Thinking ahead : A host of new allies for India

Fresh from his success at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Prime Minister has decided that it is time for India to spread its wings and head for the skies. This signals the arrival of a much awaited, very opportune moment. The NSG waiver, if nothing else, was a pointer to India's destiny; it is up to Midnight's Children to pursue the dream to its glorious end. In this respect the Oracle makes a round up of the new allies India could attract in its march towards becoming a world power.

The first aim is to fix coordinates. This means having to separate allies from enemies. And once the allies have been identified, the goal should be to achieve a tactical partnership, establish the power equation in the relationship and steadfastly claim an equal if not an upper hand. As for the enemies, it is always possible to trade and/or parley with them in a mutually beneficial manner within clearly defined paramters. As senior diplomat Rajiv Sikri wrote, "India claims to have some kind of strategic relationship with all the major global players viz. Russia, France, UK, Germany, EU, Brazil and China, Japan, even Iran and Saudi Arabia!". Such a foreign policy approach marks out India as both an unreliable partner and a lightweight. With achievement comes confidence. With achievement and confidence comes power... and more achievement. For India, the cycle as been started. It is up to the diplomats to keep the wheel turning.

1. The United States: The US tilt towards India is perhaps the most important geopolitical coup since the Cold War. Owing to some strange choices made by both India and the United States, the world's two largest democracies had been somewhat estranged for sixty years. Not any more.

The United States is a powerful partner to have. Having powerful friends can be a challenge. For one, India understands that there is a long way to go before the United States accepts India as an equal partner in the relationship. Now that India has been securely drawn into the US Bloc, one should expect that American diplomats will push for more influence in India's foreign policy and perhaps even internal affairs. The US does this to all friendly nations: the UK, Canada, Germany, Australia and comes down even more heavily on allies such as Vietnam, Romania, Hungary, Poland and Georgia. Given America's continued leadership in the world since the 1950's, it is easy to understand the temptation, even the habit.

This is where diplomacy comes in. India is not the typical US ally; neither is India a small nation torn apart by the Cold War, nor an European country that was helped back to its feet by America after World War II. India is too proud to accept a relationship that is not based on mutual respect. In this respect, the lurking suspicion against America, in most middle class ranks and in political circles of both the Congress and the BJP serves us well. If India cannot eek out an honourable arrangement with America, no one will.

For this, it is important for India to stress the fact that our relationship with Russia is very important to us. Americans need to be reminded, in countless ways that a credible counterbalance to China is almost an existential necessity for them. At this time, when Russia seems to be grunting at the Western World, an indifferent India would make the East look very grim indeed for the United States.

At the same time, India probably realizes that a strategic Indo-US partnership is China's worst nightmare. Even as China presses its own people to the brink in the scramble for "world domination", an Indo-US combine, with most of the Western World taking the side of democracy, is probably too much for them.

The wonderful thing is that India has hardly put a foot wrong in its relationship with the United States so far. It's military ties with the United States have been widely advertised and it has had the right effect in Beijing. As China begins to realize that making cheap toys, toothpaste, matches, soaps and slippers for "lazy" Americans has actually made them very dependent on the US, it has adopted a wait and watch policy towards the emerging Indo-US relationship. It has made desperate attempts to reinstate the India-Pakistan hyphenation, tried some characteristically sinister ploys at NSG, but most of these efforts have come a cropper.

2) The US allies: The main dividend in pursuing a friendly relationship with the United States is the "access" to US allies. America's allies are also among our most natural allies and being in America's good books raises our profile among them. Although much of the world appreciates the rise of China and India, many nations such as Germany, England, Canada, Australia and Japan have waited to pick up the cue from America.

This is all the more reason to make sure that India is able to define its relationship with the United States in honourable terms. Since many of the nations mentioned above, though economically and sometimes even militarily potent on their own; have, by and large, taken America's primacy for granted. As such, if India manages to pursue a "new kind of" relationship with the United States, it generates genuine respect for India as a world power.

This is especially crucial, since many of these nations could be key allies. England and Germany are both key industrialized economies; from which India can learn and gain a lot. Trade and cultural ties with England being what they are, along with a shared concern over terrorism, the economic opportunities in this sphere are virtually limitless. As India looks for foreign partners to increase its share in international trade, India looks towards the European Union and North America for havens of liberal democracy very similar to our own.

The US allies can also offer India major military advantages. Indian presence in Japan, the Korean peninsula, Taiwan and Vietnam will enable India to virtually place a stranglehold on the Chinese coast. This would be a fitting reply to the ring of Chinese bases around India, in Bangladesh, Burma, Indonesia and Pakistan; a sure way to snap the infamous "string of pearls". India has already flourished in the new Afghanistan and built a military base in Tajikistan, overlooking the bridge from Pakistan to China. Shinzo Abe once said that the Indo-Japanese relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world. In many ways, he was right.

3. France : France has seized the opportunity to start trade nuclear material with India. When President Sarkozy arrived in India earlier this year, the diplomats had started working on the modalities for Indo-French cooperation in the nuclear sector. France, apart from being a very important member of the European Union, also has a significant military industry and most importantly; France is a NATO member state that is never shy of standing up to what it perceives as US hegemony. One might recall the funny incident when US Congressmen, miffed at France's rabid criticism of the war in Iraq, even suggested that the cafeteria on the Capitol rename French fries as "Freedom fries".

It therefore follows that a military and economic alliance with the French could serve as a nucleus for a grouping of democratic forces, which though fundamentally friendly to the US, would stand for ensuring that America does not drive the free world by its whims.

Although India has always enjoyed good relationships with England and Germany, the relations with the European Parliament have been rather strained. This is mostly due to the "holier than thou" approach of EU member states towards freedom of religion and human rights in India. Unfortunately, most EU member states are highly developed, sparsely populated nations that can never fully appreciate the sheer will it takes to drive an 1100 million-man machine like India.
A disconnect has arisen within the EU itself, where we have states such as France, England and Germany on the one hand who have big stakes in the world economy and countries like Auistria or Holland on the other which are all too smug about their civil rights rhetoric. Austria and Holland have given up all aspirations and just want to be left in peace. And if they continue to bring in more Muslims, they will die a slow painful death. This disconnect was on display at the NSG meet, where the bigger nations threw their weight behind India but the diminuitive players on the world stage agonized over technicalities of non proliferation. By opening up to France, in addition to England and Germany, India can send a message to smaller EU states that they must give up their prudish attitude and cooperate.

4. Israel : Although India did not even have relations with Israel before 1992, the growth of India-Israel relations has been truly remarkable. The relationship has rapidly spread to industry and the military.

At a time when terrorists in India are so energized, it is extremely important for Indian intelligence agencies to train with the famed Mossad, which virtually enjoys cult status. Israel has been looking to become India's No.1 supplier of weapons for some time now. Although it is quite demeaning that India should still have to shop around for its weapons, we have to wait until our very own DRDO has reaped its deadly harvest. Fortunately, with the DRDO testing missile after missile, that day no loonger seems so far away.

Of course, nothing can be achieved unless India formulates a clear Middle East policy. Continued sympathy for Palestine will never buy India any favour with the terrorists. We might as well join the other side and try to win this.

India's relationship with Israel also enjoys the generous blessing of the United States and acts as a thorn in the side of the Islamic world. There is some perverse pleasure in watching the terrorists shake their fist at the emerging India-Israel-US axis. Hail civilization. Hail democracy.

5. And finally, Africa: This might sound somewhat out of place, but it isn't. The poorest continent may not be a major military or geopolitical ally, but it certainly is brimming with mineral resources. Given India's non imperialist image in the world, the time is certainly right to get the resource rich African nations on our side. In this quest, India has a "psychological advantage" over the other predominantly white nations. The challenge is to pull this off before the Chinese do. The Chinese have already rallied with the genocidal regime in Sudan. Although one wishes that India might never have to do something so despicable as that, there is an urgency to act with a certain measure of guile. Given the number of despotic regimes in Africa, the Chinese are certain to find fraternal bonds with many African nations, just as they did with the dictators in South Asia. India can ill afford to ignore this.


Our nation has a bright future. The battle in the mind has been won. But the success story has not been scripted yet.

Those who cannot help themselves.... India to stay helpless before terror?

Of course, India is no stranger to terror. But terrorism used to have a pattern. Once a year, the terrorists would come out of their foxholes, strike a major city and disappear. Following on this, common people would breathe fire for two weeks and then return to the bread and butter issues of daily life. The media would devote the other fifty weeks of the year to explaining why the Muslims of India are the most gentle people in the whole world; the defenceless victims of Hindu fundamentalism. The secular polity would examine each action of the communal/Hindu brigade, seeking for the smallest breach of peace, the slightest evidence of lawbreaking from the RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal in order that all the terrorism in the world could be labelled as a "reaction" to Hindu oppression. The lack of fact was often more than made up by creating a cauldron in which news; real, fake and imaginary, was blended with paranoia by their accomplices in a very willing English language media. As the secular crowd kept India in check, Jihadi elements infiltrated the Muslim populace at will, busily working on an autonomous machine that could roll out terror attacks like cars from an assembly line. Thanks to the efforts of the Left liberals and the Secular parties; the assembly line is in place now. The Indian Mujahiddeen gave a big high-five to liberals as its new terror machine was set in operation.

Now that the cat is among the pigeons, the Government is scurrying to hide its face. On the day the terrorists scored off their second success in Delhi in the space of two weeks, the Central Government cleared 7 new proposals to fight terrorism. It's too late now. "Do not wait to dig a well until your house is on fire"; so goes the Hindi proverb, loosely translated. And, worse still, is the fact that some of the Government's new measures are merely window dressing.

The English language media has been struggling to help the "secular forces" get back on their feet. The search for diversions has been intense and the Bajrang Dal has obliged dutifully. The UPA Government was more than delighted to issue a bold warning to BJP ruled states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Karnataka to protect the life liberty and property of Christians. A dubious campaign was begun to deliberately conflate petty hate crimes of the Bajrang Dal type with terrorism, the ultimate purpose being to make the definition of terrorism so broad that the actual Islamic terrorists would never come under the scanner. Justice Nanavati's new report has given a new lease of life to the "secular" parties and their concubines in the media. After all, the Gujarat riots are an adrenaline rush for all liberals.

Civil rights, of course, are the pillars of any democracy. In fact, India faces the wrath of Jihadi forces precisely because Islam is the antithesis of civil rights. The purpose of civil rights legislation is protect the dignity of the individual and not to undercut law enforcement in general. In fact, should the human rights crowd become successful in further restricting the hand of the law in India, we the people will have to pay for it by ultimately having to go through a state of Internal Emergency. Already, India faces its worst internal security situation since independence; if things go worse from this point, law and order will have to be restored by imposing Emergency, at which point all civil rights will be dissolved, thus resulting in a net loss for the cause of personal liberty.

There is no one magic formula that can end terrorism. For one, terrorism is not restricted to India, but operates on a global scale. The Oracle advances the following "tree model" for terrorism:

a) The branches of the terror tree are the Jihadi elements who carry out the actual crimes.

b) The trunk of the terror tree is the structure of Islam itself and the attitude of Islam towards the outside world. Islam, like any other religion, is simply a lens, a certain worldview, which, in this case sees people simply in terms of believers and non believers.

c) The roots of the terror tree plunge deep into the oil wells of Saudi Arabia, from where the radical Wahabis run their campaign against the civilized world.


Therefore, terrorism has to be dealt with at all three levels. A good way to start would be to hand over exemplary punishments to Jihadi elements within our society. This is important not only because this is what they deserve, but also because Jihadi elements often see our democratic institutions as a sign of weakness. The liberal mob in the media is wrong; there is no way to win the hearts of terrorists (potential and active) by offering them more in way of civil rights.

Of course, the Hindu fanatics are wrong as well; there is no way either to outfanaticize the Muslim fanatics. Dealing with the Jihadi elements will require the State Governments to act on the long overdue plans for police reform, besides the Central Government creating a special agency to fight terrorism, if not a set of fast track courts equipped with special powers and specific laws. The Indian response has been, thus far, woefully inadequate, with the Central Government still unable to make up its mind on even a workable definition of terrorism.

Dealing with Part b) of the terrorist problem is even more complex. It will require a change in discourse from all sections of media and Government. Most of the liberal media spends its time on explaining how Muslims are affected by a myriad prejudices in India. The assumption is that, somehow, by giving special favours and loads of media sympathy, one can actually keep Muslims from turning to terrorism. Since all other communities in India and most other parts of the democratic world enjoy roughly the same rights as Muslims, it is difficult to see how appeasing the Muslims could possibly work to dissuade them from turning to fundamentalism. Instead, appeasement is counterproductive; it deepens resentment for Muslims' "protected status" and furthers the cause of separatists.

The right approach is to hold Muslims' feet to the fire. The cause and effect relationship between rampant Islamic terrorism and Islamphobia needs to be explained. Few communities in the world today face so much prejudice as the Muslims, but that is because no other community has had so many members involved in mass murder in the recent past. Virtually every single nation in which Muslims form the majority is a dictatorship that has draconian, openly discriminatory laws against women and homosexuals at the very least and public beheadings, stonings and regular massacres at the worst. Peaceful Muslims should understand that if most of the world needs to be ashamed of its prejudice, Muslims have a lot more to be ashamed of.

All religions are "belief systems" and not all belief systems could possibly be progressive, inclusive and liberal. The idea that "all religions are great" is a fallacy. Any belief system, by definition, defies logic and in doing so, brings great dangers upon us. In fact, the value of religion as a social institution should be questioned.

And finally, as with most afflictions of humanity, we should look to science and logic to redeem us. The horrors of Jihad are financed by the oil billionaires of Saudi Arabia and most of the Middle East. Given the dependence of our institutions on the supply of oil, terrorism is likely to be well financed for many, many decades to come. The Saudis know this and they are exploiting the situation to the fullest. The only solution is to show the savages what wonders can be worked by the ingenuity of civilization. Take, for instance, the example of Brazil, which now runs four fifths of its cars on ethanol extracted from corn. The way out is to follow this example and build a community of like minded nations that can take the world away from both blood and oil.

US distributes eye candy; wins several friends!

Okay, that was just a joke. But how come the conservatives have it easy all the hotties, while the lesbian feminists with mustaches flock to liberal ranks?



Note: For sometime now, I have wanted to have a photograph of Gov. Palin on this blog. I hope Americans elect her vice President, if only to spice up the nightly news. The Vice Presidential debates, wherein Sarah Palin goes head to head with foreign policy eagle Joseph Biden, should help in answering the age old question: Beauty or Brains?

US Financial System falls: new model sought?

America's cup of woes filled up last week when Wall Street faced its worst crash in history. As the Federal Government struggles to balance its books with a trillion dollar bailout for the economy, the Oracle ponders the economic and symbolic impact of the financial disaster.

For one, investment banking is dead. One by one, the greats of investment banking; Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers and Merill Lynch all dropped to their deaths as Wall Street trembled. For the still surviving Morgan-Stanley and Goldman-Sachs, it was time to change to a more universal model of banking, like that of Bank of America. As the NYTimes noted, this was an "end to the high flying culture of Wall Street". It was either that or death.

The US Government's $700 bn (eventually upto a trillion) dollar bailout plan is the immediate talking point across the world. The Government will buy out millions of bad mortgages with taxpayers' money. It is patently unfair to make the many pay for the stupidity of the few. The financial crisis is a result of an era of irresponsible borrowing and irresponsible lending; hence it follows that the people who took out those bad mortgages and the banks that offered them should be allowed to suffer. That sounds easy enough, right? Not in the kangaroo world of a newly socialist America.

The interesting political feature of these events is the reaction from the Governments in Europe. The sticking point in the Federal bailout is the inclusion of non US based financial institutions and there are many who argued that US Government money should be spent only on rescuing US institutions. This, as it turned out, was not a practical proposition; since Americans have millions of dollars of their assets pegged to foreign financial firms. The next idea was therefore, to persuade European Governments to participate in the financial aid package being given to the industry. A rude shock followed. America was cold shouldered all across Europe. Chancellor Merkel, one of President Bush's most solid allies, was particularly categorical in her rebuttal. She demanded why the US had not modified its financial regulation laws to conform to the Basle II agreement, unlike most other signatories to the pact? The arrogant tone in which this message was delivered to Washington does not bode well for America.

If integrity is a consideration, the nations of Western Europe certainly owe America big time; not just for their freedoms, but also for the rebuilding of their economies after the War, for their national security in the Cold War era and even for control of nuclear weapons under NATO arms sharing agreements. That these same nations should so summarily dismiss America in a difficult situation is a sign that the US needs to rethink its alliances. It is also a symptom of how much America's image has suffered under President Bush. As such, the democratic governments of Europe will not find it hard to sell their policy of cold noncooperation towards America to their electorate. In fact, Chancellor Merkel made some of her most scathing remarks at a CDU campaign rally in Linz; as reported by Der Spiegel. This is a long way off from the more optimistic attitude of the NYTimes, which wrote last week: "The Europeans realize that, in times of need, we are all in the same boat". This mismatch of expectations one opposite sides of the Atlantic is too stark to escape notice.

Put another way, however, the Europeans did have a point. Most of this financial crisis is US made. European Majors such as Deutsche Bank and UBS suffered losses only in their US operations. In India, for instance, the home demand driven economy suffered little. When Wall Street crashed in 1929, it was due to an euphoria of post war spending. But the US has been in combat mode ever since the attacks of Sept 11; and ever since, Americans have lost confidence in President Bush, with upwards of 70% believing that their country is headed in the wrong direction. For people in the US, this should not have been an era of reckless consumption. Even so, the "wining and dining" of the Clinton years continued unabated, credit was abundant and spending was reckless. Did Americans just become much too insular for their own good?

The failure of Wall Street is a wake up call for America. The US Economy has suffered its heaviest losses in history and what is more, the nature of the financial system had to be irrevocably altered to weather the storm. Coming after a string of military and diplomatic reverses, the economic collapse is a body blow to US leadership in the world. It is time for the US to realize that certain issues have remained stuck up in the political bottleneck far too long. Issues such as global warming should not have to make a round through political circles. Issues such as reducing dependence on oil from the Middle East need not be caught forever in the political debates of an uninformed public. The answer to the latter is of course, to use renewable fuels such as ethanol extracted from corn and not to drill and drill around the US coast until there is no Earth left. And much of the solution lies in collectivizing means of transport, for instance, which will require Americans to rethink their cities. It is time for Americans to realize that some problems are just difficult.

In all this, there is a warning to both the newly consumerist nations of India and China. The dangers of narcissism, of too much confidence and overspending; have become all too apparent. The US model has been a wildly successful one, but its soft underbelly has just been exposed. India needs to adopt the European model; that of a capitalist system with checks and balances. Fortunately, Indians seem to have a proclivity for spending within their means, but with India rising fast on the global ladder, this might change pretty soon.

Is Pakistan next?

It's official. Pakistan is a failed state. Also, President Bush has signed an executive order authorizing US forces to carry out ground based anti-terrorism operations in Pakistani territory without the knowledge of the Pakistani government. One sensible reaction might well be: "What took him so long?"

In some ways, Pakistan was always going to be an obvious target. The country has distinguished itself as the nerve centre of Islamic Jihad. The country has been masquerading as an American ally ever since the war on terror began. This enabled Pakistan to obtain weapons and money from Washington under false pretences. The utter helplessness of the Pakistani army in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, the shady deals struck with Al-Qaeda, the covert support to anti-India terrorist activities were all covered up by a loud barrage of lies from Islamabad. In this open ended battle between America and Islamic Jihad, Pakistan was the ultimate double agent. Its bluff has been called.

But there are other considerations. First, this new development represents a substantial change in the approach of President Bush. All these years, he has maintained that the US Army needs to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan. In his last few months in office, Bush has a sense of urgency. No sooner had Iraq shown signs of improvement, than a resurgent Taliban queered the pitch for him in Afghanistan. A desperate President is looking for desperate measures to score a victory. Even so, the current stance represents an irreversible turn in US policy. Looking beyond Bush, one sees easily that Obama has repeatedly expressed his mistrust of Pakistani policies. And there are those who say that McCain's election would tantamount to a third term for Bush. It appears that the change of attitude in Washington towards Pakistan is systemic, rather than about the caprices of President Bush. Seven years of being lied to should justify that. Also, the Americans had invested so much diplomatic capital in propping up President Musharraf that it was always difficult for them to back out later. With Musharraf gone, the US can deal more harshly with the new rulers in Pakistan.

The admission that direct US intervention in Pakistan is a military necessity makes a horrifying reality even more apparent. As the war on terror becomes more and more global, it begins to look more and more like a "thousand year war". That America would talk about one sided military action in the territory of a professed ally is a tacit admission that the enemy is stronger than previously imagined. On the one hand, the democratic world can never fight terror until it realizes that Islamic Jihad is a truly global force, a superpower in the shadows. On the other, the thought of major conflict across the world rattles many of America's solid allies in Europe. India, a recently pro-American country in which terrorism has reached spectacular proportions, also faces a uniquely tricky situation with its 130 million strong Muslim community. No one wants to commit to a worldwide war. And there are always the detractors like China and Russia, who still think that the worldwide Muslim mobilization against America can be used to cut America down to size. Since America, until recently, thought it could win this very same game of playing this Muslim dictator against the other, who can blame China and Russia for thinking in the same way?

Even so, an invasion of Pakistan at the present moment seems to be a very remote possibility. For one, America has to figure what it has to do with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. And it also has to factor in the Chinese reaction to US military action so close to China. China and Pakistan have warmed up to each other in recent years. The Chinese believe they can use Pakistan to balance India's growing clout; a mistake, considering that Pakistan already hangs in the balance between America and Islamic Jihad. A third stress could tear the country apart, effectively ending all that India could have had to fear from Pakistan. Finally the US military and economy is already overstretched by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A war in Pakistan could sink the US in debt.

So, what does the US' new tough line on Pakistan mean? It betrays the growing frustration of the Americans with their war on terror. The more it draws blood, the bigger and more determined the enemy becomes. And terrorists do not understand the language of peace. America's allies, who are otherwise sympathetic to the war on terror, cannot help taking perverse pleasure in the predicament of the world's most powerful nation. Some US allies, such as the ones in Western Europe, have been outsourcing their national security needs to the US for far too long. Israel, which involved the US in this tangle in the first place, is far too obsessed with the Middle East to see Jihad as a global phenomenon. India, a recent entrant to the club of US allies; is in a highly unenviable position. Prognosis: negative.

What happens in Singur.....

The wheel of progress of a Rising India is stuck in the soft soil of Singur. As matters come to a head, the exasperating impasse is a stinging indictment of the general political culture of West Bengal. However way the issue is resolved, both sides have something to learn. While Buddhadeb Bhattacharya's government must appreciate the hazards of browbeating the opposition every time, Mamata Banerjee needs to understand that her role is that of an opposition and not of a hinderer. By throwing a tantrum over Singur, she has undercut her credibility as the Chief Minister of choice, while the suave Buddhadeb, despite all his deceit, has actually gained in public perception.

When it comes to details, however, the government is covered thickly in muck. The party actually let TATA have a free hand in choosing the site for their project and then proceeded to acquire this land from the locals on behalf of the former. Despite the Chief Minister's promise that only non-arable land would be acquired for the purpose of SEZs, the government guiltlessly went ahead with acquiring fertile agricultural land in and around Singur. Little attention was paid to ensure fair exchange rates or to ensure that the local population was on board with the decision. When the Trinamool Congress demanded that the government explain its requirement for a whopping one thousand acres of land, when similar industries have been known to occupy significantly less area, the government skirted the issue; speaking vaguely about the need to build "ancillary units". Few details were furnished as to whether these "ancillary units" would be owned by TATA or how the government would ensure that the excess land would be used for the purpose of industry directly aiding the TATA main factory alone. In fact, the agreement between the Government of West Bengal and TATA Motors was never made public, even when provisions of the RTI were invoked. Finally, when the administration signed an agreement with Mamata Banerjee in the presence of the Governor, promising to return 300 acres of land, the government backed out almost immediately and offered a new package to the farmers. In all this, the dubious pressure tactics of TATA Motors and Buddhadeb's readiness to bend over backwards to serve the ambitions of a highly non communist potentate point to a very chequered, shady relationship between TATA and the Government of West Bengal.

For Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, this is bad karma at the very least. You can't just seize control in a state, systematically deindustrialize it for twenty five years and then do a volte face and claim to be a friend of modern industry. It does not work that way in a democracy. If the Left Front wants to atone for its sins, it must wear sackcloth and ashes and spend at least five years in the Opposition. Buddhadeb simply issued a decree to his party cadres to just turn their coats inside out and henceforth fight for industry, instead of against it. He must have been pretty naive to think he could get away with it.

So does Mamata Banerjee's strategy work. For starters, she seems to have succeeded in Singur. The local Panchayat elections resulted in a complete rout for the ruling CPI(M), particularly in Singur and Nandigram. The Left Front also suffered major setbacks at the ground level more or less uniformly across the state. This means that, at the local level in Singur, Mamata's dogged campaign has paid off; and her rhetoric has struck a cord with villagefolk beyond Singur and Nandigram. The CPI(M) can only blame itself for the success of these tactics; for the CPI(M) has spent three decades feeding the people of Bengal with its inexorable propaganda of anti-industrialization. By the time the CPI(M) decided to disown its ideals, the rural had been infected far too badly with the virus. A common scenario in rural West Bengal, even in Singur and Nandigram, is that of the traditional/generational CPI(M) supporter, who is at odds to figure out where his party and its ideals went.

The urban areas of West Bengal present a vastly different proposition. They have been the immediate beneficiaries of the party's new policies and feel that their new prosperity is under attack from Mamata Banerjee and her "old school politics". The trend is particularly marked in the smaller towns of Bengal, which are now waking up to promises of lucrative jobs and gleaming infrastructure in the new Indian economy. This is a generation of small town Bengalis that have grown up knowing that the party is all encompassing, like the sky. Now that the party itself has offered to lighten the yoke, they would much rather take the all powerful party at its word, than flirt with a temperamental opposition leader. Such is the craving for opportunity that the youth will settle with the Red Monster for much less than democracy and accountability.

An NDTV opinion poll found that 75% of people in West Bengal want the TATA factory to be built in Singur. This poll was held, presumably, in urban areas and even though the NDTV record on opinion polls is quite abysmal, it is not difficult to believe this figure. Mamata Banerjee might find herself rowing upstream if she continues her intransigence over the Singur issue. While villages may be the soul of India, young Indians have their hearts set on the city. Sooner or later, Mamata Banerjee needs to realize that uprooting the CPI(M) in the rural heartland will be a long protracted struggle which may never succeed.

One of Mamata's continued shortcomings is that she has never been able to project herself as a real alternative. Even before the Singur issue, the Trinamool Congress has always fought over small local issues and has failed to provide a statewide platform. With Singur, Mamata Banerjee has again come to be seen as obsessed with Singur, rather than with all issues surrouding the problems of West Bengal. Unfortunately, she has so far been unable to build up a real party machine; one that can work and deliver results in any part of the state without the leader herself having to shift base to that area. That said, Mamata Banerjee probably knows more about fighting the CPI(M) than any one else in India. In a democracy, no situation is hopeless.

India acknowledged-III: But what about the politics?

Dr. Manmohan Singh has been riding his luck for a while now. For the last few months, his beleaguered government has lurched from crisis to crisis, managing to escape alive each time, if only just. This is the first time, however, that he has not only managed to come out of it alive, but also with his head held high.

If the Prime Minister is living a charmed life, he has earned it. The magnitude of Dr. Singh's achievement begins to sink in when one considers how much could have gone wrong in Vienna. The smaller nations could have dug their heels in, the Chinese could have thrown a spanner into the works; even America could have bowed and asked India to accept a couple of "reasonable restrictions" just so the waiver could go through. And even though the Washington Post tossed a live charcoal into Dr. Singh's mouth even as talks were taking off in Vienna, the Government came out of this seemingly impossible situation with its honour intact. It is not something every Prime Minister has achieved; and Dr. Singh deserves all the credit in the world.

The BJP understands this euphoria surrounding the special treatment given to the NSG. Despite its best efforts, the party has, by and large, failed to convince the urban electorate that its opposition to the nuclear deal is of the principled variety. It is time for the BJP to abandon the anti-nuclear deal line and come up with a more popular approach. It could start by congratulating the Prime Minister. Since no such thought seems to be brewing in the minds of the BJP leadership, let us look at other options. The party is right in calculating that the NSG waiver is too all too abstract to gather votes on its own. A scorched earth policy, focusing on inflation, price rise, anti-incumbency and terrorism is quite likely to succeed in the party's urban bastions. The spate of terrorist attacks can only benefit the BJP. A storm of disquiet is gathering over Islamic terrorism: and we may not have to wait too long for the proverbial last straw to break the camel's back.

In fact the explosions in New Delhi have brought celebrations over the NSG waiver to an abrupt end. The talk of the town has changed overnight. So has the mood of the media. People want the government to do something...anything; that could put an end to the mindless violence that now permeates our consciousness in urban life. For the BJP, the worst is over. The party can afford to go on the offensive once again. Amid the din of terrorist attacks, the people will be all ears for the determined voice of the flamboyant Gujarat Chief Minister, who could well make a mark in this election as a star campaigner. The Congress is bound to get a shot in the arm when the Nuclear Deal is finally ratified by the US in a little while from now; but given that there are still many in India who view the US with suspicion, that victory is unlikely to be of as much currency as the world class triumph in Vienna.

For the Congress, this flash in the pan may not light up a whole electoral future. Shortly after the success in Vienna, Sonia Gandhi herded Congress leaders at her residence to take stock of the possible political opportunity. The leaders are understood to have told her that it is unlikely that they can make this work, particularly in states such as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Any spring of hope for the party in Delhi has now been plugged by the terrorist attacks in the capital. Nevertheless, the party now has something to show for its years in governance. In fact it has managed to push the BJP into the same corner as the CPI(M), China and Pakistan. Sonia Gandhi made a valiant effort to pitch the nuclear rhetoric to the mainly rural audience in Rajasthan a couple of days ago, but the response is, understandably, somewhat sullen. She would have been far better off talking about the farm loan waivers. In fact, the Congress is in danger of sounding out of touch in an election when it is absolutely critical for the party to capture a mega-share of the rural, backward vote. The failure of the BJP's three/four term legislators to hold on to their urban seats played a major role in sinking the party's fortunes in 2004, even as the party actually gained in rural seats. Aided by the incumbency cycle, the traditional BJP tilt of urban areas, the disquiet over Islamic terrorism and the soaring inflation, it is all but certain that the BJP will recapture these territories in 2009.

As for the Left, it is "out of sight, out of mind". They have blown their opportunity to make an impact at the Centre and now face an uncertain future perhaps even in West Bengal and Kerala. Why did it have to be this way? Because the so called "national leadership" of the Left consists of a clutch of quirky ideologues, whose political experience does not extend beyond motley student protests and road barricades. The actual leaders have been shunted to Bengal and Kerala and are rarely ever visible in national politics. It is this Communist propaganda machine in Bengal and Kerala that put the Left on a firm footing in the fourteenth Lok Sabha. But when it came to playing the game at the highest level, the "national leadership" was hopelessly outflanked; it collapsed in an ignominous heap of failure and disgrace.

Nevertheless, there is one outcome to hope for in the 2009 election. Issues like nuclear diplomacy, terrorism and inflation being the central issues, we can prevent Verdict 2009 from becoming yet another conglomerate of state elections. As such, it is possible to keep the opportunists, the fence sitters out of the Parliament. Each time there is a dearth of national issues, the contemptible regional and caste based parties step in to fill the vacuum. If only 2009 would take us away from the pestilence of Mayawatis and Jayalalithas and Mulayams... it would be a step in the right direction.

India acknowledged-II: Deconstructing The Non Proliferation Octopus

As India rejoices in its status as a nuclear power, countless non-proliferationists are shaking their heads in disbelief, unable to rationalize what just happened. While pragmatists across the world have simply taken this affront to NPT as a matter of course, there are others, particularly Left wing intellectuals, who will bemoan this moment forever. This article will explain why they are deluded, why they do what they do, why it is dangerous to do what they say and why no one will ever listen to them. Let us start by mentioning the fundamental cause of their mental disorder.

"Fanaticism for peace is as bad as fanaticism for War"

The non proliferationist argument runs as follows: The struggle to end the possibility of nuclear war is supposed to be fought on three fronts:

a. Preventing more nations from acquiring nuclear weapons: To be achieved by NPT

b. Preventing existing nuclear powers from perfecting and enhancing their nuclear capabilities: To be achieved by CTBT.

c. Preventing existing nuclear powers from expanding their arsenal: To be achieved by FMCT.

The inducement for any (non nuclear) nation to accept any of these conditions is that it will obtain ready access to nuclear technology for civilian energy purposes; this saves smaller nations the time and money required to develop such technology independently and perhaps makes the world a safer place.

1. As with most arguments and initiatives for global disarmament, the NPT (and also the CTBT and FMCT) looks good on paper and makes good sense in a perfect world. In this Utopian sense, India is not only an egregious offender, but also a vicious bully. It has refused to sign the NPT or the CTBT (the FMCT is not formally on the table yet), built its own nuclear weapons and has then used its new economic power and leverage with the US to get a "waiver" for itself, i.e. a formal declaration from the Nuclear Suppliers Group that there is one standard for India (and by extension, possibly for other US allies in the near future?) and one standard for the rest of the world.

The liberal Left has a pattern of severely upbraiding democratic nations like India or the US for the slightest breaches of what it perceives to be the "humanitarian standard". One defiant remark from President Bush draws more flak in the liberal press than a storm of hate speech from leaders in the Middle East and parts of Latin America. And while the Left continues to beat up America over increased airport security or a possible wiretap, Islamic nations openly practice double standards against non-Muslims, women, homosexuals and publicly stone people to death for blasphemy, apostasy or even witchcraft.

The real reason why the myriad inhuman acts of such dictators continue to fly under the radar of the Left intelligentsia is not a lack of information, nor a lack of judgement, but a mixture of cowardice and contempt. All other things remaining the same, India, England or America are comparatively safe places on earth for a person to criticize the administration and get away with it. That is where cowardice comes in. The second factor is the powerful desire to be seen as over and above the general standard of intellect. It is so much easier to condemn peaceful, democratic India over technicalities; than to engage with the dictators on the big injustices in Iran or Venezuela.

That, in brief, is the soft underbelly of the Left liberal establishment.

2. Now we come to the NPT in particular. The NPT (in its current form) recognizes only five "nuclear powers". It is unclear as to what are the principles that are used to distinguish "nuclear weapon states" from "non nuclear weapon" states, if indeed there are any.

Sovereignty for all nations and freedom for all people is fair. Who can rationally argue against it? The idea of NPT can be considered fair only if it respects the right of all nations to aspire to greater heights, or else it will serve little more than the aim of the powerful few in the mid-twentieth century to perpetuate their hegemony. If anything, the India specific waiver has given credibility to the global nuclear regime: it has created a model by which a nation can be "earn" its way to become a recognized nuclear power. It suggests that the NPT is based not on power; but on principles. If India, with its impeccable non-proliferation record, self adopted "no first use policy" and five thousand year long history of non-aggression does not make the cut, who will? To characterize our 1100 million strong democracy as incapable of handling the status of "responsible nuclear power" is patently ridiculous.

Disarmament enthusiasts and their Left wing cheerleaders should look elsewhere for enemies of peace: Iran, China, Syria and Pakistan might be good places to start.

The Oracle is convinced that the peace fanatics are needed elsewhere in the world. Recently, the New York Times reported that the US will transfer $32 billion worth of armaments to foreign governments in this fiscal year, compared to $12 billion in 2005; not to mention that the US already allows allies like Greece, Turkey and Italy to have "shared control" of roughly 180 US nuclear weapons stationed in Europe under the pretext of NATO arms sharing agreements. Special Russian jets carrying "dummy rockets" have landed in the backyard of the Venezuelan President. China is in the midst of transferring large caches of arms and money to the avowedly genocidal government of Sudan. It isn't a very congenial world and it doesn't help if the high priests of peace are wasting their energies on hypothetical nuclear holocausts started by India.

3. Finally, what about Iran? What about Pakistan? As explained before, the India specific waiver has actually given credibility to the non proliferation regime by creating principles which determine whether a given nation may qualify as a "recognized nuclear power".

The argument of non-proliferationists has been based on the deception that an India specific waiver opens the door to Iran, Pakistan and North Korea to be "rewarded" for "bad" behaviour. In fact, it is quite the opposite, since neither of these nations would currently qualify under the new principle that has just been established. The older regime, which suggested that one could muscle into the nuclear club with a push and shove, has encouraged the heroes of hate in Iran and Pakistan to press on with their agenda of destruction. The new principle shuts them out...completely. Again, this is not an indictment for the people of the respective nations but for their authoritarian government and, dare we say it, their violent culture.

India acknowledged-I : Jealous, paranoid world backs away at NSG

It has been a true delight to change the intended title of this article from "Jealous, paranoid world blocks India at NSG" to "Jealous, paranoid world backs away at NSG". After a long, bitter struggle at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, India was finally let into the New World Order as a major power.

Although the Vienna exercise ended well for us, it is important to analyse every detail of the deliberations at the NSG meet. In order to duplicate the spectacular success of Vienna elsewhere, it is important to understand why the Vienna model worked and how things like this can be made to happen again and again and again, till India arrives on the world scene as a superpower.

1) One of the strategies that carried the day for India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group was that India established a clear bottomline from the very beginning. At both meetings of the NSG, Indian officials had made it clear that India would NOT accept any curbs on its military nuclear capabilities. India maintained that it would not allow international inspections or consider the possibility of cutting production of fissile material. Further, there would be no compromise on the right to test a nuclear weapon, nor should there be any automatic penalties attached to India testing a nuclear weapon.

One might remember that on the night of Sept 4, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told a disappointed nation that there was "no good news for India". The NSG members knew that India would accept nothing short of a "clean waiver" and was ready to walk away in case that was denied. The NSG nations, particularly the smaller ones that seemed to stand in the way till the very end, grew uncomfortable at the thought of shouldering the entire blame of sending India away from the threshold of history.

One should point out that these demands are reasonable and are only what would be expected of a major world power. Neither of the five major nuclear powers: the US, Russia, China, France and England face any automatic penalties for testing nuclear weapons, there can be no grounds for asserting that India should not enjoy the same privilege.

We should also mention that the determination of the Indian delegation to get a "clean waiver" also stemmed from the fact that given the tight political situation in the country, a clean waiver was the ONLY prize they could have played for. Had India made the slightest concession in Vienna, Dr. Singh's troubled government would have collapsed. This is yet another imposing example of how democracy always strengthens a nation, though it may not be apparent all the time. Democracy works ... after all.

2) It goes without saying that this could not have been achieved without American support. India owes the Bush administration a huge debt of gratitude for all the hard work it has put in with ambassadors from all over the world. It is an exciting moment for all of us as India steps up to shake hands with the world's oldest democracy, working out the details of a strategic partnership that could shape the world for many years to come.

It is important that Indians appreciate that the NSG waiver is an acknowledgment of India's achievements and not merely a favour done by the Americans. This will enable India to critically assess the objectives of the Bush Administration and decide how to make the best of the emerging partnership. As with building a nuclear weapon, India should exercise extreme caution in handling the Americans. Despite all its apparent generosity and largesse, America does have a tendency to overawe and overwhelm governments across the world, who then become what are sneeringly called "client states". Again, the chances of this happening to India are low; and we can depend on our Communist friends to make sure that India does not cross the line from ally to dependent. Such is the beauty of democracy: notice how Pakistan went from ally to dependent to liability for America. But we never will.

On a somewhat different note, we have just seen yet another amazing display of American power on the world stage. As we envision the triumphs that lie ahead, a dream begins to emerge: America has just shown us the kind of world influence we need to achieve.

3) Another heartening development in Vienna was India's bold assertion of its impeccable non proliferation and non aggression record. No sooner had India come asking for nuclear recognition, than the hard nosed non-proliferation fanatics began haranguing us with ridiculous arguments harping on the conduct of Iran, North Korea and the like. In an earlier era, when the India-Pakistan hyphenation still stood, these arguments would have overpowered world opinion.

India was different at Vienna. India brushed aside comparisons with rogue nations and demanded that India be recognized as a responsible nuclear weapons state. What was more, the world would have to give due weight to India's moratorium on nuclear testing and its self-imposed no first use policy. In other words, India's word is as good as gold. The world agreed.

4) India's success story at the NSG would not have been complete, unless it was punctuated by Chinese backstabbing. Initially, the Chinese had been so confident in the ability of their political arm in India that they had pretended to be neutral towards the US-India nuclear deal, even professing joy at the rise of India as a responsible power. But those schemes fell through and China and India arrived at the NSG ready to storm through. This was China's last chance.

Even so, the Chinese felt they had few options, because they had already taken a stance of agreeable neutrality towards India's audacious nuclear pitch. However, as the hours ticked by in Vienna and India had still not broken through an alliance of half-penny nations (two of them not even fully sovereign countries yet) the Chinese got bolder.

There is every reason to believe that the Chinese had harboured these motley nations to act as fronts for frustrating India's initiative. And that the Chinese made a mistake by openly expressing their opposition on Sept 5. Once the Chinese hand had been exposed, the game was up.



The special treatment India received at the Nuclear Suppliers Group should be seen as a beginning. What we should take away from the meeting is how India stared down at the world. And the world has blinked. It can happen again.