pursue their own policies. This discrepancy has adverse implications.
The scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes and the "backward" castes are Indians like any other citizen. The new legislation is an opportunity for hitherto marginalized caste groups to have improved access to education. The challenge, however, would be to limit the policy of reservations to a time-bound schedule.
The caveat exempting religious minority educational institutions from the purview of the 104th Amendment is disturbing. For one, it segments educational policy according to religious affiliation. Christian educational institutions had thrived in independent India given the freedom afforded to them by Article 30 (1) of India's constitution. This is in contrast to most Asian countries. Hindu schools are denied this autonomy. 8 in 10 Christians in India belong to the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and "backward" caste groups. And yet the student intake in Christian schools does not reflect this social dynamic. The predominantly upper-caste church hierarchy, the largely non-Dalit priesthood and the Christian denominational schools have not addressed Dalit interests. The network of church schools in the North East and Jharkhand are not bound to ensure reservations for scheduled tribe students either. This is clearly an injustice.
While the Nehruvian mandate safeguards religious minority schools from Government interference, it inadvertently leads to a policy of "separate but equal". The Government can dictate student admissions, fee structure and curriculum in Hindu denominational schools. It can not do so with regards to Christian and Muslim schools although many of these schools receive subsidized state grants. A policy of apartheid in the educational realm militates against the basic structure of the Indian constitution.
The only sustainable solution would be to ensure that all schools are subject to uniform policies of accreditation, caste inclusiveness and gender equity regardless of religious affiliation. The Government can start by reviewing the performance of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions. Failure to do so would lead to acrimonious referrals to the Supreme Court by irate petitioners. And the entire edifice of the 104th Amendment might then be over-turned.
The scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes and the "backward" castes are Indians like any other citizen. The new legislation is an opportunity for hitherto marginalized caste groups to have improved access to education. The challenge, however, would be to limit the policy of reservations to a time-bound schedule.
The caveat exempting religious minority educational institutions from the purview of the 104th Amendment is disturbing. For one, it segments educational policy according to religious affiliation. Christian educational institutions had thrived in independent India given the freedom afforded to them by Article 30 (1) of India's constitution. This is in contrast to most Asian countries. Hindu schools are denied this autonomy. 8 in 10 Christians in India belong to the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and "backward" caste groups. And yet the student intake in Christian schools does not reflect this social dynamic. The predominantly upper-caste church hierarchy, the largely non-Dalit priesthood and the Christian denominational schools have not addressed Dalit interests. The network of church schools in the North East and Jharkhand are not bound to ensure reservations for scheduled tribe students either. This is clearly an injustice.
While the Nehruvian mandate safeguards religious minority schools from Government interference, it inadvertently leads to a policy of "separate but equal". The Government can dictate student admissions, fee structure and curriculum in Hindu denominational schools. It can not do so with regards to Christian and Muslim schools although many of these schools receive subsidized state grants. A policy of apartheid in the educational realm militates against the basic structure of the Indian constitution.
The only sustainable solution would be to ensure that all schools are subject to uniform policies of accreditation, caste inclusiveness and gender equity regardless of religious affiliation. The Government can start by reviewing the performance of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions. Failure to do so would lead to acrimonious referrals to the Supreme Court by irate petitioners. And the entire edifice of the 104th Amendment might then be over-turned.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Tough Talk In Washington
We caught yesterday, on C-SPAN, foreign secretary Shyam Saran discussing Indo-US relations at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.
Quite a tough talker Mr. Saran is.
We must say that his performance did not appear intended to win friends and influence people. Rather, it was a very muscular presentation of India's perspective.
This leaves us a bit concerned.
If India's top diplomat is anything but diplomatic, either this reflects a conscious decision to engage in blunt talk or is the routine manner in which South Block practices its art these days. Neither seems sensible to us.
Washington is a tough place to get things done in the best of times -- with President Bush having difficulty with his own domestic agenda these days, it's not clear how much political capital he has to burn on getting the India nuclear deal. This means India needs to be especially careful on who it ticks off inside the beltway.
Hopefully, our sour impression is overdone and Mr. Saran succeeds in his mission.
Quite a tough talker Mr. Saran is.
We must say that his performance did not appear intended to win friends and influence people. Rather, it was a very muscular presentation of India's perspective.
This leaves us a bit concerned.
If India's top diplomat is anything but diplomatic, either this reflects a conscious decision to engage in blunt talk or is the routine manner in which South Block practices its art these days. Neither seems sensible to us.
Washington is a tough place to get things done in the best of times -- with President Bush having difficulty with his own domestic agenda these days, it's not clear how much political capital he has to burn on getting the India nuclear deal. This means India needs to be especially careful on who it ticks off inside the beltway.
Hopefully, our sour impression is overdone and Mr. Saran succeeds in his mission.
Democracy
Via the National Review, military historian Victor Davis Hanson explains why -- regretfully -- there isn't a robust constituency for Arab democracy in America.
This is lamentable because democracy in Arabia is the only way to ensure global security.
Mr. Hanson writes:
In short, the promotion of democracy has been an orphan policy, without any parentage of past support or present special interests. It proved to be easily caricatured all at once as naïve by the right and imperialistic on the left. Thus on the war The American Conservative is now almost indistinguishable from the Nation.
Only by understanding this labyrinth of competing interests can we see why the most successful election in Middle East history, birthed by the United States, gained almost no immediate thanks or praise, here or abroad.
We don’t need Peoria or even a struggling Eastern European democracy, just the foundations for something that can allow Muslims to follow the lead of those who participate in government in India, Malaysia, or Turkey and accept the rule of law — and don’t strap on bombs to kill Americans with either government help or hurrahs from a disenfranchised mob. And we see results already right before our eyes. After all, there are really only two countries in the Middle East where thousands fight each day against Islamic terrorists who threaten their newly-won freedom — the legitimate governments in Kabul and Baghdad.
This is lamentable because democracy in Arabia is the only way to ensure global security.
Mr. Hanson writes:
In short, the promotion of democracy has been an orphan policy, without any parentage of past support or present special interests. It proved to be easily caricatured all at once as naïve by the right and imperialistic on the left. Thus on the war The American Conservative is now almost indistinguishable from the Nation.
Only by understanding this labyrinth of competing interests can we see why the most successful election in Middle East history, birthed by the United States, gained almost no immediate thanks or praise, here or abroad.
We don’t need Peoria or even a struggling Eastern European democracy, just the foundations for something that can allow Muslims to follow the lead of those who participate in government in India, Malaysia, or Turkey and accept the rule of law — and don’t strap on bombs to kill Americans with either government help or hurrahs from a disenfranchised mob. And we see results already right before our eyes. After all, there are really only two countries in the Middle East where thousands fight each day against Islamic terrorists who threaten their newly-won freedom — the legitimate governments in Kabul and Baghdad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)