Via National Review, an interesting debate on Can Islam reform itself?
The dueling protagonists:
Andrew C. McCarthy & Mansoor Ijaz
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Landmines Under Trucks
Leftist polemicist Arundhati Roy compares inviting President Bush to India with inviting a brick to drop through your windshield !!
Her words are, typically, clever in form -- ridiculous in substance.
While she was busy sharpening her spiteful words, her ideological allies on the extreme left were busy plotting murder.
Via BBC, 'Many dead' in India rebel attack
At least 25 people have been killed after Maoist rebels blew up two trucks carrying civilians in India's central state of Chhattisgarh, police say.
Senior state police official SK Paswan said the number of dead could rise. Many of the nearly 40 injured were in a critical condition, he told the BBC.
And who were the victims of this carnage?
The victims were tribal people returning from a meeting called to protest against the Maoists' activities in the state.
The terrorists on the left are now killing the very people whose rights they claim they are protecting through such violence. Killing the weak and the poor is their attempt at garnering cheap publicity for their lost cause.
Ms. Roy has aversion to bricks through windshields. She's, however, unlikely to say much about landmines under trucks. What a disgrace.
Her words are, typically, clever in form -- ridiculous in substance.
While she was busy sharpening her spiteful words, her ideological allies on the extreme left were busy plotting murder.
Via BBC, 'Many dead' in India rebel attack
At least 25 people have been killed after Maoist rebels blew up two trucks carrying civilians in India's central state of Chhattisgarh, police say.
Senior state police official SK Paswan said the number of dead could rise. Many of the nearly 40 injured were in a critical condition, he told the BBC.
And who were the victims of this carnage?
The victims were tribal people returning from a meeting called to protest against the Maoists' activities in the state.
The terrorists on the left are now killing the very people whose rights they claim they are protecting through such violence. Killing the weak and the poor is their attempt at garnering cheap publicity for their lost cause.
Ms. Roy has aversion to bricks through windshields. She's, however, unlikely to say much about landmines under trucks. What a disgrace.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Musharraf's Plight
Stratfor weighs in on the General's predicament.
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has called for a March 1 meeting of Pakistan's National Security Council (NSC) to discuss the consequences of nationwide protests against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in European newspapers, the Lahore-based Daily Times reported Feb. 27.
That Musharraf is summoning the country's top political body -- comprising Pakistan's senior-most civil and military leaders -- after days of demonstrations centering on the Mohammed caricatures indicates two things. First, the issue is no longer about the cartoons, as the protest organizers, mostly Islamist groups, have used the controversy to begin mobilizing anti-government sentiment to enhance their political standing against Musharraf's government. Second, it reveals that the Musharraf government is in a predicament where it is slowly but surely being pushed into a corner with fewer means of maintaining its grip on power.
Not only does the perception that Musharraf is being cornered boost his domestic political opponents' confidence, it also begins to rattle Washington, given that the U.S.-led global war against terrorism depends heavily on Musharraf being both the driver and navigator for Pakistan. Musharraf's approach to staying ahead of the political curve has involved leveraging his domestic position to enhance his international standing and vice-versa; so this turn of events places him in a critical spot in which opponents will force him to concede to their demands if he cannot regain the upper hand at home -- rendering him unfavorable to Washington. Losing his standing with Washington will then have a boomerang effect at home.
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has called for a March 1 meeting of Pakistan's National Security Council (NSC) to discuss the consequences of nationwide protests against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in European newspapers, the Lahore-based Daily Times reported Feb. 27.
That Musharraf is summoning the country's top political body -- comprising Pakistan's senior-most civil and military leaders -- after days of demonstrations centering on the Mohammed caricatures indicates two things. First, the issue is no longer about the cartoons, as the protest organizers, mostly Islamist groups, have used the controversy to begin mobilizing anti-government sentiment to enhance their political standing against Musharraf's government. Second, it reveals that the Musharraf government is in a predicament where it is slowly but surely being pushed into a corner with fewer means of maintaining its grip on power.
Not only does the perception that Musharraf is being cornered boost his domestic political opponents' confidence, it also begins to rattle Washington, given that the U.S.-led global war against terrorism depends heavily on Musharraf being both the driver and navigator for Pakistan. Musharraf's approach to staying ahead of the political curve has involved leveraging his domestic position to enhance his international standing and vice-versa; so this turn of events places him in a critical spot in which opponents will force him to concede to their demands if he cannot regain the upper hand at home -- rendering him unfavorable to Washington. Losing his standing with Washington will then have a boomerang effect at home.
Terror On High Seas
Via CNN, Pirates seize Indian vessel with 25 aboard
If ever there was time for our navy to flex its blue water muscle, this is surely it.
If ever there was time for our navy to flex its blue water muscle, this is surely it.
Curzonian World View
I refer to a lengthy article by Parag Khanna and Raja Mohan dated February 13, 2006. It is an effort to convince the American policy audience to take India seriously. A shorter, more succinct report around a single theme would have been more effective. Indian foreign policy should speak for itself. This said, there were a few paragraphs of note. I reproduce just one given its insights in an otherwise rambling note.
"The perceived distinction between India's non-aligned past and alliance-oriented future is a complex one.........There has been a continuous trajectory toward a diplomatic posture which is perhaps best described as "neo-Curzonian," after the British imperial viceroy and player of the 'Great Game', Lord George Curzon. Ironically, India's neo-Curzonian world-view is the logical heir to one of the nation's strategic texts, Kautilya's fourth-century B.C. Arthashastra, which locates India at the nucleus of concentric rings of potential friends and foes. A neo-Curzonian foreign policy is premised on the logic of Indian centrality, permitting multi-directional engagement - or 'multi-alignment' - with all major powers and seeking access and leverage from East Africa to Pacific Asia. Such a forward foreign policy emphasizes the revival of commercial cooperation; building institutional, physical and political links with neighboring regions to circumvent buffer states; developing energy supplies and assets; and pursuing multi-state defense agreements and contracts. Today, India has recovered this 360-degree vision, looking west to boost investment from Europe and the Persian Gulf, north to secure stable energy supplies from Central Asia (including Iran), and east for partnerships and free trade agreements with South Korea and Australia. It engages actively in regional fora......while not shying away from potential strategic competition...."
The reference to Lord Curzon is an interesting one. He was Viceroy of India from 1898 to 1905. He focused on India's frontiers, toured the Persian Gulf, and despatched a successful mission to Tibet to frustrate Chinese ambitions. Curzon had authored three books in the late 1800s i.e. (i) Russia in Central Asia; (ii) Persia and the Persian Question; and (iii) Problems of the Far East. Lord Curzon took an avid interest in Tibet, Central Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Far East. He helped consolidate imperial suzerainty in Hong Kong, Malaya, Burma and Aden.
The British presence in Malaya ensured its control of the Straits of Malacca while Aden overlooked the Red Sea. He established a garrison of Indian troops in Lhasa. Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal and Sikkim were brought under imperial "protection". Bahrain and Kuwait also became British protectorates. Britain ruled the sea and shaped events deep inside the Asian landmass.
Reference to Henry Kissinger might be relevant here. He wrote in the September 19, 1988 issue of Newsweek, "At the same time, India will play an increasingly international role. Its goals are analogous to those of Britain east of the Suez in the 19th century - a policy essentially shaped by the Viceroy's office in New Delhi. It will seek to be the strongest country in the subcontinent, and will attempt to prevent the emergence of a major power in the Indian Ocean or South East Asia. What ever the day to day irritations between New Delhi and Washington, India's geopolitical interests will impel it over the next decade to assume some of the security functions now exercised by the United States."
"The perceived distinction between India's non-aligned past and alliance-oriented future is a complex one.........There has been a continuous trajectory toward a diplomatic posture which is perhaps best described as "neo-Curzonian," after the British imperial viceroy and player of the 'Great Game', Lord George Curzon. Ironically, India's neo-Curzonian world-view is the logical heir to one of the nation's strategic texts, Kautilya's fourth-century B.C. Arthashastra, which locates India at the nucleus of concentric rings of potential friends and foes. A neo-Curzonian foreign policy is premised on the logic of Indian centrality, permitting multi-directional engagement - or 'multi-alignment' - with all major powers and seeking access and leverage from East Africa to Pacific Asia. Such a forward foreign policy emphasizes the revival of commercial cooperation; building institutional, physical and political links with neighboring regions to circumvent buffer states; developing energy supplies and assets; and pursuing multi-state defense agreements and contracts. Today, India has recovered this 360-degree vision, looking west to boost investment from Europe and the Persian Gulf, north to secure stable energy supplies from Central Asia (including Iran), and east for partnerships and free trade agreements with South Korea and Australia. It engages actively in regional fora......while not shying away from potential strategic competition...."
The reference to Lord Curzon is an interesting one. He was Viceroy of India from 1898 to 1905. He focused on India's frontiers, toured the Persian Gulf, and despatched a successful mission to Tibet to frustrate Chinese ambitions. Curzon had authored three books in the late 1800s i.e. (i) Russia in Central Asia; (ii) Persia and the Persian Question; and (iii) Problems of the Far East. Lord Curzon took an avid interest in Tibet, Central Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Far East. He helped consolidate imperial suzerainty in Hong Kong, Malaya, Burma and Aden.
The British presence in Malaya ensured its control of the Straits of Malacca while Aden overlooked the Red Sea. He established a garrison of Indian troops in Lhasa. Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal and Sikkim were brought under imperial "protection". Bahrain and Kuwait also became British protectorates. Britain ruled the sea and shaped events deep inside the Asian landmass.
Reference to Henry Kissinger might be relevant here. He wrote in the September 19, 1988 issue of Newsweek, "At the same time, India will play an increasingly international role. Its goals are analogous to those of Britain east of the Suez in the 19th century - a policy essentially shaped by the Viceroy's office in New Delhi. It will seek to be the strongest country in the subcontinent, and will attempt to prevent the emergence of a major power in the Indian Ocean or South East Asia. What ever the day to day irritations between New Delhi and Washington, India's geopolitical interests will impel it over the next decade to assume some of the security functions now exercised by the United States."
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Failed State, Deceptive Military
We've long railed against the role of Pakistani military in the collapse of that society. By conjuring up images of an Islamist takeover of their nuclear prowess, Pakistani Generals have long fooled the world and smothered democracy at home. It's time their bluff is called.
In a new Carnegie Policy Brief, Pakistan: The Myth of an Islamist Peril , Visiting Scholar Frederic Grare argues that the risk of an Islamist takeover in Pakistan is a myth invented by the Pakistani military to consolidate its hold on power. In fact, religious political parties and militant organizations are manipulated by the Pakistani Army to achieve its own objectives, domestically and abroad. The army, not the Islamists, is the real source of insecurity on the subcontinent. Sustainable security and stability in the region will be achieved only through the restoration of democracy in Pakistan.
Grare suggests that the West should actively promote the demilitarization of Pakistan’s political life through a mix of political pressure and capacity building. Enlarging the pool of elites and creating alternative centers of power will be essential for developing a working democracy in Pakistan.
In a new Carnegie Policy Brief, Pakistan: The Myth of an Islamist Peril , Visiting Scholar Frederic Grare argues that the risk of an Islamist takeover in Pakistan is a myth invented by the Pakistani military to consolidate its hold on power. In fact, religious political parties and militant organizations are manipulated by the Pakistani Army to achieve its own objectives, domestically and abroad. The army, not the Islamists, is the real source of insecurity on the subcontinent. Sustainable security and stability in the region will be achieved only through the restoration of democracy in Pakistan.
Grare suggests that the West should actively promote the demilitarization of Pakistan’s political life through a mix of political pressure and capacity building. Enlarging the pool of elites and creating alternative centers of power will be essential for developing a working democracy in Pakistan.
Failing State, Successful Society
M J Akbar writes the following about the Best Bakery and Jessica Lal matters:
Delhi is the world’s largest glasshouse: who shall throw the first stone? But there comes a moment when you no longer care whether the glasshouse remains intact or shatters. If that glasshouse is going to protect the killers at Best Bakery or the murderer of Jessica Lal, then it is time it got shattered into smithereens. Civil society rose in both instances. It threw stone after stone in the Best Bakery matter, rousing the conscience and the best instincts of the highest judiciary. It rose again in the matter of Jessica Lal, and the Delhi High Court has taken the initiative.
Both these cases illustrate our incredibly complex India everywhere. Fareed Zakaria notes:
A famous Indian once put it eloquently, "A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance."
Those words, which Indians of a certain generation know by heart, were spoken by the country's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, just after midnight, on Aug. 15, 1947, when independent India was born. What Nehru was referring to, of course, was the birth of India as an independent state. What is happening today is the birth of India as an independent society—boisterous, colorful, open, vibrant and, above all, ready for change. India is diverging from its past, but also from most other countries in Asia. It is not a quiet, controlled, quasi-authoritarian country that is slowly opening up according to plans. It is a noisy democracy that has finally empowered its people economically. In this respect India, one of the poorest countries in the world, looks strikingly similar to the world's wealthiest country, the United States of America. In both places, society has triumphed over the state.
This is perhaps the central paradox of India today. Its society is open, eager, confident and ready to take on the world. But its state—its ruling class—is far more hesitant, cautious and suspicious of the changed realities around it ...
.. and anachronistically feudal, to boot. If the Indian State continues failing our increasingly successful society, the former risks becoming irrelevant -- and eventually being swept away. This would be a 21st century liberal revolution (liberal in the classic sense!) and a majestic Indian counterpoint to 20th century's illiberal revolutions in Europe and China.
Delhi is the world’s largest glasshouse: who shall throw the first stone? But there comes a moment when you no longer care whether the glasshouse remains intact or shatters. If that glasshouse is going to protect the killers at Best Bakery or the murderer of Jessica Lal, then it is time it got shattered into smithereens. Civil society rose in both instances. It threw stone after stone in the Best Bakery matter, rousing the conscience and the best instincts of the highest judiciary. It rose again in the matter of Jessica Lal, and the Delhi High Court has taken the initiative.
Both these cases illustrate our incredibly complex India everywhere. Fareed Zakaria notes:
A famous Indian once put it eloquently, "A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance."
Those words, which Indians of a certain generation know by heart, were spoken by the country's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, just after midnight, on Aug. 15, 1947, when independent India was born. What Nehru was referring to, of course, was the birth of India as an independent state. What is happening today is the birth of India as an independent society—boisterous, colorful, open, vibrant and, above all, ready for change. India is diverging from its past, but also from most other countries in Asia. It is not a quiet, controlled, quasi-authoritarian country that is slowly opening up according to plans. It is a noisy democracy that has finally empowered its people economically. In this respect India, one of the poorest countries in the world, looks strikingly similar to the world's wealthiest country, the United States of America. In both places, society has triumphed over the state.
This is perhaps the central paradox of India today. Its society is open, eager, confident and ready to take on the world. But its state—its ruling class—is far more hesitant, cautious and suspicious of the changed realities around it ...
.. and anachronistically feudal, to boot. If the Indian State continues failing our increasingly successful society, the former risks becoming irrelevant -- and eventually being swept away. This would be a 21st century liberal revolution (liberal in the classic sense!) and a majestic Indian counterpoint to 20th century's illiberal revolutions in Europe and China.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Terrorism Watch
Via the Pakistani daily, The Nation, columnist Humayun Gauhar writes an open letter to President Bush -- a rambling note of frustration with the strengthening Indo-US partnership.
He closes with the following bizarre assertion:
Al Qaeda is a US creation and the US provides grist to its mills. You are obsessed with Osama Bin Laden, but so what if you get him? Do you think that after the media hype dies down "terrorism" will disappear? Al Qaeda is but a movement and Osama its symbol - call him metaphor if you like. The movement is amorphous, comprising many different independent cells and groups, like beads strung together into a deadly necklace by the common thread of injustices against Muslims. It bears repetition, remove the thread and the beads will fall down. Don't, and more beads will be added to the necklace.
This from a respectable figure in Pakistan. No wonder his unruly country is viewed with profound suspicion in the free world.
Update: Via Washington Post, Ahmad Rashid, laments about why Osama bin Laden is welcome in Pakistan.
He closes with the following bizarre assertion:
Al Qaeda is a US creation and the US provides grist to its mills. You are obsessed with Osama Bin Laden, but so what if you get him? Do you think that after the media hype dies down "terrorism" will disappear? Al Qaeda is but a movement and Osama its symbol - call him metaphor if you like. The movement is amorphous, comprising many different independent cells and groups, like beads strung together into a deadly necklace by the common thread of injustices against Muslims. It bears repetition, remove the thread and the beads will fall down. Don't, and more beads will be added to the necklace.
This from a respectable figure in Pakistan. No wonder his unruly country is viewed with profound suspicion in the free world.
Update: Via Washington Post, Ahmad Rashid, laments about why Osama bin Laden is welcome in Pakistan.
Good Morning, Bihar!
Via BBC, The amazing DIY village FM radio station
On a balmy morning in India's northern state of Bihar, young Raghav Mahato gets ready to fire up his home-grown FM radio station.
Hundreds of villagers, living in a 20km (12 miles) radius of Raghav's small repair shop and radio station in Mansoorpur village in Vaishali district, tune their $5 radio sets to catch their favourite station.
After the crackle of static, a young, confident voice floats up the radio waves. "Good morning! Welcome to Raghav FM Mansoorpur 1! Now listen to your favourite songs," announces anchor and friend Sambhu into a sellotape-plastered microphone surrounded by racks of local music tapes.
For the next 12 hours, Raghav Mahato's outback FM radio station plays films songs and broadcasts public interest messages on HIV and polio, and even snappy local news, including alerts on missing children and the opening of local shops.
Raghav and his friend run the indigenous radio station out of Raghav's thatched-roof Priya Electronics Shop.
On a balmy morning in India's northern state of Bihar, young Raghav Mahato gets ready to fire up his home-grown FM radio station.
Hundreds of villagers, living in a 20km (12 miles) radius of Raghav's small repair shop and radio station in Mansoorpur village in Vaishali district, tune their $5 radio sets to catch their favourite station.
After the crackle of static, a young, confident voice floats up the radio waves. "Good morning! Welcome to Raghav FM Mansoorpur 1! Now listen to your favourite songs," announces anchor and friend Sambhu into a sellotape-plastered microphone surrounded by racks of local music tapes.
For the next 12 hours, Raghav Mahato's outback FM radio station plays films songs and broadcasts public interest messages on HIV and polio, and even snappy local news, including alerts on missing children and the opening of local shops.
Raghav and his friend run the indigenous radio station out of Raghav's thatched-roof Priya Electronics Shop.
Standing Athwart History
Conservative uber-ideologue William Buckley described his then-nascent political idea with these iconic 1955 words: Conservatism is about standing athwart history, yelling stop.
Neo-conservatism is more ambitious -- not satisfied with building dams on history's torrent, it seeks to power changes in history's flow.
In Iraq, these sibling ideas, clashed loudly. Neoconservative America smashed through the conservative dam (of geopolitical realism) that, for decades, held back Arabian rage under dictator thumbs.
After Samarra, it's (alas) increasingly difficult to believe that American power will successfully hold back, or alter, the flow of Arabian rage. Conservative icon Mr. Buckley asserts the obvious in It Didn't Work. Neoconservative pioneer Francis Fukuyama has thrown in his towel and looks at the world After Neoconservatism.
We remain absolutely convinced about neoconservatism's valid purpose in Iraq. We fault a poorly waged war for America's crisis in that country. Either way, the Iraq project is in trouble.
This takes us to the tricky Indo-US negotiation over nuclear collaboration. Mr. Bush has wagered pretty much all his political capital on Iraq. With Iraq in flames, and barely a year or so before he is completely lame duck, he needs to create a positive legacy for his presidency.
Because, as Fareed Zakaria notes, India could be for Mr. Bush what China was for Mr. Nixon, the Indo-US deal is his spectacular sleeper shot at a legacy. It's hard to believe, therefore, that the deal will go down.
The problem is that Mr. Bush's Iraq failure has caused his own party to begin separating from him. India can't really count on him to deliver the deal through Congress.
Indians understand these conflicting dynamics. Because Mr. Bush needs India, we should drive the hardest bargain possible -- as we are. Because US Congress remains still to be wooed, we should keep their sensitivities in mind as we shape the agreement. (What China did or did not do is irrelevant here -- we couldn't care less about aping China, as some would have us do. India has to chart its own course, consistent with history as we find it.)
One last point. Indian opponents of the deal have been busy talking about "national interest". By implication, they've suggested that pro-deal Indians are close to sacrificing India's best interest. This is an unacceptable canard. Policy disagreement is one thing -- questioning our fidelity to national interest is way beyond bounds. National interest is not the preserve of protectionist anti-Americans alone. They better watch their rhetoric.
Instead, standing athwart history, India should yell out her welcome next week to President Bush and the Indo-American deal.
Neo-conservatism is more ambitious -- not satisfied with building dams on history's torrent, it seeks to power changes in history's flow.
In Iraq, these sibling ideas, clashed loudly. Neoconservative America smashed through the conservative dam (of geopolitical realism) that, for decades, held back Arabian rage under dictator thumbs.
After Samarra, it's (alas) increasingly difficult to believe that American power will successfully hold back, or alter, the flow of Arabian rage. Conservative icon Mr. Buckley asserts the obvious in It Didn't Work. Neoconservative pioneer Francis Fukuyama has thrown in his towel and looks at the world After Neoconservatism.
We remain absolutely convinced about neoconservatism's valid purpose in Iraq. We fault a poorly waged war for America's crisis in that country. Either way, the Iraq project is in trouble.
This takes us to the tricky Indo-US negotiation over nuclear collaboration. Mr. Bush has wagered pretty much all his political capital on Iraq. With Iraq in flames, and barely a year or so before he is completely lame duck, he needs to create a positive legacy for his presidency.
Because, as Fareed Zakaria notes, India could be for Mr. Bush what China was for Mr. Nixon, the Indo-US deal is his spectacular sleeper shot at a legacy. It's hard to believe, therefore, that the deal will go down.
The problem is that Mr. Bush's Iraq failure has caused his own party to begin separating from him. India can't really count on him to deliver the deal through Congress.
Indians understand these conflicting dynamics. Because Mr. Bush needs India, we should drive the hardest bargain possible -- as we are. Because US Congress remains still to be wooed, we should keep their sensitivities in mind as we shape the agreement. (What China did or did not do is irrelevant here -- we couldn't care less about aping China, as some would have us do. India has to chart its own course, consistent with history as we find it.)
One last point. Indian opponents of the deal have been busy talking about "national interest". By implication, they've suggested that pro-deal Indians are close to sacrificing India's best interest. This is an unacceptable canard. Policy disagreement is one thing -- questioning our fidelity to national interest is way beyond bounds. National interest is not the preserve of protectionist anti-Americans alone. They better watch their rhetoric.
Instead, standing athwart history, India should yell out her welcome next week to President Bush and the Indo-American deal.
Negotiating the Nuclear Deal
Cynical Nerd published an analytical piece today contrasting the proposed Indo-United States nuclear deal with the earlier concluded Sino-United States nuclear deal. He argues that China drove a much harder bargain and achieved more favorable terms in its negotiations with the United States.
International relations are fluid and ever changing. There are no eternal verities in foreign affairs. The United States will not remain the sole undisputed super power for long given the sheer costs of its engagement in the Middle East. China is an emerging power on India's eastern horizon and had sponsored Pakistan's nuclear program in the 1980s with a far sighted objective to contain India. Indian decision makers will need to keep this in mind always.
India appears to have agreed to throw upon several of its nuclear reactors to the international inspection regime. Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States did not make similar concessions in the past. This is an unequal nuclear regime. India should not foreclose options in haste to close a nuclear deal. In a transient international environment, New Delhi will need to retain defence policy choices at a future date.
Brazil, Niger and South Africa have vast uranium reserves. India should consider innovative foreign policy tools to leverage those reserves for its national interest. It can also learn a lot from Chinese resolve to maintain national interest at all costs when negotiating an international treaty. It is time to reflect on options and steely national determination as Indian and American negotiators place the finishing touches on the nuclear deal in the next day or two.
International relations are fluid and ever changing. There are no eternal verities in foreign affairs. The United States will not remain the sole undisputed super power for long given the sheer costs of its engagement in the Middle East. China is an emerging power on India's eastern horizon and had sponsored Pakistan's nuclear program in the 1980s with a far sighted objective to contain India. Indian decision makers will need to keep this in mind always.
India appears to have agreed to throw upon several of its nuclear reactors to the international inspection regime. Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States did not make similar concessions in the past. This is an unequal nuclear regime. India should not foreclose options in haste to close a nuclear deal. In a transient international environment, New Delhi will need to retain defence policy choices at a future date.
Brazil, Niger and South Africa have vast uranium reserves. India should consider innovative foreign policy tools to leverage those reserves for its national interest. It can also learn a lot from Chinese resolve to maintain national interest at all costs when negotiating an international treaty. It is time to reflect on options and steely national determination as Indian and American negotiators place the finishing touches on the nuclear deal in the next day or two.
Nigeria Riots
Nigeria, a federation of 130 million people, has been wrecked by religious riots once again. More than 10,000 people had died in religious violence since 1999 when the predominantly Muslim northern states began to enforce Shari'ah law. Nigeria is evenly divided between Muslims in the north, and a mix of Christians and animist in the south. Both Islam and Christianity as practiced in Nigeria include a fair dose of traditional African tribal religious beliefs. The last major riots occurred two years ago when more than 700 persons, largely Christian, died in Muslim mob attacks. The religious unrest this year started last week when Muslim crowds, angered by the controversial Mohammed cartoons, demolished 30 Christian churches and killed 30 Christians in the north. Revenge attacks in predominantly Christian Ibo territory in south quickly ensued with many more Muslims murdered. This led to counter-attacks in the north with the death toll rising further and 15 more churches set on fire. At least 140 people had died in 7 days of religious violence. Perhaps 10,000 have been left homeless.
The religious violence masks deeper tensions. Much of Nigeria's oil wealth is in the south. Should the south opt to secede, the predominantly Muslim north would be stripped of rich hydrocarbon revenue and access to the sea. Much of the country's commercial infrastructure and educated manpower is in the south. The northern Hausa states, heirs to the medieval Islamic principalities of Kano, Maiduguri, Sokoto and Zaria, would then be landlocked and transformed into an impoverished region much like Chad and Niger. With the growing desertification of the Sahel, the prospects look bleak. However, the Nigerian military is largely Hausa in composition and is likely to prevent any such secession. The predominantly Christian Ibos had attempted to secede between 1967 and 1970 which the northern military had crushed with unparalleled ferocity. The Biafran famine was a man made one where the Ibos died in the tens of thousands.
Nigeria is but a geographic expression. It lacks a cultural underpinning for broader unity. British rule united 356,700 square miles in territory only in 1914. Nigeria became an independent state in 1960. The process of nation building has proved to be difficult. Political uncertainty is aggravating religious and tribal rivalries. Rebels in the oil producing south have waged a three month campaign of attacks and kidnappings against the oil industry. This has reduced exports and driven up oil prices. Meanwhile, President Olesegun Obasanjo, a Born Again Christian, is seeking to amend the constitution to enable him to run for an unprecedented third term. The future is uncertain for Nigeria.
The religious violence masks deeper tensions. Much of Nigeria's oil wealth is in the south. Should the south opt to secede, the predominantly Muslim north would be stripped of rich hydrocarbon revenue and access to the sea. Much of the country's commercial infrastructure and educated manpower is in the south. The northern Hausa states, heirs to the medieval Islamic principalities of Kano, Maiduguri, Sokoto and Zaria, would then be landlocked and transformed into an impoverished region much like Chad and Niger. With the growing desertification of the Sahel, the prospects look bleak. However, the Nigerian military is largely Hausa in composition and is likely to prevent any such secession. The predominantly Christian Ibos had attempted to secede between 1967 and 1970 which the northern military had crushed with unparalleled ferocity. The Biafran famine was a man made one where the Ibos died in the tens of thousands.
Nigeria is but a geographic expression. It lacks a cultural underpinning for broader unity. British rule united 356,700 square miles in territory only in 1914. Nigeria became an independent state in 1960. The process of nation building has proved to be difficult. Political uncertainty is aggravating religious and tribal rivalries. Rebels in the oil producing south have waged a three month campaign of attacks and kidnappings against the oil industry. This has reduced exports and driven up oil prices. Meanwhile, President Olesegun Obasanjo, a Born Again Christian, is seeking to amend the constitution to enable him to run for an unprecedented third term. The future is uncertain for Nigeria.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
War In Serendip
Via BBC, New Sri Lanka peace talks begin
Sri Lankan officials and Tamil Tiger rebels have begun meeting in the Swiss city of Geneva for their first face-to-face talks in three years.
The focus of two days of talks is to boost a threadbare four-year truce. Mounting violence in recent months has raised fears of a return to civil war.
The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says diplomats are playing down hopes the talks can achieve anything more than restoring some stability in Sri Lanka.
"If they fail, I really do believe there will be war," an unnamed European diplomat is quoted as saying by Reuters.
Since we don't believe any sustainable peace is possible with the terrorist Tigers at the helm of Sri Lankan Tamil politics, we consider a decisive war that finally ends their brutal regime a superior option to yet another phony "peace". In this sense, the Geneva talks are actually counterproductive.
Sri Lankan officials and Tamil Tiger rebels have begun meeting in the Swiss city of Geneva for their first face-to-face talks in three years.
The focus of two days of talks is to boost a threadbare four-year truce. Mounting violence in recent months has raised fears of a return to civil war.
The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says diplomats are playing down hopes the talks can achieve anything more than restoring some stability in Sri Lanka.
"If they fail, I really do believe there will be war," an unnamed European diplomat is quoted as saying by Reuters.
Since we don't believe any sustainable peace is possible with the terrorist Tigers at the helm of Sri Lankan Tamil politics, we consider a decisive war that finally ends their brutal regime a superior option to yet another phony "peace". In this sense, the Geneva talks are actually counterproductive.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Superpower, eh?
Via Newindpress, Nine accused in Jessica Lall murder case walk free
A country that cannot provide justice for a young woman murdered publicly is, at best, a pretend superpower.
Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, these are the moments -- when modern India stands impotent before its feudal twin -- that try men's souls.
Shame on the Indian State.
A country that cannot provide justice for a young woman murdered publicly is, at best, a pretend superpower.
Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, these are the moments -- when modern India stands impotent before its feudal twin -- that try men's souls.
Shame on the Indian State.
More On Cartoons
Two separate critiques.
One, our friend Amit has weighed in on the cartoon controversy coming out in support of the indefensible Flemming Rose who began this saga by publishing the horrible cartoons, and Glenn Reynolds who mistakenly thinks publishing them on his blog is a sign of his free speech machismo.
We respect Amit a lot but are astonished by his take on the matter. He closes by citing MadMan who argues that tolerance doesn't mean that just because you hold an opinion, we are obliged to respect it. We, on our part, are also perfectly entitled to treat your beliefs with utter contempt and consider you a loon for having them.
Fair enough. In that case, if the cartoonist has the right to deliberately offend Muslims -- and this non-Muslim blogger -- surely we have the right to be offended and hold him in utter contempt. That we defend his right to free expression does not ipso facto mean we stand with him in his exercise of his contemptible expression. Flemming Rose, Glenn Reynolds and now, alas, Amit have done exactly that by trying to pooh pooh his offense.
One final point. Many of us are not offended because Mohammad was portrayed in a cartoon; the offense is in that he was caricatured as a terrorist. Those who don't consider this offensive are certainly entitled to their opinions -- but, please do not insinuate that others' taking offense to this are somehow, as Mr. Rose argues, enforcing Muslim taboos on non-Muslims. This is outrageous to the extreme and demeans logic.
Two, a couple of non-entities have issued murderous fatwas in UP. They should be tried for incitement just as the UP minister who has incited people to murder the cartoonist.
More disturbing than their lunacy is the puzzling condemnation of these fatwas by the so-called moderate Muslim leadership. Sample this:
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said the fatwa had no meaning.
AIMPLB legal adviser Zararyab Jilani told IANS: "The board has nothing to do with these fatwas; but even if we consider that the Shariat does prescribe death penalty for anyone committing blasphemy with the name of the Prophet, such a fatwa would have legal sanctity only in a country governed by Islamic law."
Is Mr. Jilani really implying that death penalty for offensive speech would be OK but for the fact that India does not follow Islamic law? Wow! This is a rather technically construed condemnation -- surely there are Muslim leaders who can find the courage to condemn these fatwa-issuing idiots without legalistic contortions? Are there any?
More by Nitin here.
One, our friend Amit has weighed in on the cartoon controversy coming out in support of the indefensible Flemming Rose who began this saga by publishing the horrible cartoons, and Glenn Reynolds who mistakenly thinks publishing them on his blog is a sign of his free speech machismo.
We respect Amit a lot but are astonished by his take on the matter. He closes by citing MadMan who argues that tolerance doesn't mean that just because you hold an opinion, we are obliged to respect it. We, on our part, are also perfectly entitled to treat your beliefs with utter contempt and consider you a loon for having them.
Fair enough. In that case, if the cartoonist has the right to deliberately offend Muslims -- and this non-Muslim blogger -- surely we have the right to be offended and hold him in utter contempt. That we defend his right to free expression does not ipso facto mean we stand with him in his exercise of his contemptible expression. Flemming Rose, Glenn Reynolds and now, alas, Amit have done exactly that by trying to pooh pooh his offense.
One final point. Many of us are not offended because Mohammad was portrayed in a cartoon; the offense is in that he was caricatured as a terrorist. Those who don't consider this offensive are certainly entitled to their opinions -- but, please do not insinuate that others' taking offense to this are somehow, as Mr. Rose argues, enforcing Muslim taboos on non-Muslims. This is outrageous to the extreme and demeans logic.
Two, a couple of non-entities have issued murderous fatwas in UP. They should be tried for incitement just as the UP minister who has incited people to murder the cartoonist.
More disturbing than their lunacy is the puzzling condemnation of these fatwas by the so-called moderate Muslim leadership. Sample this:
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said the fatwa had no meaning.
AIMPLB legal adviser Zararyab Jilani told IANS: "The board has nothing to do with these fatwas; but even if we consider that the Shariat does prescribe death penalty for anyone committing blasphemy with the name of the Prophet, such a fatwa would have legal sanctity only in a country governed by Islamic law."
Is Mr. Jilani really implying that death penalty for offensive speech would be OK but for the fact that India does not follow Islamic law? Wow! This is a rather technically construed condemnation -- surely there are Muslim leaders who can find the courage to condemn these fatwa-issuing idiots without legalistic contortions? Are there any?
More by Nitin here.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
The Cartoon Controversy
Writing in National Review's generally sensible The Corner, Andrew Stuttaford draws attention to the incitement by UP minister Muhammad Yaqoob Qureshi. Mr. Stuttaford issues the following call to action:
Reactions, and indictments, please, from Denmark -- and India. Incitement is incitement is incitement. No buts.
This blog agrees with Mr. Stuttaford on the nature of Mr. Qureshi's offence -- we have, in fact, ourselves called for the minister to be tried for incitement.
But, we also want to make clear our disdain for the arrogance of the likes of Mr. Stuttaford. His suggestion that Denmark indict an Indian minister is ludicrous. Only India has the power to act here, as it should, not because we care much for the feelings of the bigoted Danish cartoonist or of his irresponsible supporters in the West, but because in India we do not threaten with murder even those for whom we reserve our maximum contempt. This is about Indian values -- Denmark is irrelevant to this.
Those meriting our contempt include not only the Danish cartoonist who started this bigotry train but also the Danish Government that declined to even give audience to its Muslim citizens and all such media and bloggers who have chosen to publish the bigoted filth that these cartoons represent. Freedom of expression comes with an expectation of responsibility -- the callous abdication of this by some in the West is a discredit to their otherwise great civilization.
We are neither Muslim nor have sympathy for jihadists, Islamists, and even the so-called "moderate Muslims" who are too scared to practice their moderation. But, equally, we Indians are not of the West and do not subscribe to the latter's constant tendency to diminish and ridicule non-Western cultures -- Indians know this Western trait well from our history.
This is why, while harshly rejecting the Islamist incitement and violence that has followed, we decline to endorse the contemptible Danish, European, and Western arrogance on this issue.
Our position in itself is worth little except that we are among the small number of Indians who've aggressively supported the West in its war on terror, war in Iraq, and in face of withering criticism, strategic Indo-US engagement. That we are upset should mean at least something to even the most myopic of Western commentators such as Mr. Stuttaford. Of course, given the nature of their blinding arrogance, it likely won't.
Reactions, and indictments, please, from Denmark -- and India. Incitement is incitement is incitement. No buts.
This blog agrees with Mr. Stuttaford on the nature of Mr. Qureshi's offence -- we have, in fact, ourselves called for the minister to be tried for incitement.
But, we also want to make clear our disdain for the arrogance of the likes of Mr. Stuttaford. His suggestion that Denmark indict an Indian minister is ludicrous. Only India has the power to act here, as it should, not because we care much for the feelings of the bigoted Danish cartoonist or of his irresponsible supporters in the West, but because in India we do not threaten with murder even those for whom we reserve our maximum contempt. This is about Indian values -- Denmark is irrelevant to this.
Those meriting our contempt include not only the Danish cartoonist who started this bigotry train but also the Danish Government that declined to even give audience to its Muslim citizens and all such media and bloggers who have chosen to publish the bigoted filth that these cartoons represent. Freedom of expression comes with an expectation of responsibility -- the callous abdication of this by some in the West is a discredit to their otherwise great civilization.
We are neither Muslim nor have sympathy for jihadists, Islamists, and even the so-called "moderate Muslims" who are too scared to practice their moderation. But, equally, we Indians are not of the West and do not subscribe to the latter's constant tendency to diminish and ridicule non-Western cultures -- Indians know this Western trait well from our history.
This is why, while harshly rejecting the Islamist incitement and violence that has followed, we decline to endorse the contemptible Danish, European, and Western arrogance on this issue.
Our position in itself is worth little except that we are among the small number of Indians who've aggressively supported the West in its war on terror, war in Iraq, and in face of withering criticism, strategic Indo-US engagement. That we are upset should mean at least something to even the most myopic of Western commentators such as Mr. Stuttaford. Of course, given the nature of their blinding arrogance, it likely won't.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Terrorism Watch
Via Indian Express, Rs 51-crore reward for Danish cartoonist's head, says UP Minister
The Minister for Minority Welfare and Haj in the Mulayam Singh Yadav government, Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, has announced a cash reward of Rs 51 crore for anyone who beheads the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Prophet Mohammad.
When contacted, UP Principal Secretary, Home, Alok Sinha told The Indian Express: "The minister's reaction was the voice of someone whose religious sentiments have been hurt. Moreover, since the reference was to a person who is far off, there is no question of an FIR being lodged against the minister."
However, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board member and Naib Imam of Aishbagh Idgah, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali, criticized the Minister's call for the killing of the cartoonist.
Yaqoob Qureishi, a third-rate loser, should be tried for soliciting murder and terrorism. India must not tolerate people who spout such garbage as Ministers in our governments.
The disgraceful defense of this terror-enabler by the UP Government merits wide-spread condemnation.
As a native of UP, and as one who has aggressively condemned the bigoted cartoons in question, this blogger is appalled by the cynical spinelessness of the state government. Its spokesperson, Alok Sinha, should be immediately fired.
The Minister for Minority Welfare and Haj in the Mulayam Singh Yadav government, Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, has announced a cash reward of Rs 51 crore for anyone who beheads the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Prophet Mohammad.
When contacted, UP Principal Secretary, Home, Alok Sinha told The Indian Express: "The minister's reaction was the voice of someone whose religious sentiments have been hurt. Moreover, since the reference was to a person who is far off, there is no question of an FIR being lodged against the minister."
However, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board member and Naib Imam of Aishbagh Idgah, Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali, criticized the Minister's call for the killing of the cartoonist.
Yaqoob Qureishi, a third-rate loser, should be tried for soliciting murder and terrorism. India must not tolerate people who spout such garbage as Ministers in our governments.
The disgraceful defense of this terror-enabler by the UP Government merits wide-spread condemnation.
As a native of UP, and as one who has aggressively condemned the bigoted cartoons in question, this blogger is appalled by the cynical spinelessness of the state government. Its spokesperson, Alok Sinha, should be immediately fired.
Inner Mongolia
Mongolia traditionally included Outer Mongolia - now an independent republic - with an area of 604,000 square miles and Inner Mongolia with an area of 455,480 square miles. This landlocked territory was the epicenter of the largest ever contiguous empire in history under Genghis Khan in the 13th century. It was a part of the Mongol-Turkic Central Asian steppes. The Mongol tribes produced leaders whose forces expanded into Burma, China, India, Iran, Russia and Tibet.
The land was the focus of Sino-Russian rivalry since the 17th century. Qing dynasty China annexed Inner Mongolia in 1636 CE and Outer Mongolia in 1691 CE. Outer Mongolia broke away in 1911 although the Chinese briefly recaptured it in 1919 during the Russian civil war. Soviet intervention in 1921 led to the expulsion of the Chinese and the establishment of an independent republic in Outer Mongolia.
The Chinese continued to administer Inner Mongolia until 1937 when De Wang - a Mongol prince - declared independence under Japanese sponsorship. The defeat of Japan in World War 2 in 1945 witnessed the emergence of multiple political units in Inner Mongolia. Stalin pre-occupied with expanding his hold in Europe just after World War 2 had failed to ensure the merger of Inner Mongolia with Outer Mongolia. The Chinese Red Army consolidated control over Inner Mongolia between 1947 and 1949.
Although Han Chinese had started settling in Inner Mongolia in the late 1800s, there was a huge influx of ethnic Chinese after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. The Han Chinese today constitute 80% of Inner Mongolia's population of 23 million. The remainder is indigenous Mongols. The proportion of Han Chinese is much higher here than in Tibet or East Turkestan/Xinjiang. Inner Mongolia should perhaps be now called Outer China. Beijing transferred two-thirds of the territory of Inner Mongolia to five adjoining traditionally Han Chinese provinces in 1969. It reversed this policy decision in 1979.
Tibet and Inner Mongolia have a shared religious identity that acknowledges the leadership of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. The Red Army had destroyed monasteries and killed several thousand Mongols during the Cultural Revolution. There has since been a resurgence of Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia. Monasteries have been rebuilt and religious practice revived. The study of Tibetan has been reintroduced in lamaseries. These developments have heightened ethnic consciousness.
Expatriate Mongol groups based in the United States and elsewhere advocate independence for Inner Mongolia. The prospects of secession are nil given the demographic equation. Nevertheless, the territory merits close attention on the part of Indian decision makers. South Bloc has a huge asset in the Dalai Lama, who is the acknowledged spiritual leader of both the Tibetans and the Mongols.
The land was the focus of Sino-Russian rivalry since the 17th century. Qing dynasty China annexed Inner Mongolia in 1636 CE and Outer Mongolia in 1691 CE. Outer Mongolia broke away in 1911 although the Chinese briefly recaptured it in 1919 during the Russian civil war. Soviet intervention in 1921 led to the expulsion of the Chinese and the establishment of an independent republic in Outer Mongolia.
The Chinese continued to administer Inner Mongolia until 1937 when De Wang - a Mongol prince - declared independence under Japanese sponsorship. The defeat of Japan in World War 2 in 1945 witnessed the emergence of multiple political units in Inner Mongolia. Stalin pre-occupied with expanding his hold in Europe just after World War 2 had failed to ensure the merger of Inner Mongolia with Outer Mongolia. The Chinese Red Army consolidated control over Inner Mongolia between 1947 and 1949.
Although Han Chinese had started settling in Inner Mongolia in the late 1800s, there was a huge influx of ethnic Chinese after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. The Han Chinese today constitute 80% of Inner Mongolia's population of 23 million. The remainder is indigenous Mongols. The proportion of Han Chinese is much higher here than in Tibet or East Turkestan/Xinjiang. Inner Mongolia should perhaps be now called Outer China. Beijing transferred two-thirds of the territory of Inner Mongolia to five adjoining traditionally Han Chinese provinces in 1969. It reversed this policy decision in 1979.
Tibet and Inner Mongolia have a shared religious identity that acknowledges the leadership of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. The Red Army had destroyed monasteries and killed several thousand Mongols during the Cultural Revolution. There has since been a resurgence of Tibetan Buddhism in Inner Mongolia. Monasteries have been rebuilt and religious practice revived. The study of Tibetan has been reintroduced in lamaseries. These developments have heightened ethnic consciousness.
Expatriate Mongol groups based in the United States and elsewhere advocate independence for Inner Mongolia. The prospects of secession are nil given the demographic equation. Nevertheless, the territory merits close attention on the part of Indian decision makers. South Bloc has a huge asset in the Dalai Lama, who is the acknowledged spiritual leader of both the Tibetans and the Mongols.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Waging War
Speaking on The Charlie Rose Show today, US defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a curious observation about Iraq which got us thinking about the philosophy of waging war.
Mr. Rumsfeld spoke about the tension between America's need for sufficient forces in theater to create an environment where Iraqis can reconstruct their nation and the risk of excessive force commitment that alienates them.
We think this tension -- and Mr. Rumsfeld's consequent impulse to carefully calibrate force levels in Iraq -- is a dangerous manifestation of bourgeois sentimentalism that, alas, marks democratic societies. We fear the very idea of unleashing our maximum dogs of war.
In truth, it's impossible to calibrate with precision the consequences of the blunt instrument that war is. It's precisely this reason why war should be a last resort. Responsible governments must do all things possible to avert war but, when war becomes inevitable, they must do all things necessary to achieve overwhelming triumph.
Such triumph is not about raising one's flag over the enemy's capital, or toppling his baroque statues, but about destroying his will to power, his expectation of a come-back, and his appetite for continuing the fight. Japan's psychological state after Nagasaki is a perfect example. Such triumph comes not through effete calibration of force, rather through its deliberate over-application.
Then, on the still-warm ashes of the enemy's crushed aspirations, the victor can build his palaces of peace for history to applaud.
This is the lesson of every war won, and lost. It is tragic and amusing that democracies forget this lesson again and again -- because we are brought up with innate aversion to using violence as a device for settling issues. There is a naive sentimentalism at play here -- which while endearing and even acceptable in times of peace, must be set aside when war becomes necessary. Ironically, such peace-driven sentimentality stretches out war and ends up hurting a lot more people than would be the case if war is waged with overwhelming force in the first place.
America ignored this lesson in Iraq -- it failed to crush the will of Iraq's Sunni heartland, and now is struggling to manage a nuisance insurgency. Iraq is not evidence that neo-conservative ideas are utopian and impractical -- rather, it is evidence of the fact the poorly waged wars are seldom easy to win.
Come to think of it, this is not new wisdom at all. Isn't this what Lord Krishna said to Arjun when the latter was struggling with his pathetic sentimentalism rather than doing what a soldier should do -- crush the enemy without remorse?
Mr. Rumsfeld spoke about the tension between America's need for sufficient forces in theater to create an environment where Iraqis can reconstruct their nation and the risk of excessive force commitment that alienates them.
We think this tension -- and Mr. Rumsfeld's consequent impulse to carefully calibrate force levels in Iraq -- is a dangerous manifestation of bourgeois sentimentalism that, alas, marks democratic societies. We fear the very idea of unleashing our maximum dogs of war.
In truth, it's impossible to calibrate with precision the consequences of the blunt instrument that war is. It's precisely this reason why war should be a last resort. Responsible governments must do all things possible to avert war but, when war becomes inevitable, they must do all things necessary to achieve overwhelming triumph.
Such triumph is not about raising one's flag over the enemy's capital, or toppling his baroque statues, but about destroying his will to power, his expectation of a come-back, and his appetite for continuing the fight. Japan's psychological state after Nagasaki is a perfect example. Such triumph comes not through effete calibration of force, rather through its deliberate over-application.
Then, on the still-warm ashes of the enemy's crushed aspirations, the victor can build his palaces of peace for history to applaud.
This is the lesson of every war won, and lost. It is tragic and amusing that democracies forget this lesson again and again -- because we are brought up with innate aversion to using violence as a device for settling issues. There is a naive sentimentalism at play here -- which while endearing and even acceptable in times of peace, must be set aside when war becomes necessary. Ironically, such peace-driven sentimentality stretches out war and ends up hurting a lot more people than would be the case if war is waged with overwhelming force in the first place.
America ignored this lesson in Iraq -- it failed to crush the will of Iraq's Sunni heartland, and now is struggling to manage a nuisance insurgency. Iraq is not evidence that neo-conservative ideas are utopian and impractical -- rather, it is evidence of the fact the poorly waged wars are seldom easy to win.
Come to think of it, this is not new wisdom at all. Isn't this what Lord Krishna said to Arjun when the latter was struggling with his pathetic sentimentalism rather than doing what a soldier should do -- crush the enemy without remorse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)