The post 26/11 diplomatic offensive: Did it work?

The Indian Government has been waiting, and so has the humble Oracle, for the response from Pakistan. It has been more than two months since India has established, beyond all reasonable doubt, the fact that the Mumbai terror attacks were conceived and commandeered from Pakistani soil. Apart from the damning dossier that India compiled, most democratic nations in the world and even some despotic ones like Saudi Arabia bought India's claims almost at face value, leaving Pakistan scrambling for a credible defence. The Oracle now begins an analysis of what Pakistan's aims are, of the measure of India's success and of world perceptions that matter.

1) The immediate aftermath: Given the relentless 24 hour coverage that the Mumbai terror attacks received across the world, India began on the diplomatic game on an international high. The Americans and the rest of the (civilized) world, for the most part, thought that war was imminent and top US officials basically conceded that there were few moral grounds to restrain India from seeking violent revenge. The world community, which had hitherto taken a more nuanced view of the India-Pak question, was strident this time around in saying that it is errant Pakistan that needs to fall in line with international commitments. The United Nations rushed through a ban on the Lashkar's front organisations and Condolezza Rice firmly told the Pakistanis that India's case was irrefutable. It was a marker of how much attitudes have changed towards India. The sentiment that carried the day in the international community was that Pakistan had to be pushed to act fast against terrorist to prevent an angry India from going to war.

Although it now appears that much of the war phobia across the world was unfounded, the entire exercise was not without merit for India. The lame and listless sham Pakistan Government was fried in international circles when it tried to embrace sundry conspiracy theories about the Mumbai attacks. Much of this is owed to the extensive coverage by a sharp Indian media, the fortuitous capture of a live Pakistani terrorist and the establishment of a clear trail of evidence leading directly to Pakistan. This time the world community was more informed, more conscious of South Asian issues and more disgusted over the failures of Pakistan. On former occasions, it had always been India's word against that of Pakistan, suggesting the existence of a genuine controversy. This approach worked as long as the two nations were hyphenated in international perception. As India worked its way into the list of potential superpowers and Pakistan floated towards the top of the list of failed states, the hyphen was stretched too thin. The hyphen snapped when the Mumbai attacks took place.

2) Pakistan's antics: The low life running the government in Pakistan have lurched from one inconsistent statement to another. Long before the attacks of 26/11, we had lost count of Pakistan's damning failures. To put this in perspective, Pakistan never got its democracy off the ground, failed to retain its Eastern arm and most of modern day Pakistan has never seen much of government, only anarchy. The biggest failure of all was the plan to "bleed India with a thousand cuts", which has backfired spectacularly. The ruse of being an American "ally" against did not endure for long before it was brutally exposed, with Pakistan too scared to even protest violations of its territorial integrity by the United States. The Pakistani Army which floated the Taliban in the first place could not masquerade as the "frontline of the defence against the Taliban"; fanaticism runs too deep in the Pakistani psyche and all lies have been nailed. Between each military dictatorship and the next, the Islamic Republic has survived on a series of "life extensions". You can't build a future based on life extensions.

After 26/11 happened, the "government" of Pakistan began a series of hard headed arguments. First, they contended that the attacks had nothing to do with Pakistan; but Pakistan could not find a single nation that would so much as hear them out on this one. Even Saudi Arabia, which is the No.1 state sponsor of terrorism, shook its head in disbelief at the Pakistani argument. The Americans would have none of it, neither would the British, the French nor the Germans. The one shot in the arm came when the chief of Interpol suggested that there might be some merit to the Pakistani claim, but there was only so much Pakistan could gain by clutching onto a straw. The American response was particularly damning, with Condolezza Rice describing India's evidence as "irrefutable" and Sen. McCain suggesting openly that India could hardly be blamed for a war, should it want one. Though many in the Islamic world will heave a sigh of relief at the change in the White House, President Obama has, many a time, uttered that the US might need to "bomb Pakistan". One of President Obama's first orders of business was, in fact, doing just that, when he allowed a US missile strike in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Ever since, Pakistan has wilted under pressure. First came the admission that captured terrorist Kasab is indeed Pakistani. Pakistan asked for a joint investigation; then ordered its own probe. Then it promised to act against terror groups on its own soil and also claimed that the Jamaat ud Dawa etc. were "charitable organisations". Then it promised to reply to India's dossier by Jan 26, a date that came and went. Recently reports suggested Pakistan would actually file cases against five people for the Mumbai attacks. These were soon superseded by suggestions that the attacks had been planned in "an European country". Who's counting anyway?

Pakistan, understandably, is trying to buy time. They are still hoping that the Mumbai issue will fizzle out. Whatever the plan is, it doesn't seem to be working.

The Pakistani civilian population is caught between a rock and a hard place. They have been poorly served by their "government" and their media. Instead of trying to isolate the extremists after 26/11, the immature, ill informed Pakistani media bought into a series of conspiracy theories and anti-India jingoism. Worse, many actually suggested that the Mumbai attacks were the beginning of the collapse of the Union of India and therefore a cause for celebration in Pakistan. The Pakistani media is a market of insane ideas, one in which, the 9/11 conspiracy theory is assumed to be an established, well known truth and the Mossad is almost blamed for the Kashmir earthquake. The civilian population needs therapy, not a reinforcement of their delusions.

Pakistan has been a wreck since its inception. The wreckage is sinking now. It was a mistake to found that nation on hatred. Pakistan does not stand a chance now. It never did.

3) Indian stance: The Oracle has been no friend of the UPA, but due credit must be given to the diplomatic stance assumed by the Indian Government. External Affairs minister Mukherjee has held his line stoically and has been duly backed by the new Home Minister and by the Prime Minister. The Government intelligently nailed Pakistan with a dossier and did not let one inconsistency pass in the last two months. Besides, India showed the evidence of Pakistani involvement to anyone who would listen, leaving not a doubt in the minds of the whole world that Pakistan based elements had carried out the terrorist attacks. This was apparent when China, which had blocked a UN resolution to ban the Lashkar Front organisations no less than three times; got out of the way with a whimper this time. The Chinese have been covering for Pakistan at the UN while people have not been looking. The Chinese also started a whisper campaign at the Nuclear Suppliers Group last year to confound India covertly, while supporting India on the outside. That's two strikes for the largest rogue state in the world.

Two months hence, the Indian government has not wavered much. It has refused to be drawn into a slandering match with Pakistan. It has also garnered worldwide goodwill for restraining the urge to use military might.

There have, of course, been minor infractions. First there was Minority Affairs Minister Antulay making public his misgivings over the death of Hemant Karkare. Being a Muslim and a Gandhi family loyalist at that, he was later issued a full pardon by both the Government and the media. The attitude of the corporate media is apparent in that the attack on a group of women in a Mangalore pub has received so much more attention than the rape of an 8-year old girl by policemen in Uttar Pradesh. Though the media might have its priorities wrong, the free market media model that India has still, fortunately, worked to our favour in international circles.

India loses a friend: Time to move beyond individuals?

The direction in Indo-US bilateral relations taken during the Bush years will serve as a diplomatic compass for several decades to come. Hardly surprising therefore, is the fact that the President who made America unpopular with its traditional allies in Europe has made foreign policy experts on both sides shake their heads in disbelief and agree that "Blame Bush for what you will, but with regard to India, he got it absolutely right". In this article, we analyze whether President Bush's departure from the White House will put Indo-US ties in peril.

It is hard not for Indians to feel some personal affinity for President Bush and the party he represents. After all, it was Bush and his Republicans who made the US overtly friendly to India, cemented military ties and helped India gain recognition as a legitimate nuclear power. However, it may be argued that most of these measures were imperatives for US policy, given the political, military and economic rise of China and the menace of Islamic terrorism. Even so, the thaw in Indo-US relations is very new and Bush happened to be in office when all of it happened. It is therefore pertinent to ask whether bilateral relations will continue to improve, given that Bush is no longer President and that the American people typically regard his Presidency with disgust and anger.

New Delhi has already answered half of the question. That the right wing BJP brought India closer to a Republican ruled United States is understandable. The events of Sept 11 pitted the civilized world against Islamic terrorism and both the BJP in India and the Republicans in the US were only too happy to join hands as "natural allies" against the common enemy. What is remarkable is that the "US-tilt" in Indian foreign policy continued even when the BJP was replaced with a Congress government propped up by Communist support! By the same token, India and the US share so many common interests and so many common values at the moment that it is difficult to see why things would change now that the Republicans have been replaced in Washington.

America has learned from its experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. The paradigm of war has changed to a great extent and raw power is no longer enough. The US realizes that a unipolar world is now out of question. China intends to threaten the US from all quarters and the Russians will never stop flexing their muscles. America's European allies are sulking and do not have the stomach for a fight anyway. Even the once unassailable Israelis seem to be faltering into a public relations nightmare. The US needs allies desperately, allies that are economically strong and militarily potent. And allies don't come much bigger than India.

Also, America's political games over the last sixty years have finally brought home the lesson that supporting tinpot dictators for immediate ends never pays in the long run. The Saudi Royals are the most zealous and most well heeled supporters of terrorism in the world, the gambit in Iran never took off, training the Mujahiddeen in Afghanistan resulted in the worst terrorist attack ever and the one time support to Saddam backfired spectacularly. America has paid in blood and suffered much in the last eight years. A man so brilliant as Obama can be logically expected to have learned: Choose the wrong allies and you can't win. Therefore, it follows that America will strive to build alliances with "like minded nations" only, nations that are fundamentally friendly to the American way of life.

That apart, India and China are also some of the few places in the world where economic growth is still happening. America, which is seeing a trough in its economy, needs all the business it can get.

Much depends on how the US perceives the situation in Pakistan-Afghanistan (isn't that hyphenation so much better?). The realization that Pakistan and Afghanistan are two parts of the same problem is not lost on the Americans. If terror is funded by the Saudis, its infrastructure is parked in Pakistan. After six years in Afghanistan, the US fully realizes that its mission will never succeed as long as the Pakistani Army continues to play double agent (triple if you start counting the Chinese in). Obama has voiced his desire to stop all military aid to Pakistan if it does not take believable steps in aiding the US war on terror. That Pakistani credibility has reached an all time low in Washington was on display when Secy. Rice (as did the rest of the world) summarily dismissed all Pakistani attempts to pretend that Pak based elements were not behind the 26/11 attacks. Not that Pakistan's reputation was much better earlier in the fall, when President Bush gave the US military permission to conduct operations inside Pakistan without consulting/informing Pakistani authorities.

The time is, therefore, ripe for the Indians to cut off the Pakistani lifeline in Washington with one fell swoop. Sending Indian troops to Afghanistan would not only strengthen the US military there in real terms, but also push Pakistan to fall out of US favour for a very long time to come. Of course this is a very courageous diplomatic step that neither bureaucracy will be able to pull off. US-Pakistani relations are much more likely to die a natural, long drawn out death. Pakistan will inevitably draw closer to China and become part of the new "axis of evil". The US (and certainly India as well) will remain wary of this possibility and will try everything it can to prevent the inevitable from happening.

And finally, it is necessary to keep the forthcoming Indo-US (and certainly Israel) alliance in historical perspective. This is a very important geopolitical alliance, which will possibly expand to include Japan and might well be the hope for humanity once the fascists of all colours start getting their act together. Such an important alliance cannot be built on the strength of personal rapports. After all, India and the US found each other as natural allies, not exactly through diplomatic channels, but through common interests, common values and people to people contact. This is the stuff enduring alliances are built of.

Thoughts on the RSS

The RSS has pride of place in the political, social and cultural fabric of modern India. Understanding the cultural context of the Sangh and the Sangh Parivaar is therefore critical in comprehending the soul of the new nation we wish to live in. In this article, we will discuss this much maligned organization and its role in shaping the mindset of modern India.

1) As we said before, it is important to understand the "cultural context" of the Sangh. The Sangh arose out of a desire for Hindu revival, a desire to return to values indigenous to the Hind, a desire to reclaim our history and a desire to define our nation. While our liberal democracy must needs be built upon pluralism and multiculturalism, liberal democracy is nothing if people do not take pride in the nation.

Therefore, the first essential function of the RSS was to define India, the Hind, as one, as "Akhand Bharat". The purpose of this was to assert the cultural integrity of India and celebrate the seamless union of cultures that make up the subcontinent. This train of thought was particularly important at a time when India was being partitioned, its ancient boundaries trifled with by mindless Anglophiles who were ready to accept a compromised version of Indian history. While democracy had to be imported into India from the West, in doing so, Indian leaders of that age managed to import the colonial mentality of the times. Therefore, they saw India as a political entity rather than a cultural one. As a political entity, India could be carved up and divided without compunction. In that sense, the RSS restored to the nation what the Congress removed from it. While the Indian National Congress served as the vehicle of political assertion before 1947, it failed to assert the cultural indentity of India.

The second essential function of the RSS was to define the term "Hindu". Once again, a cultural unity was asserted and the RSS proclaimed that anyone born within the borders of Akhand Bharat was a "Hindu". This definition was also meant to weaken the grip of the caste mindset that has a stranglehold on India to this very day. A striking feature of the RSS was its assertion that Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc. were also "Hindus". As for the Muslims, the RSS called on them to disassociate from their connections to Arabia and Persia. Given the graveyard of human values that Arabia and Persia have subsequently become, it is difficult not to praise the foresight of the RSS in asking Muslims to disconnect from them culturally.

The third essential function of the RSS was to urge the Indian people to take pride in their history. This was not to condone cultural shames such as Sati, child marriage, female infanticide, untouchability, etc. but to build a sense of nationhood as well as the confidence that the collective conscience of our culture could deliberate upon these issues and firmly shut them out into the past. Such a process, initiated by Indians, would be cathartic to the nation and would heal the wounds of history. The Indian people were denied this opportunity to grieve and atone for their mistakes, thus ushering in a generation of people who did not understand whether to be proud of their nation or to apologize for it. A case in point would be the United States, which despite its shameful history of Native American genocide, slavery, Japanese internment and racism, rose to become the greatest nation in the world. This is due to the fact that the American people supplied their own intellectual leaders, who founded their democracy and then weaned their nation away from its weaknesses and led the United States to the pinnacle of power.

2) The political context of the Sangh is also very interesting. The Sangh supplies the ideological foundation for the BJP and heads the Sangh Parivaar, of which the BJP is a member. The tactical refrain of the RSS from participating directly in elections is an illustration of the Hindu concept of "body" and "soul". This is explicit in the manner in which the Sangh restricts its membership to Hindus, Sikhs Buddhists and Jains, but the BJP has no such bar, explicit or implicit. The idea is that while the political body of India is multicultural, it's cultural soul is anchored to human values of ancient India, loosely referred to as "Hinduism".

Hinduism, at its very core, is about tolerance for all kinds of thought. Hinduism is what you have when you try to rationalize the observable universe in a pre-scientific era. For instance, if one does want to believe in the supernatural, it makes more sense to believe in multiple gods rather than one, for that would at least account for the contradictory ways in which "God" seems to act. The "single minded", dogmatic God that rules over all three Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam illustrates the point. In fact, all the strife between these three religions can be attributed to a mindless quarrel over the interpretation of the rules given by the God of Abraham, the so called "Yahwe". It is the unwavering belief in a single God that leads people to fight over what they think this God wanted to say. This also explains why the Hindu "scriptures" are written in the form a discussion between philosophers, rather than as a story or a sermon. The Hindu scriptures ask questions, debate possible natural and supernatural explanations and leave it at that. This is an aspect of Hinduism that has hardly ever received praise or recognition. We repeat: "Hinduism is what you have when you try to rationalize the observable universe in a pre-scientific era". Unless you have science, you can't be sure of anything. That is why Hinduism is so lax, so loose.

3) No discussion/evaluation of the Sangh is complete without talking about the RSS position on Gandhi. Whether Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were continuing RSS members at the time of assassinating the Mahatma is immaterial, since it is well known that the assassins traced much of their personal beliefs to the RSS and its sister organizations. Here it is important to understand that the RSS formed a kind of cultural umbrella before 1947, much as the Congress formed a political umbrella during the same period. Nehru, Gandhi, Subhas, Sardar and even Jinnah belonged to the same Congress Party. Similarly, the RSS contained within itself a whole cultural spectrum, ranging from those who believed in a Hindu state in literal terms to those who understood Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay's integral humanism. The maturity of the Indian people has sorted out these elements in course of time: while Jinnah and his state have been pushed into the dustbins of history, Godse and his fellow travelers have been cast away as well. In his book, "My Country, My Life", Advaniji praised the people of India who were not taken at all by Government lies during the Emergency. This is in contrast to the people of many other Third World nations, who bought into what despots told them and were tricked into losing their democracies. It is this spirit that made India unique in the Third World, as a nation that reconciled 18 major languages and 3 major religions, managed its own functioning democracy including rule of law, built up an massive military, created an economic powerhouse and found time for a moon mission.

Israel takes vengeance

When war is almost continuous, does it cease to matter? Perhaps so, in the Middle East. Violence is so much a part of national life that it makes no sense to talk about the human perspective any longer; the imperative is to take sides. Death and destruction are par for the course and collateral damage is a given.

Over the last two weeks, the Jewish State, as though it still has something to prove, has shown a degree of diplomatic courage that few nations can muster. It has proceeded with what most people in the world can see is a blatantly one sided battle. Yet, while the explicit battle is blatantly one sided, the underground war is far from being an unequal one.

What do we mean by "underground war"? It is about systematic subversion of modern societies, about poisoning the well of democracy. As democratic people across the globe drink from this poisoned well, their sense of fairness is turned against them; civil liberties are used as an excuse to push through a Dark Age agenda. The Islamic way of life, which is the very antithesis of freedom, justice, civil liberty and democracy is suggested as a viable alternative to the values of a modern liberal society, exploiting the very freedoms that such a society bestows upon Islam. In turn, modern liberal societies are taught to despise themselves for their best qualities and in this argument between sanity and insanity, the loudmouths, with the radicals to back them, win over the pacifists rather easily. The underground war is fought along the fault lines of society in India, in Europe and the United States. And because modern societies, having espoused progressive values, have obviously succeeded in mustering modern military might and obviously prevail whenever the underground war breaks out above ground, modern societies are cast as zealous aggressors. In contrast, Islam fights its war for Dark Age values through personal sacrifices instead of institutional power and comes out looking like the victim.

In the Middle East, where war is almost continuous, this conflict comes to the fore like nowhere else. Everyone (except those who believe that "Israel should be wiped off the map") agrees with Israel's right to defend itself and its citizens. However, it is difficult to endorse Israel proceeding into a thoughtless war without clearly formulating war aims. When the conflict began in late December, everyone expected Israel to come out with a clear statement of its aims. As days passed and casualties in Gaza mounted, it became increasingly clear that Israel had given very little thought to its war aims. Worse, Israeli Defence Forces on the ground did not even have a clue about their war plans, much less their war aims. It is easy to support Israel and the side of freedom on most occasions, but perhaps, not on this one.

In the absence of information, the world community has had to look beyond the justifiable and honourable to find possible aims for Israel. Could Ehud Olmert, who has become the most unpopular man in Israel, be doing this to give a fillip to his Kadima Party in the General Elections, now just a month away? Could the Israeli establishment be taking one last shot at the Arabs before a possibly pacifist President takes charge at the White House? Israel's image is not helped by the fact that the US Government is always seen as "covering" for Israel. If Israel is courageous enough to fight its military battle with so many hostile neighbours, it should be wily enough to fight its own diplomatic war. For its part, Israel could have assuaged these concerns rather easily, by simply stating, for instance, that their aim was "to deal a severe blow to Hamas' terror infrastructure". Instead, Israel chose a more absolutist position, declaring that the war would end when Hamas stopped its rocket attacks against Israel, leaving people to ponder whether there was a real difference between the character of Hamas' and Israeli aims. Even a more extreme position, such as pressing for regime change, would have, at least, had the merit of being an honest one. Instead, Israel chose to obfuscate and made the US complicit in all this... as if people in the civilized world already didn't despise themselves enough! The underground cause of Islam has just been furthered by an extra mile.

Why did the rest of the world react the way it did? The tiny Czech Republic, which had just ascended to the Presidency of the European Union, promptly swallowed the American-Israeli position and supported Israel's right to self defence. The French came down heavily on Israelis, as did most other major nations in the EU. French President Sarkozy, who had doubled as EU President for the just concluded six month term, has made something of a name for himself as a deal maker. The French, as do most of Europeans, abhor military conflict, having seen the worst of it themselves. Over the last six months, they have seen Russia and the US slip back into Cold War mode. The spectacular failures in the US financial system have shaken the world. The last thing the EU really wants to see is more of war. India has also taken the diplomatically unwise statement of sharply criticizing Israel. While the Oracle is decidedly more familiar with the ignoble ulterior aims of the rulers of India in criticizing Israel while going silent on Hamas, it seems fair to admit that citizenry in both India and Europe have been disturbed by the images of carnage coming out of Gaza. We cannot excuse ourselves from our humanity. It's what makes us human. We do not like war, violence and death; nor do we support the taking of any innocent human life as a mindless act of vengeance. In judging the Hamas-Israeli conflict, we are pitted, as much against our own conscience, as against Islam.

Of course, condemnation of Israel in the civilized world is worth only so much. It will never proceed so far as to actually undermine Israel's activities. In fact, producing terrible images from Gaza is a rather fruitless activity. If the Muslim world wants us to heed their images of carnage, it must convince us beforehand that the Muslim world actually cares about peace. If beheading and public stoning were not cultural events in the Muslim world, there would be more sympathy. We would care more about women and children becoming victims if we knew that Muslims actually cared for their women more than they cared for their cattle. We would care more about little children dying in an Israeli bombing if we were assured that Muslims were not committing the worst form of child abuse themselves by filling innocent 5 year olds with hatred and racism. As far as the Muslim populace around the world is concerned, they are sufficiently frenzied already and they don't really need this fresh dose of violent images to replenish their anger and hatred.

The most interesting of all has been the reaction of Arab governments to the events in Gaza. While the Arab people and their co-religionists in Europe and America and India have been on the streets protesting the actions of Israel, the Arab governments, outside of the Arab League meeting have continued to sup with Israel. Egypt has refused to open the Rafah border crossing, hosted Israeli diplomats in the midst of ongoing crisis, Hezbollah(aka de facto govt. of Lebanon) itself has apologized for some of their men firing a rocket into Israel. There is only one explanation: the Israelis have won the respect of their enemies, in the process, however, they might have lost some of the sympathy of their friends. And that does sound like a good bargain, doesn't it?