Tuesday, January 31, 2006
US-India Nuclear Deal
Cynical Nerd has posted an extremely informative, well researched and thought-provoking take on the proposed nuclear deal. He calls for a public debate. Let's hope that the Manmohan Singh administration had not negotiated the deal in a hasty manner. More discussion is warranted in light of the shifting goal posts in Washington DC. The Indian government should consult the Armed Forces and the Opposition before finalizing any such deal of national importance. Please read on!
Monday, January 30, 2006
Prepared To Walk Away
Nitin is not sure whether India's decision to abstain at IAEA on Iran is strategic or childish.
This follows US Ambassador David Mulford's threat to India which we argued is background noise -- what India needed to focus, instead, was hard bargaining. Well, we are getting some of this now.
It goes without saying that India's bargaining position is enormously weakened if it were not prepared to walk from the US nuclear deal. We think India's Iran abstention communicates its willingness to do precisely that to US interlocutors. Seen together with the weekend sidelining of anti-US Mani Shankar Aiyar and retention of the foreign ministry by the pro-US Dr. Singh, the message cannot be clearer: India is willing to cut a deal with America, but only at sensible terms -- otherwise we walk.
Iran itself is a useful sideshow to this Indo-US fencing.
This is entirely appropriate. Not only does this action silence domestic critics of the deal, it makes India more credible at the bargaining table with the US.
Ultimately, US must understand that it needs India perhaps even more than India needs it. India has prospered independent of US patronage so far, and will continue to do so with or without a deal with Americans. America, on the other hand, cannot really play in Asia absent partnership with the ever-stronger India.
India calling America's bluff is entirely within the rules of poker. Hopefully, this will eventually yield a better deal for India and a worthy ally for America.
This follows US Ambassador David Mulford's threat to India which we argued is background noise -- what India needed to focus, instead, was hard bargaining. Well, we are getting some of this now.
It goes without saying that India's bargaining position is enormously weakened if it were not prepared to walk from the US nuclear deal. We think India's Iran abstention communicates its willingness to do precisely that to US interlocutors. Seen together with the weekend sidelining of anti-US Mani Shankar Aiyar and retention of the foreign ministry by the pro-US Dr. Singh, the message cannot be clearer: India is willing to cut a deal with America, but only at sensible terms -- otherwise we walk.
Iran itself is a useful sideshow to this Indo-US fencing.
This is entirely appropriate. Not only does this action silence domestic critics of the deal, it makes India more credible at the bargaining table with the US.
Ultimately, US must understand that it needs India perhaps even more than India needs it. India has prospered independent of US patronage so far, and will continue to do so with or without a deal with Americans. America, on the other hand, cannot really play in Asia absent partnership with the ever-stronger India.
India calling America's bluff is entirely within the rules of poker. Hopefully, this will eventually yield a better deal for India and a worthy ally for America.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Familiarity & Contempt
Amit is serving delicious slices of Pakistan on India Uncut.
His are stories of familiar people in familiar places. The subliminal point, we think, is that Pakistanis are not the devils Indians may imagine -- rather, people very much like us.
This is what our peace process through people-to-people contact hopes for. Illusions are dispelled, familiarity is restored and, as Amit might quip, "fun even comes".
Almost too easy, isn't it?
Pakistan is indeed familiar, as though India in a looking glass. Things are similar, but not quite. Here, life writes itself right to left -- small but deliberate mutinies against inherited history and culture subtly clarify one isn't in Kanpur anymore.
These small mutinies are like still-smouldering dust from our own mutual big bang, the partition.
We are amused by the idea that peace will emerge from a renewed familiarity between our people. As though, Amit's slices of Pakistan are an astonishing revelation to most Indians who, inspired by Bollywood kitsch, will revise their rage into a melodramatic epiphany of familiarity.
Unfortunately, reality is reverse. Familiarity with Pakistan is hardly news to Indians and should only generate contempt.
Indians have forever understood our commonality with Pakistanis -- it's Pakistan's birth pangs that denied this. Indian nationalism sought to hold the family together -- it's Pakistan's that sought divorce.
All this inspite of a thousand years of shared spatial and cultural identity.
We were stabbed in the back by our own -- this evil arose amidst our mundane familiarity. It always does, doesn't it, lulling one's senses then beheading our idealism. Yet, Amit desperately seeks normalcy in Karachi as perhaps Daniel Pearl once did -- reminding us of Mirza Ghalib:
humko maaloom hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin
dil ko khush rakhne ko 'Ghalib' ye khayaal achcha hai
We are being asked to believe a few cricket matches, kababs, and qawwalis will numb our memory of betrayal. Please. This memory is all we've got to protect us from being lulled as some of our best minds evidently are.
The entirely familiar Pakistan stands astride the suffering of the millions dead and displaced by partition. Our problem is hardly a lack of familiarity, rather an acute understanding of the separatist evil that slouched from Karachi, the 1947 capital of the infant Pakistan.
Update: Amit hears from Nitin as well.
His are stories of familiar people in familiar places. The subliminal point, we think, is that Pakistanis are not the devils Indians may imagine -- rather, people very much like us.
This is what our peace process through people-to-people contact hopes for. Illusions are dispelled, familiarity is restored and, as Amit might quip, "fun even comes".
Almost too easy, isn't it?
Pakistan is indeed familiar, as though India in a looking glass. Things are similar, but not quite. Here, life writes itself right to left -- small but deliberate mutinies against inherited history and culture subtly clarify one isn't in Kanpur anymore.
These small mutinies are like still-smouldering dust from our own mutual big bang, the partition.
We are amused by the idea that peace will emerge from a renewed familiarity between our people. As though, Amit's slices of Pakistan are an astonishing revelation to most Indians who, inspired by Bollywood kitsch, will revise their rage into a melodramatic epiphany of familiarity.
Unfortunately, reality is reverse. Familiarity with Pakistan is hardly news to Indians and should only generate contempt.
Indians have forever understood our commonality with Pakistanis -- it's Pakistan's birth pangs that denied this. Indian nationalism sought to hold the family together -- it's Pakistan's that sought divorce.
All this inspite of a thousand years of shared spatial and cultural identity.
We were stabbed in the back by our own -- this evil arose amidst our mundane familiarity. It always does, doesn't it, lulling one's senses then beheading our idealism. Yet, Amit desperately seeks normalcy in Karachi as perhaps Daniel Pearl once did -- reminding us of Mirza Ghalib:
humko maaloom hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin
dil ko khush rakhne ko 'Ghalib' ye khayaal achcha hai
We are being asked to believe a few cricket matches, kababs, and qawwalis will numb our memory of betrayal. Please. This memory is all we've got to protect us from being lulled as some of our best minds evidently are.
The entirely familiar Pakistan stands astride the suffering of the millions dead and displaced by partition. Our problem is hardly a lack of familiarity, rather an acute understanding of the separatist evil that slouched from Karachi, the 1947 capital of the infant Pakistan.
Update: Amit hears from Nitin as well.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Politics And Math
Via Hindustan Times, we read about India's cabinet reshuffle:
GK Vassan, TNCC president and son of late Congress veteran GK Moopanar, will be Minister of State with independent charge of Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation while Renuka Chowdhury has been shifted from tourism to women and child development.
While we are at it, marrying politics to mathematics, why not a Ministry of Geometry?!
GK Vassan, TNCC president and son of late Congress veteran GK Moopanar, will be Minister of State with independent charge of Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation while Renuka Chowdhury has been shifted from tourism to women and child development.
While we are at it, marrying politics to mathematics, why not a Ministry of Geometry?!
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Greetings on Republic Day
Greetings to all on Republic Day. We can look back and be justifiably proud that the Constitution of 1950 has endured - except for a brief dark period in the 70's. This is the day we moved from being a British Dominion to "purna swaraj" (full independence). And we have done well. It's time to make good on those promises the Indian nation made itself several decades ago, and fulfill the promise of being the Eastern Beacon of the Free World.
India is called the "largest democracy". That is not true. India is, in fact, the largest Republic - authoritarian China hardly embodies the spirit of a Republic. We certainly have a democratically elected government. But we are no democracy. And we should never be. Here's an interesting distinction between a Republic and a Democracy - a.k.a. "Rule of the Omnipotent Majority".
India is called the "largest democracy". That is not true. India is, in fact, the largest Republic - authoritarian China hardly embodies the spirit of a Republic. We certainly have a democratically elected government. But we are no democracy. And we should never be. Here's an interesting distinction between a Republic and a Democracy - a.k.a. "Rule of the Omnipotent Majority".
Background Noise
When we first read US Ambassador David Mulford's threat to India, our first instinct was to call for an Indian abstention on the vexed Iran matter at IAEA.
Not that we like the thugs running Iran these days; who'd want them to have a nuclear capability. And, if Iran's extremism threatens our natural allies in US & Israel, why shouldn't we call out Iran at IAEA?
In any event, all this is a complex dance going nowhere fast.
But David Mulford has waded in and queered the pitch. If this strongly pro-US blog is infuriated, most US-baiters in India are likely apoplectic.
Mercifully, we have learned to check ourselves when in rage. As we thought more about Mr. Mulford's threat, we realized it is essentially background noise.
Of similar quality are statements from Iranian official Ali Larijani who astonishingly compared his country's nuclear program to India's. His statement allowed India to distance itself from Iran.
Mr. Mulford quickly erased this advantage to his own country -- and placed India in a very tough spot.
The Indian left has unsurprisingly weighed in. It seeks a Government commitment that India will not vote against Iran. The Indian right is upset as well.
What is the Government to do? The answer is clear. This is hardball territory where sages, fools, and madmen all have something to say. It's good theater but our focus should remain on national interest.
It's clearly in India's national interest to get the nuclear deal. So, lets ignore background noise, drive a hard bargain, and move on with life.
After that, there's an eternity to settle petty scores with Mr. Mulford and everyone else.
Not that we like the thugs running Iran these days; who'd want them to have a nuclear capability. And, if Iran's extremism threatens our natural allies in US & Israel, why shouldn't we call out Iran at IAEA?
In any event, all this is a complex dance going nowhere fast.
But David Mulford has waded in and queered the pitch. If this strongly pro-US blog is infuriated, most US-baiters in India are likely apoplectic.
Mercifully, we have learned to check ourselves when in rage. As we thought more about Mr. Mulford's threat, we realized it is essentially background noise.
Of similar quality are statements from Iranian official Ali Larijani who astonishingly compared his country's nuclear program to India's. His statement allowed India to distance itself from Iran.
Mr. Mulford quickly erased this advantage to his own country -- and placed India in a very tough spot.
The Indian left has unsurprisingly weighed in. It seeks a Government commitment that India will not vote against Iran. The Indian right is upset as well.
What is the Government to do? The answer is clear. This is hardball territory where sages, fools, and madmen all have something to say. It's good theater but our focus should remain on national interest.
It's clearly in India's national interest to get the nuclear deal. So, lets ignore background noise, drive a hard bargain, and move on with life.
After that, there's an eternity to settle petty scores with Mr. Mulford and everyone else.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Baltistan
Baltistan is situated at the northern end of pre-partition Kashmir. It is linked to Tibet and Ladakh in language although its population adopted Islam in the 14th century CE. The Dogras led by Zorawar Singh annexed it in 1840 and united it with Kashmir. The Maharaja leased the territory to the British in 1935 to help them spy on Xinjiang and Afghanistan. The land was returned to the Maharaja in 1947. A local uprising backed by Pakhtun irregulars ensured that Baltistan acceded to Pakistan later that year. Pakistan occupied about 10,000 square miles of Balti territory although it ceded 2,500 square miles to China in 1963. India captured the Kargil district in 1971. Pakistan retains control of the other two districts in Baltistan i.e. Skardu and Ganche. The indigenous inhabitants speak an archaic form of Tibetan. The area purportedly has a population of 400,000 though the number is difficult to verify in the absence of a proper census.
The Iranian revolution in 1979 inspired Shi'ite radicalism in Baltistan. Teheran financed Shi'ite organizations. The Tehrik-e-Jaffria was in the forefront of Shi'ite militancy given the lack of economic opportunity and investment in a remote, arid and harsh landscape. The Zia-ul-Haq administration settled Sunni Muslims from the North West Frontier Province in the territory to neutralize this. The Sipaha-e-Sahaba, the Sunni extremist organization was built up to counter Shi'ite militancy. There was a proliferation of hard-line Sunni Madrassahs. The Shi'ite population reportedly declined from 85% in 1948 to 53% today. This statistic is hard to verify in the absence of census figures.
There were sectarian riots in Baltistan in 1988. Outside gangs terrorized the local Shi'ite population. Zia despatched then Brigadier Pervez Musharraf to suppress the unrest with brutal force. Many perished in the violence. Some allege that Balti airforce personnel might have had a role in the subsequent plane blast that killed Zia 10 days later. Regardless, the ISI continued to sponsor Lashkar-e-Toiba and Hizbul Mujahadeen bases in Baltistan to foment unrest in Indian-held Kashmir.
Ethno-sectarian tensions continue to simmer with Baltistan. The movement for independence or far reaching autonomy is not irrelevant. The Baltistan Student Federation boycotted the 50th anniversary of Pakistan in 1997. There were riots in June, 2004 over the Government's school curriculum viewed as anti-Shi'ite. Sunni extremists in turn attacked the Ismaili Agha Khan Foundation in December, 2004. This triggered sectarian violence in January, 2005. There were reports of more unrest in October, 2005 and January, 2006 with several being killed.
The Baltis demanded the right to be represented in the Pakistani legislature, one that is currently denied to them given the legal ambiguity of that region. The Pakistani constitutions of 1956, 1962, 1972 and 1973 make no reference to Baltistan or Gilgit. The Balti do not have the right to vote in national elections. They unsuccessfully filed action in the Supreme Court to win the fundamental rights accorded to Pakistani citizens. All in all, this is a region that remains disaffected and marginalized from the Punjabi mainstream.
Indian policy makers will need to highlight human rights in Baltistan and Gilgit in international fora. They should support Balti dissidents to neutralize the Wahabi fundamentalist groups operating in the area. A link with Iran might be useful here in light of the Pakistani sponsorship of terror in Indian-held Kashmir since 1989.
The Iranian revolution in 1979 inspired Shi'ite radicalism in Baltistan. Teheran financed Shi'ite organizations. The Tehrik-e-Jaffria was in the forefront of Shi'ite militancy given the lack of economic opportunity and investment in a remote, arid and harsh landscape. The Zia-ul-Haq administration settled Sunni Muslims from the North West Frontier Province in the territory to neutralize this. The Sipaha-e-Sahaba, the Sunni extremist organization was built up to counter Shi'ite militancy. There was a proliferation of hard-line Sunni Madrassahs. The Shi'ite population reportedly declined from 85% in 1948 to 53% today. This statistic is hard to verify in the absence of census figures.
There were sectarian riots in Baltistan in 1988. Outside gangs terrorized the local Shi'ite population. Zia despatched then Brigadier Pervez Musharraf to suppress the unrest with brutal force. Many perished in the violence. Some allege that Balti airforce personnel might have had a role in the subsequent plane blast that killed Zia 10 days later. Regardless, the ISI continued to sponsor Lashkar-e-Toiba and Hizbul Mujahadeen bases in Baltistan to foment unrest in Indian-held Kashmir.
Ethno-sectarian tensions continue to simmer with Baltistan. The movement for independence or far reaching autonomy is not irrelevant. The Baltistan Student Federation boycotted the 50th anniversary of Pakistan in 1997. There were riots in June, 2004 over the Government's school curriculum viewed as anti-Shi'ite. Sunni extremists in turn attacked the Ismaili Agha Khan Foundation in December, 2004. This triggered sectarian violence in January, 2005. There were reports of more unrest in October, 2005 and January, 2006 with several being killed.
The Baltis demanded the right to be represented in the Pakistani legislature, one that is currently denied to them given the legal ambiguity of that region. The Pakistani constitutions of 1956, 1962, 1972 and 1973 make no reference to Baltistan or Gilgit. The Balti do not have the right to vote in national elections. They unsuccessfully filed action in the Supreme Court to win the fundamental rights accorded to Pakistani citizens. All in all, this is a region that remains disaffected and marginalized from the Punjabi mainstream.
Indian policy makers will need to highlight human rights in Baltistan and Gilgit in international fora. They should support Balti dissidents to neutralize the Wahabi fundamentalist groups operating in the area. A link with Iran might be useful here in light of the Pakistani sponsorship of terror in Indian-held Kashmir since 1989.
Greetings, Mr. Aziz
Coincident with Shaukat Aziz's Washington trip, the influential Washington Post has an appropriately hawkish editorial on The War in Pakistan
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Indian History being rewritten in the US
Here's an interesting debate on Indian history in US textbooks!
Madrassa Reform
Rezwan discusses how Madrassa's are being reformed in West Bengal -- the results are seemingly pretty good.
Pakhtunkhwa
The linguistic, sectarian, tribal and political fault-lines that run across Afghanistan, Baluchistan, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the North West Frontier Province impinge on the stability of Pakistan. Emphasis to date has been on the politics of the Punjab and Sindh. The trans-Indus dynamics might in fact be more relevant to the continuity of the Musharraf regime. This post will focus on the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan.
The Pakhtun North West Frontier Province and the adjoining Tribal Areas lay between the Mughal and Safavid empires. Ahmad Shah Durrani founded the Durrani empire in 1747 CE that included Afghanistan, the North West Frontier and the Tribal Areas. The three regions have strong ethno-religious links. Maharaja Ranjith Singh brought the Tribal Areas under Punjabi domination in 1818 CE. The politics of that region were linked to the Indian subcontinent from then on. The British imposed the 1,500 mile Durand line in 1893 that cut through Pakhtun lands. Afghanistan rejected the legality of the Durand line in 1949.
The colonial authorities chose not to directly administer the fiercely individualist Tribal Areas, a region of 10,500 square miles. Independent Pakistan continued the policy of autonomy. Tribal law supersedes the civil and criminal law of Pakistan. The Tribal Areas comprise Bajorr, Khyber, Kurram, Mohmand, Orakzai and Waziristan. It has a population of 3 million. The tribal chiefs or Maliks reign supreme. The fall of the Taleban in neighboring Afghanistan in December, 2001 changed the relative independence that the region enjoyed. Pakistan sent in 70,000 troops in 2004 as part of the United States sponsored Global Offense Against Terror. This led to increased restiveness in the Tribal Areas. The international media has not covered the simmering unrest partly because of a lack of access.
United States military activity in the face of increased instability in adjoining areas of Afghanistan heightened tensions. It launched a missile attack on January 13 targeting suspected militant cells in Bajorr. 18 civilians were reportedly killed in addition to 4 alleged Al Qaeda operatives. Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai had accused militants operating from the Tribal Areas of carrying out the suicide attack that killed a Canadian diplomat and two others in Kandahar on January 15, a suicide attack that killed 5 more in Kandahar on January 16 and a attack that killed 23 in Spin Boldak. The Governor of the Afghan province of Kandahar accused Pakistan of complicity.
The information is sparse and the implications unclear. This is much to do with the lack of access to the region. The events in the Tribal Areas might destabilize the adjoining North West Frontier Province, currently governed by the six party Islamist alliance the Muttahida Majlis-e Amal. The provincial government has crossed swords with Musharraf accusing him of being an "American slave". It has charged American troops carrying out earthquake relief operations of espionage. Another issue that comes to mind, albeit in an indirect manner, is the proposed Kalabagh dam that largely affects Pakhtun areas. In addition to withholding Indus river waters from the Sindh for use in the Punjab, it would submerge the Pakhtun city of Naushera. Several other Pakthun areas would face regular water logging.
Indian policy makers need to assess the potential for instability. The case for a greater Afghan involvement in the affairs of the North West Frontier Province and the Federal Administered Tribal Areas should be explored. The three units after all form part of an ethno-religious continuum unrelated to the Punjab. The Pakhtun partition was a mere accident of history. A Pakthun nationalism divorced from the Punjab and one that takes inspiration from the Durrani empire, the warrior poetry of Kushal Khan Khattak and the anti-colonial agitation of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is in India's interest. This after all was the historic Indic frontier with the Farsi realm.
The Pakhtun North West Frontier Province and the adjoining Tribal Areas lay between the Mughal and Safavid empires. Ahmad Shah Durrani founded the Durrani empire in 1747 CE that included Afghanistan, the North West Frontier and the Tribal Areas. The three regions have strong ethno-religious links. Maharaja Ranjith Singh brought the Tribal Areas under Punjabi domination in 1818 CE. The politics of that region were linked to the Indian subcontinent from then on. The British imposed the 1,500 mile Durand line in 1893 that cut through Pakhtun lands. Afghanistan rejected the legality of the Durand line in 1949.
The colonial authorities chose not to directly administer the fiercely individualist Tribal Areas, a region of 10,500 square miles. Independent Pakistan continued the policy of autonomy. Tribal law supersedes the civil and criminal law of Pakistan. The Tribal Areas comprise Bajorr, Khyber, Kurram, Mohmand, Orakzai and Waziristan. It has a population of 3 million. The tribal chiefs or Maliks reign supreme. The fall of the Taleban in neighboring Afghanistan in December, 2001 changed the relative independence that the region enjoyed. Pakistan sent in 70,000 troops in 2004 as part of the United States sponsored Global Offense Against Terror. This led to increased restiveness in the Tribal Areas. The international media has not covered the simmering unrest partly because of a lack of access.
United States military activity in the face of increased instability in adjoining areas of Afghanistan heightened tensions. It launched a missile attack on January 13 targeting suspected militant cells in Bajorr. 18 civilians were reportedly killed in addition to 4 alleged Al Qaeda operatives. Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai had accused militants operating from the Tribal Areas of carrying out the suicide attack that killed a Canadian diplomat and two others in Kandahar on January 15, a suicide attack that killed 5 more in Kandahar on January 16 and a attack that killed 23 in Spin Boldak. The Governor of the Afghan province of Kandahar accused Pakistan of complicity.
The information is sparse and the implications unclear. This is much to do with the lack of access to the region. The events in the Tribal Areas might destabilize the adjoining North West Frontier Province, currently governed by the six party Islamist alliance the Muttahida Majlis-e Amal. The provincial government has crossed swords with Musharraf accusing him of being an "American slave". It has charged American troops carrying out earthquake relief operations of espionage. Another issue that comes to mind, albeit in an indirect manner, is the proposed Kalabagh dam that largely affects Pakhtun areas. In addition to withholding Indus river waters from the Sindh for use in the Punjab, it would submerge the Pakhtun city of Naushera. Several other Pakthun areas would face regular water logging.
Indian policy makers need to assess the potential for instability. The case for a greater Afghan involvement in the affairs of the North West Frontier Province and the Federal Administered Tribal Areas should be explored. The three units after all form part of an ethno-religious continuum unrelated to the Punjab. The Pakhtun partition was a mere accident of history. A Pakthun nationalism divorced from the Punjab and one that takes inspiration from the Durrani empire, the warrior poetry of Kushal Khan Khattak and the anti-colonial agitation of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is in India's interest. This after all was the historic Indic frontier with the Farsi realm.
Mind bending experiment in China
This article from MIT Technology Review discusses the Great Chinese experiment of instituting the scientific mindset onto its research community in a top-down manner. Much of the funding is mandated by the bureaucrats in the Communist party. Big brother is always watching what the scientists say to foreigners. And cultivating the ethos, the discipline of science, faces challenges from two deep-rooted cultural problems: the Confucian problem and the plagiarism problem. Harmony, consensus and respect for authority or elders, broadly the Confucian mindset, goes against the most fundamental aspect of modern science where the senior-most professor can be challenged by the youngest of students. The other problem is the complete ignorance or disrespect of intellectual property rights, trademarks and the stealing or the widespread practice of incorporating ideas without attribution.
This article from Newsweek talks about Chinese industrial and governmental espionage (including some in India) in its drive to acquire high-technology at any cost.
Goes to show that you can beg, borrow or steal, but none of it can help you create mind bending miracles, like inculcating the spirit of scientific enquiry. (What are they going to think of next? Introducing democracy by decree?)
This article from Newsweek talks about Chinese industrial and governmental espionage (including some in India) in its drive to acquire high-technology at any cost.
Goes to show that you can beg, borrow or steal, but none of it can help you create mind bending miracles, like inculcating the spirit of scientific enquiry. (What are they going to think of next? Introducing democracy by decree?)
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Cricket And Terror
Via Hindustan Times, Missing cricket fans behind B’lore terror?
THREE OF the 32 Pakistanis visitors who had gone missing after the Indo-Pak cricket series in India last year may have been involved in the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Sciences in Bangalore in December.
If this pans out, then this on-going farce of cricket diplomacy should be immediately ended. It has already cost us too much blood in exchange for only cheap thrills.
THREE OF the 32 Pakistanis visitors who had gone missing after the Indo-Pak cricket series in India last year may have been involved in the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Sciences in Bangalore in December.
If this pans out, then this on-going farce of cricket diplomacy should be immediately ended. It has already cost us too much blood in exchange for only cheap thrills.
The Market Knows?
Via Israeli Debkafile, Tehran plans a nuclear weapons test
Via Associated Press, Israel hints at preparation to stop Iran
Via Reuters, US stocks suffer biggest fall in nearly 3 years
Via TMCnet, Tokyo stocks open sharply lower after NY shares plunge
Via Associated Press, Israel hints at preparation to stop Iran
Via Reuters, US stocks suffer biggest fall in nearly 3 years
Via TMCnet, Tokyo stocks open sharply lower after NY shares plunge
Idiocy Watch
Pakistani Daily Dawn's New Delhi reporter Jawed Naqvi presumes to caution India on its emerging American alliance.
Why? Because, he writes:
It is no coincidence that America’s biggest bugbears today — Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden — were once its key allies. If India were to follow Washington’s lead on global issues, particularly in the Middle East, it could end up being similarly trapped in a duplicitous bargain, most likely on the losing end of it.
So, let's get this straight. India is being compared to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?! Doesn't the comparison better fit America's frontline ally in the war on terror?!!!
How do these fools print things like this while keeping a straight face? Ironically, the same -- supposedly respectable -- newspaper carries the following editorial in the very same issue: Indian media’s blinkered perception. What's that about pot and kettles?!
Why? Because, he writes:
It is no coincidence that America’s biggest bugbears today — Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden — were once its key allies. If India were to follow Washington’s lead on global issues, particularly in the Middle East, it could end up being similarly trapped in a duplicitous bargain, most likely on the losing end of it.
So, let's get this straight. India is being compared to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?! Doesn't the comparison better fit America's frontline ally in the war on terror?!!!
How do these fools print things like this while keeping a straight face? Ironically, the same -- supposedly respectable -- newspaper carries the following editorial in the very same issue: Indian media’s blinkered perception. What's that about pot and kettles?!
Self-Destructive Rage
Via Associated Press, Sympathy For Al Qaeda Surges In Pakistan
If one had to have an enemy state, could one possibly find a more self-destructive one?
If one had to have an enemy state, could one possibly find a more self-destructive one?
Memory
Gargi's The call of the old… revived old memories for this blogger.
She refers to "Buniyaad"; there were also "Hum Log" and "Aur Bhi Gham Hain Zamane Mein".
Interestingly, the theme song for the former and the name of the latter are both adapted from Faiz poems linked below. See if you can spot the reference!!
Duaa
Mujh se pehli si mohabbat
She refers to "Buniyaad"; there were also "Hum Log" and "Aur Bhi Gham Hain Zamane Mein".
Interestingly, the theme song for the former and the name of the latter are both adapted from Faiz poems linked below. See if you can spot the reference!!
Duaa
Mujh se pehli si mohabbat
Indian Foreign Policy: Reflections
The continuity in the foreign policy styles of the Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh administrations is unmistakable. Both governments endeavored to improve India's international profile by leveraging a strategic alliance with the United States, initiating significant forays into Central Asia and South East Asia, and retaining existing defence links with Russia. Both administrations fared better in back-room diplomacy despite the failure to implement a firm stand in the public arena vis-a-vis national security. The preferred method was covert and behind-the-scenes rather than activist and high-profile. While this might have had its benefits, it also revealed the soft state that India is today.
The common thread in foreign and defence policies is striking when it came to the investment in space technology, participation in the East Asia Forum (which convenes ASEAN, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea), the importance placed on the Far Eastern Marine Command at Port Blair, the emphasis on road, shipping and defence links with Burma, not to mention strengthened links with Thailand and Indonesia. The look east policy is visible. The Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh governments similarly emphasized investment in the Sakhalin oil fields and the joint Russian-Kazakh Kurmangazy oil fields in the Caspian as part of a broader energy thrust. India also hopes to invest in rail and road links between the Central Asian republics and Iran as part of the 1999 Trilateral Agreement that envisioned an oil swap between India, Iran and Turkmenistan. The two administrations continued the key defence and allied space technology links with Russia, while developing ties with the United States in dual use nuclear, space and military technology. Russian efforts to establish with Indian support the Global Navigation Satellite System as a counter to the United States-based Global Positioning System is a case in point.
India's foreign policy is a quiet and largely covert one. The emphasis on the immediate neighborhood is a tacit one. Despite increased rapport with the United States, India discreetly vetoed United States efforts to enter into an Access and Cross Servicing Agreement with Sri Lanka, to construct an international airport at Kuda Oya in that country's deep south, to modernize airport facilities in Jaffna in the island's far north and extend the immediate post-tsunami US Marine presence beyond one month. It is entirely probable that India covertly facilitated international focus on the upsurge in Islamist fundamentalism in neighboring Bangladesh and media attention on Pakistan's restive Baluchistan province. India appears to excel in back room diplomacy.
Nonetheless, the broad scope and long term character of Indian foreign policy should not detract from its essential weakness since 1990. One can give two examples out of several i.e. (a) Islamist radicalism in the neighborhood; and (b) the fast unravelling scenario in Nepal. China is a third example and will be covered in a separate post. It sponsored Pakistan's development of nuclear technology in the early 1990s. The Narasimha Rao administration did nothing to contain that.
India failed to address the role of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence in fomenting unrest in Afghanistan and Kashmir in the 1990s. The Taleban captured Kabul in 1996. This helped transform Afghanistan into a haven for terrorism targeted at India. Fortunately, international events unrelated to Indian initiative helped neutralize the Taleban regime in 2001. However, Pakistan-sponsored Islamist radicalism continues to pose a threat to India. This has not been addressed despite terrorist attacks in Ayodhya, Bangalore, Gujarat, Hyderabad, Mumbai and New Delhi since 2001.
While the immediate arrests in the aftermath of a terrorist attack in India reveal fairly good intelligence mechanisms, the inability of the two administrations to neutralize the source of the threat is striking. India is unable to prosecute an overt foreign policy response to Islamist belligerence. It is better equipped to deal with issues behind the scenes. This is its weakness. Let us not forget that General Musharraf was the author of the incidents at Kargil and Kandahar. The unrest in Baluchistan has offered a window of opportunity to contain over zealous intelligence officials in Pakistan. While India had little to do with that insurrection, the least it can now do is to leverage that.
Nepal is another instance in point. The Nepalese monarchy might be on the verge of collapse given a recalcitrant, short-sighted and stupid ruler. A dysfunctional party system adds to the crisis with the shared incompetence of the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal - Marxist Leninist. The belligerent Maoists have brought day to day administration to a halt in several parts of Nepal and have cooperated with their co-ideologues in destabilizing remote tracts in India as well. The solution to the imbroglio in Nepal is clearly within India's reach. Two of the three sets of actors are within its direct influence i.e. the monarch and the established political parties. It is in India's interests to arbitrate a solution between the two sides before enforcing one on the Maoists.
I favor a constitutional monarchy. The unified Nepal that we know of today came into existence with the Gorkha empire established in 1742 CE. Remove the current dynasty and one removes a key unifier in an otherwise heterogenous and varied land. This said, the current monarch should be compelled to restore democratic rule and forfeit his authoritarian prerogative. Maoist violence will need to be eliminated under a broader rubric of democracy and internationally-financed development. Dick Cheney's remarks are pertinent here i.e. "we do not negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business".
Reference to the ancient Sanskrit classic on statecraft - the Artha-shastra - is in order here. Kautilya argued that "the welfare of a state depends on an active foreign policy". He enumerated six principles of foreign policy i.e.a ruler shall (i) augment the resources and power of the state; (ii) eliminate the enemy; (iii) adopt a prudent course; (iv) prefer peace to war, all things being equal; (v) be just in victory and defeat; and (vi) cultivate international allies.
The track record of the Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh administrations is not too bleak in light of these precepts. Theirs was a quiet, tacit and behind-the-scenes diplomacy. But they failed to prosecute a pro-active foreign policy in the public domain. This lacunae will now need to be reversed.
The common thread in foreign and defence policies is striking when it came to the investment in space technology, participation in the East Asia Forum (which convenes ASEAN, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea), the importance placed on the Far Eastern Marine Command at Port Blair, the emphasis on road, shipping and defence links with Burma, not to mention strengthened links with Thailand and Indonesia. The look east policy is visible. The Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh governments similarly emphasized investment in the Sakhalin oil fields and the joint Russian-Kazakh Kurmangazy oil fields in the Caspian as part of a broader energy thrust. India also hopes to invest in rail and road links between the Central Asian republics and Iran as part of the 1999 Trilateral Agreement that envisioned an oil swap between India, Iran and Turkmenistan. The two administrations continued the key defence and allied space technology links with Russia, while developing ties with the United States in dual use nuclear, space and military technology. Russian efforts to establish with Indian support the Global Navigation Satellite System as a counter to the United States-based Global Positioning System is a case in point.
India's foreign policy is a quiet and largely covert one. The emphasis on the immediate neighborhood is a tacit one. Despite increased rapport with the United States, India discreetly vetoed United States efforts to enter into an Access and Cross Servicing Agreement with Sri Lanka, to construct an international airport at Kuda Oya in that country's deep south, to modernize airport facilities in Jaffna in the island's far north and extend the immediate post-tsunami US Marine presence beyond one month. It is entirely probable that India covertly facilitated international focus on the upsurge in Islamist fundamentalism in neighboring Bangladesh and media attention on Pakistan's restive Baluchistan province. India appears to excel in back room diplomacy.
Nonetheless, the broad scope and long term character of Indian foreign policy should not detract from its essential weakness since 1990. One can give two examples out of several i.e. (a) Islamist radicalism in the neighborhood; and (b) the fast unravelling scenario in Nepal. China is a third example and will be covered in a separate post. It sponsored Pakistan's development of nuclear technology in the early 1990s. The Narasimha Rao administration did nothing to contain that.
India failed to address the role of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence in fomenting unrest in Afghanistan and Kashmir in the 1990s. The Taleban captured Kabul in 1996. This helped transform Afghanistan into a haven for terrorism targeted at India. Fortunately, international events unrelated to Indian initiative helped neutralize the Taleban regime in 2001. However, Pakistan-sponsored Islamist radicalism continues to pose a threat to India. This has not been addressed despite terrorist attacks in Ayodhya, Bangalore, Gujarat, Hyderabad, Mumbai and New Delhi since 2001.
While the immediate arrests in the aftermath of a terrorist attack in India reveal fairly good intelligence mechanisms, the inability of the two administrations to neutralize the source of the threat is striking. India is unable to prosecute an overt foreign policy response to Islamist belligerence. It is better equipped to deal with issues behind the scenes. This is its weakness. Let us not forget that General Musharraf was the author of the incidents at Kargil and Kandahar. The unrest in Baluchistan has offered a window of opportunity to contain over zealous intelligence officials in Pakistan. While India had little to do with that insurrection, the least it can now do is to leverage that.
Nepal is another instance in point. The Nepalese monarchy might be on the verge of collapse given a recalcitrant, short-sighted and stupid ruler. A dysfunctional party system adds to the crisis with the shared incompetence of the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal - Marxist Leninist. The belligerent Maoists have brought day to day administration to a halt in several parts of Nepal and have cooperated with their co-ideologues in destabilizing remote tracts in India as well. The solution to the imbroglio in Nepal is clearly within India's reach. Two of the three sets of actors are within its direct influence i.e. the monarch and the established political parties. It is in India's interests to arbitrate a solution between the two sides before enforcing one on the Maoists.
I favor a constitutional monarchy. The unified Nepal that we know of today came into existence with the Gorkha empire established in 1742 CE. Remove the current dynasty and one removes a key unifier in an otherwise heterogenous and varied land. This said, the current monarch should be compelled to restore democratic rule and forfeit his authoritarian prerogative. Maoist violence will need to be eliminated under a broader rubric of democracy and internationally-financed development. Dick Cheney's remarks are pertinent here i.e. "we do not negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business".
Reference to the ancient Sanskrit classic on statecraft - the Artha-shastra - is in order here. Kautilya argued that "the welfare of a state depends on an active foreign policy". He enumerated six principles of foreign policy i.e.a ruler shall (i) augment the resources and power of the state; (ii) eliminate the enemy; (iii) adopt a prudent course; (iv) prefer peace to war, all things being equal; (v) be just in victory and defeat; and (vi) cultivate international allies.
The track record of the Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh administrations is not too bleak in light of these precepts. Theirs was a quiet, tacit and behind-the-scenes diplomacy. But they failed to prosecute a pro-active foreign policy in the public domain. This lacunae will now need to be reversed.
The Valley Of Blood
Via BBC, Nepal Maoist clash leaves 23 dead
Via Stratfor, High Noon in Nepal, India to the Rescue?
The government of Nepalese King Gyanendra cracked down Jan. 19 on Nepal's political parties, which had planed a Jan. 20 rally against the royalist regime, a move quickly drawing India's ire. The stage is now set for a Jan. 20 showdown between Nepal's increasingly agitated political parties and government security forces -- a showdown that could result in swift action by New Delhi to restore democracy to the troubled mountain kingdom.
Via Stratfor, High Noon in Nepal, India to the Rescue?
The government of Nepalese King Gyanendra cracked down Jan. 19 on Nepal's political parties, which had planed a Jan. 20 rally against the royalist regime, a move quickly drawing India's ire. The stage is now set for a Jan. 20 showdown between Nepal's increasingly agitated political parties and government security forces -- a showdown that could result in swift action by New Delhi to restore democracy to the troubled mountain kingdom.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Nuclear Knee
The terrific Belmont Club has a fascinating analysis of France's startling escalation in the "war on terror" rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)