The Indian Oracle

Naxal Attack: Injured India bleeds from a thousand cuts

2009-04-30T19:07:00.002-04:00

(Coming up)

Election-2009: Are voters seeing the challenge? -II

2009-04-28T11:40:00.006-04:00

In the previous article, the Oracle presented the three "meta-challenges" facing India. In this piece, we will consider whether voters seem to be fully cognizant of how much is at stake and what is to be done.

Like most things about India, there is more than one way to answer this question. Judging from voter percentages alone, you would think that the voter is apathetic. After all, voting percentages in the three phases of election held so far have struggled to break the 50% mark. Heat wave or no heat wave, conscious citizens should have recognized the importance of their duty. Standard (or sub-standard) excuses such as a general cynicism towards the political system are the most shameful of all; they are little more than intellectual and moral cowardice. In short, if you think the nation is broken, pick up yourself and stand up for your nation. If you think you have an opinion that needs to be heard, pick up yourself and voice it. Not doing so, or expressing mindless cynicism, or speaking in vague generalities serves no purpose and it is disrespectful to the millions of people in the world who live under oppressive authoritarian regimes. If we do not celebrate our freedom, how will we spread it? How will we convince other nations to become free? As and when it is written, history is very unkind to cowards. So... all shame be upon them who did not exercise their franchise in the General Election. This nation will never forgive them.

On the brighter side, we have millions of good people who did come out to vote and thanks to their efforts, we expect to have a democratically elected fifteenth Lok Sabha in power by June 2. Though the grime of our centuries old civilization clings fast to his skin, the Indian voter has always shown a maturity that has confounded his critics. It was the humble voter that rescued India from the clutches of Indira Gandhi's dictatorship, thus saving India from following in the doomed path that so many newborn democracies have taken since 1947. The Indian voter made sure the Hindu voice was heard in India after a thousand years of slavery and yet made certain that the large Hindu majority never treated the Muslims unfairly. The Indian voter has also rejected politics of separatism, regionalism and linguistic identity. The Indian voter never votes in a frenzy. The Indian voter has slain many monsters. Few nations manage to get this far.

Are voters doing well in 2009? In the first phase of the election, it was moving to see 60% of the electorate come out to voting booths, braving the threats of Naxal rebels. This is truly wonderful. One can only hope the electorate will vote wholesale for rejection of the Naxals just as they did in Chhattisgarh last year.

There is an interesting puzzle here. Over the last two years, there has been a nationwide trend of heavy voter turnout at the polls. Election 2009 bucks this trend. What does this mean? Can the heat wave play that much of a role? If that is indeed the case, the Election Commission is to blame for not having organised the election at a more opportune time. If it is not just about the heat, this suggests the increasingly local nature of issues on which people vote, issues that the Central Government may be a little too distant to address directly. If this is indeed the case, there is cause for major concern. India is NOT meant to be a loose federation of states and if voters are failing to appreciate the overarching unity of India as a nation, we have indeed lost sight of one of the core principles of our Constitution.

Is this increasingly local approach a natural outcome of the raucous multi-party system that we have evolved? Perhaps. What would probably be ideal for India would be a multi-party system in the states with a two party system at the Centre; thus concentrating major policy making power in the hands of a strong and stable Union Government while leaving the "checks and balances" to the States...

It is possible that I am reading too much into this. Perhaps local issues are dominating simply because no major national issue has been projected. This need not necessarily be a bad thing. Frenzied masses can sometimes vote unreasonably on so called "national issues". Absence of a "national issue" prevents the election from becoming uni-directional, or from being reduced to a referendum.

In 2009, the voter has been a lot quieter. Everyone who cared to speak was given a hearing and judging from the overall mood, the voter has refused to make any promises so far. The BJP has tried to shuffle horses throughout; shifting between Modi and Advani. Modi has generated much excitement across BJP cadre (and much heartburn in the liberal media), but he has not managed to extract a commitment from the people. The Congress has had little success with Rahul Gandhi, hence the last ditch attempt to change the game by throwing in reserve player Priyanka. The UPA that went in riding a media scripted pipe dream, has been thrown off balance. There is a realization at 10 Janpath that Dr. Singh might soon have to clear out his desk; hence the let off given to Quattrochi. Even Mayawati seems a lot more mellowed these days and is not rumoured to be making waves on the campaign trail.

The worldwide recession has, of course, taken some toll on the confidence of the people. However, the Left, which has tried to generate support for its own brand of regressive politics by riding public disillusionment with dreams of "fabulous growth", has come a cropper. However, in urban centres, the initial reaction to "play it safe" has worn off. Terrorism and the public humiliation of India have a part to play in this. The initial desire for inaction has given way to an undercurrent of urgency about doing something quickly to fix the nation.

However, on the issue of economic reforms, the voter is still in two minds. He cannot commit to a ruthless capitalist model like the United States and yet he cannot but acknowledge the success of this model (even in spite of the recession). The recession has made it that much harder for reformists to speak, but there is little reason to give up heart. The voter hasn't.

The Oracle concludes that, in the minds of the Indian voter, this election is hardly "special". It remains to be seen whether the voter is behaving insanely by thinking thus.... or just being more sensible.

Election 2009: Are voters seeing the challenge? -I

2009-04-21T11:11:00.008-04:00

As the five phase election makes its way across India, there is an overwhelming sense of the unreal as we watch satellite television and print media drone on about hackneyed, meaningless issues. The dominant issues in political discourse have never been so out of touch with the people as this time. From what we get to read and hear and see from India, you would get the sense General Election 2009 is happening in South Africa and the Indian Premier League is being played in India. The Indian Premier League now fully occupies one half of the entire media coverage, with the General Elections, the Global Recession (and perhaps the recovery) and the Indian obsession with H1-B visas crammed into the other.

Mercifully, democracy gives us a way out: there is nothing to worry about as long as people are in touch with the issues that affect their lives and their future. On a personal note, the Oracle must add that given the fact that India does not allow non residents to vote, my future is now fully in the hands of my fellow citizens.

So, what are the big issues, the big challenges? Despite being no fan of the UPA government, I believe that the Central Government has done a fairly good job of holding on, consolidating and building upon the achievements of the previous NDA government and has added several new dimensions to India's rise on its own. The one blessing that India enjoys, despite the fractious state of the ruling coalition and all possible future coalitions, is that all sides agree on the issue of further economic reform and growth. Even the Left Front eschews the old socialist model in states where it enjoys power; while all its pretensions at the Centre merely reflect the fact that the Polituburo is run by a bunch of self styled "leaders" with zero mass appeal.

This brings us to challenge no.1. Although there are several candidates for this, I daresay that the biggest challenge of all is to maintain the soaring mood of the Indian people that has been built up over the last ten years. The worldwide depression and the economic slowdown in India has certainly lowered the prestige of capitalism and free market as the model of growth and in India, as well as across the world, the cynical losers have come out of the woodwork. They are all upon us now, with the "I told you so" rubbish. These scoffers are bitter losers and they do not understand how capitalism works. When the wheels are turning fast and returns are high, the economy always manages to reward a few more people than actually deserve success. Every now and then, the wheels stop, the dirt is scraped off and the engine presses on. Any system of growth and change, left to itself, inevitably takes on a Darwinian character. Challenge No. 1 is to make sure Indians do not fall prey to the propaganda of prophets of doom. Rather, Indians need to see the Economic Recession as a time of power shifts, a time rife with opportunities for historically disadvantaged nations such as ours to change the prevailing hierarchies.

The second challenge, of course, is that of national security. This is not just about Islamic terrorism. India faces several other internal security threats and the ruling UPA Government has a negative score on this count. Time and again, the Prime Minister has promised to deal effectively with the Naxal violence in the interior and each time, we the people have been let down by his government. Desperate measures, such as Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh, the appointement of "Special" police officers (SPOs) taken at the state level have received little Central support. Add to that a disgusting media industry that spends all its time condemning the Salwa Judum and other heavy handed anti-Naxal measures. As a result, the Government at the Centre receives a blanket waiver for inaction when it comes to national security issues.

And terrorism... more terrorism... more demands from Islam ... and more terrorism. In this case, the terrorists have friends and supporters right within the ruling establishment. Railway Minister Laloo Yadav proudly parades his Osama bin Laden lookalike, who does photo-ops and signs autographs for cheering supporters. Laloo's alliance partner Paswan ran a whole election campaign with a single point agenda: a Muslim Chief Minister for Bihar. Mulayam Singh Yadav, another man who plays the role of both ruling party and opposition, has unabashedly come out in favour of the banned terror outfit SIMI. The Prime Minister has openly expressed his personal view that Muslims should enjoy first rights to India's resources. Anti-terror legislation POTA has been struck off the statute book and special pensions and allowances have been announced for the families of terrorists killed in Kashmir. The Central anti-terror agency was never created and it now takes the National Security Guard 10 hours to make it from Delhi to Mumbai, i.e the sixth busiest route in the world (to be fair, the Government has now moved to give itself rights to take charge of any commercial flight for emergency purposes and will duly compensate the airline). The cacophony is building up to a fever pitch. India's cup of woes is full. Afzal guru is probably drinking to that....

Through all this, the media has been hot on the trail of "Hindu terrorists" and Loch Ness monsters. Witch hunts have taken place; sting operations have been carried out on people such as Madhu Srivastava to uncover hidden hands behind the Gujarat riots. The latest Hindu terrorist to fall into the trap is Varun Gandhi who was promptly arrested under the National Security Act. The Oracle urges all Indians to avidly look for Hindu terrorists in their midst and anyone who is even vaguely suspect should be dragged to the town square and stoned to death immediately. To be doubly certain, friends and family of the suspected person should also be stoned to death "just in case", except when those family members happen to be part of the Gandhi dynasty!

(Note: The call to violence in the preceding paragraph is meant in a purely sarcastic and figurative manner and is not intended to incite actual physical violence.)

The third great challenge is that of Indian voters demanding far more from their government than they get. Generally speaking, this is about infrastructure. The Government has done precious little to improve infrastructure in the last five years. The NDA government's ambitious road building project has been all but stopped right in its tracks and the mega plan to connect India's rivers has met the same fate. Twenty four hour electric supply is far too distant a dream in all states other than Gujarat. Admittedly, there are some difficult problems here. There are concerns over displacement of people, there are environmental concerns and budget problems. And there is also the question of how much responsibility the Government should assume in such matters. Certain attempts at privatisation have turned out to be nightmares, such as the disastrous venture with the Delhi Electricity board. As such, Challenge No. 3 is for the government to coax the Indian people and Indian enterprise, long used to going to the authorities for everything, into start looking for solutions on their own. Indian people have to snap out of the coma of the erstwhile socialist years. This is a challenge not exactly limited to the election, but what kind of government people elect will have a bearing upon how fast this process is. A system that adjusts to mediocrity instead of stigmatizing it is dangerous for our country.

Thus have we outlined the three major challenges facing India. Each of these is, in some sense, a "meta-challenge", i.e. a challenge that involves thinking the right way rather than doing, thus encompassing a whole genre of challenges. In the next part, we shall deliberate on whether the Indian voter is being fully perceptive to the challenge.

Pakistan in flames: India wary of smoke - II

2009-04-08T17:02:00.005-04:00

Continuing from Part-1, we now come to the political and diplomatic options that India has given the current scenario in Pakistan.

First, we have what one might call the "Forward approach". This is all about making big things happen rather than reacting to them. If China can courageously pursue a "One China" policy, there is no reason India cannot pursue an "Akhand Bharat" policy. Given that India has never made territorial demands on Pakistan despite being well positioned to do so several times in the past, an idea like this might generate shock within the Indian diplomatic community. However, anything vaguely bordering on the threshold of "conquest" is seen in extremely negative terms by the world at large. Unfortunately, most of the Western powers will not understand the sentiments of the Indian people about the oneness of their ancient homeland striken by a shameful partition. Nor does India have the clout to make this case forcefully. "Akhand Bharat" is not about conquest or occupation; it is about stretching India to the banks of the Indus, the Hind to the Hindukush and returning the Sindhi people to the Sindh. We get that. They don't.

But there is no reason India cannot work towards this dream in smaller ways. As Pakistan begins to disintegrate over the next few years, there is no reason India cannot start claiming its old domains. The unification of Kashmir would be the first place to start. Given that India has always talked of "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" and this region is still included in the official map of India, this does not even represent a departure from India's diplomatic stance.

The problem is how one can get Indian troops into Kashmir without starting a war or even appearing imperialist. This is where joint action with the United States becomes imperative. To achieve a goal in this "Forward policy", India has to take the initiative and join in with US forces in Afghanistan. Such a suggestion, would, of course, send Indian liberals into a tizzy, but the national interest is above the screeching of anti-national elements. The more uncomfortable issue is with getting the US to accept and appreciate the value of Indian military deployment in Afghanistan, particularly with its new President Obama who thinks he is some kind of charmer who can make the beasts of hell dance to his tune . Indian presence in Afghanistan will provide the US with some true tactical advantages and not just in the sheer military sense. It goes without saying that Indian military deployment will come in the form of real numbers and not token support like the kind the US has come to expect from its European "allies". Second, India has excellent relations with Afghanistan and presence of Indian troops will bolster the argument that the US is not an occupying force. Thirdly, one of America's major challenges is connecting with the people of Afghanistan, without whose help no lasting solution can be achieved. Connecting with this mostly rural, mostly medieval nation will be a lot easier if the Americans are seen in company with other people of colour. Unfortunately, the people of Afghanistan have not achieved the sophistication to think beyond race and America has to act accordingly.

The only downside for the United States is that Indian presence shuts out the possibility of Pakistani cooperation. As American officers on the ground realize how dishonest the Pakistani pretence of "support" really is and how weak and worthless Pakistan is anyway, this situation will mitigate itself. Besides, the new diplomatic establishment in the United States has a few hard lessons to learn from dictators before it begins to see the light. India will have to wait until that moment.

The advantages for India are manifold and the encirclement of Pakistan is pretty much the least of these. Deployment of Indian troops beyond Indian soil will raise the stature of India as an international power. It will also set the stage for larger joint Indo-US operations that may be required in other theatres. The prospect of Indo-US operations is enough to send the Chinese into a huddle. The Chinese will get the idea quickly and stop throwing their weight behind Pakistan. A drop in Chinese morale benefits both India and the US.

On the less pragmatic side, unification of Kashmir should be the first step in the long journey to redress the injustice of partition. The liberation of Balochistan is important, both because the Baloch people deserve to be free and because Balochistan has never really been part of India and we have no claim to the land.

A forward policy comes with its perils. Expansion of Indian troops into Afghanistan might cause a paroxysm in Pakistan and might well lead to a military takeover of the sick country. In this scenario, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal becomes extremely important. This is where the Oracle must leave the question open and hope the US has a "Plan B" hidden somewhere... an audacious operation to deprive Pakistan of its nukes at lightning speed. It is not foolish to assume the US has the ability or that it is at least working on such a plan.

Two more caveats: First, can India even afford a major military deployment in Afghanistan and protect the homeland should things go cataclysmic? The answer to the first part is most certainly "yes", but the second part is more tricky. Does India have the might to protect the Western frontier AND the Northern frontier after sizeable numbers have been moved to Afghanistan? Can the Indian Navy handle Chinese vessels operating out of Burma, Sri Lanka and perhaps even Bangladesh should the worst happen? On the naval side, things do not seem so dismal. On the Northern frontier, things do not look so good. But the chances of an Indo-China war starting over heightened bitterness between India and Pakistan are so dim that it is well worth the risk.

The second caveat is that any forward action by India will cause considerable discomfort among smaller South Asian states like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka who might gravitate further towards China. Again I daresay that joint Indo-US operations raise a prospect so terrible for China that the Chinese will not have much use for these little countries anyway.

In conclusion, the Oracle opines that a five year careful watch might well be worth the wait. America isn't going anywhere from Afghanistan, Pakistan is never going to get better and the new guy in the White House will touch the ground in about that much time (Yes.. I am sure Obama is going to get a second term) What is important is that India wait to reap the benefits of the deadly harvest that is finally coming ripe in our military labs. It has taken us sixty years, but finally the Agni, the Shaurya and the Nag are beginning to stretch their limbs. The Tejas is close to spreading its wings and the ATVs, the Shivaliks, the Vikrants await their moment to be pressed into service on the high seas. An air of maturity is beginning to blow across the Indian science, technology and military setup. That is how democracy works. We are over the hump and it is time to collect our treasures. The important thing is that we weren't forced uphill, 20 million people did not have to be "deprived of existence" so that the nation might "live"; we made it up here by the power of freedom. We should wait eagerly for the rich reward.

Pakistan in flames; India wary of the smoke-I

2009-03-31T10:54:00.007-04:00

The picture says a thousand words. A lone Pakistani soldier stands with his assault rifle; guarding the flaming ruins. He looks alert and holds his rifle straight. His lifeless nation stretched out behind him, the lone soldier looks like the loyal dog guarding his dead master.

In the last sixty years, a fertile land that was once an organ of the Hind, has been prised out of the body of the mother country and its veins poisoned by a hate filled religion. As Pakistan is slain by its own children, the question is: should we care?

The temptation to let Pakistan stew in its own juices is quite strong. The nation that boasted of strategy to bleed India "with a thousand cuts" has slit its own throat. Revenge rarely gets sweeter than this. It was "they" who wanted to cooperate with the British. Then, it was "they" who wanted a separate electorate. Then, it was "they" who wanted a separate state. Then, "they" went for "Direct Action". It was "they" who named it "Pakistan", i.e. "land of the pure". It was "they" who were not content with their portion and wanted to have more of ours. It was "they" who decided to change their secular constitution in 1973 to adopt hatred as the state religion. As we say:

Karma: It's only a bitch if you are a jerk.

However, even as Pakistan hangs lifeless at the end of a noose, we have to care. Should one care about an enemy? Perhaps not. But then, one must make an exemption for the dead.

Before we get into the details of how India should engage in the South Asian diplomatic tangle, we need to address this moral dilemma over the situation in Pakistan. Is it fitting on our part to celebrate? Lives are being lost in Pakistan; innocent men and women and children are being mowed down by the dozen. Should India act merely out of apprehensions over the fallout of the situation, or out of a human interest in the tragedies that are being wrought on Pakistan by its own?

So, let us put it out there in the open. Pakistan's demise is a moral victory for India. It validates our nation, our constitution and our government. There is no shame in acknowledging the fact that our democratic institutions have brought us to the verge of becoming a world power and Pakistan's spectacular failure underscores the enormity of what our nation has achieved. Indians have no reason to be coy about India's achievements. In fact, it is precisely this reticence to acknowledge our own greatness that India gets a bad rap from so many quarters. It is all so often that India is accused of having scant respect for human rights, upwardly mobile enterprising Indians are cast as unsympathetic to the "plight of their brethren", those who express any measure of optimism in the rising economic, military and diplomatic clout of India are sneered at as ignorant and ill-informed. India's image is held back by stereotypes; stereotypes once created by the British and embraced by the West. And Indians have done little towards dispensing with these stereotypes; instead naysayers are held in high esteem as elites and intellectuals. In this respect, a big thank you must go out to the Tibetian community in exile in India, who recently decided to dedicate a whole year towards celebrating what India has done for them; finally there is someone who wants to gratefully acknowledge what is one of the freest nations in the world.

It is striking that while Muslims who left India behind at the time of partition to seek the glory of their faith in the "land of the pure" are still derided as beggars in Pakistan, the Sindhis, Sikhs and Hindus from Lahore, Bengalis from East Pakistan have all been embraced as one blood in India. Therefore, in this hour of Pakistan's failure, no Indian who wishes to dance in the streets should be made to feel ashamed.

The Oracle's point is not to say that Indians should drown themselves in jingoism and euphoria over the death of our mortal enemy. It is only to suggest that no Indian who wishes to celebrate should be made to give in to the bullying of liberal intellectuals who may well be in denial over the achievements of India and/or unable to fit in India's success into their world-view and who are not above using scare tactics to keep Indians from celebrating this victory. Let's say it: India's powerful democratic institutions, huge military and thriving economy are strong guarantees against the advance of Islamic fascism.

(to be contd. in Part-II)

Tired losers form "Third Front"

2009-03-29T16:03:00.005-04:00

For those of us who remember, there was once an alliance called the NFLF: "National Front-Left Front". That evolved into the United Front and the latter evolved into the People's Front which evolved into the United National Progressive Alliance. This time, they did not want to bother with having to decide on a name; so they are just calling it the Third Front!

So, what is common to all these "Fronts"? The Left, for one, has been part of all of them (barring a technicality, i.e., the Left formally stayed out of the United Front once the UF government accepted Congress support). Are these "Fronts" merely transitional forms on the path to the extinction of the Left as a political force in India? Political evolution has already condemned the Left to the dustbins of history and that is exactly where they are headed.

Wait! One might be tempted to point out that the "Third Front" may well hold the key to forming the government in New Delhi, deciding the Prime Minister and even the successor to President Pratibha Patil (Heavens no! she still has three more years to embarrass our country!). But what would that achieve? The Left has already relegated itself to the reduced stature of being a regional party by joining the Third Front. The Left has already compromised its reputation of being stoutly opposed to corruption and caste by allying with the worst scum in Indian politics... from Laloo, Mulayam and Paswan to Jayalalitha and Mayawati. The Left's boast of being a disciplined, monolithic, cadre based organization has suffered irrevocable harm due to the events in Kerala. For the party of the Communists, it is a moment of truth, a time to face up before the people for their anti-national pronouncements over the last sixty years. And they are smiling foolishly as they walk the road to oblivion with hell in a handbasket.

So, what is the future of the "Third Front". If Parliament is hamstrung in a horrible manner, the "Front" will press for a repeat of 1996 and there is a slight possibility that they might achieve it. The Congress, for its part, has learned from its mistakes and is very unlikely to offer the Prime Ministerial position to someone else. The BJP and NDA have already gone to town for far too long with the candidature of Lal Krishna Advani and they are not likely to back down now. Also, other NDA leaders such as Sharad Yadav, who may be more "acceptable" than Advani are all weighed down by powerful regional leaders and are therefore unlikely to get the go ahead towards becoming Prime Minister from their own parties. We should mention here that the "Maratha PM" dream will require a coalition all too queer to come into being. Even so, the possibility of a Third Front PM should not be discarded entirely. If only as a thought experiment, let us consider the Third Front PM candidates.

There's Mayawati, of course. She has been rearing to become Prime Minister. Unfortunate though it is for our country, Maya is the only one who has something of a chance. Since her party puts Maya's Prime Ministerial ambitions as the prime point on its agenda, and indeed, the only point, bargaining with Mayawati is both easy and difficult. If one of the two sides can leave its ego aside and accept Mayawati as PM, there will be nothing else she will require of them. Mayawati's big advantage is that most of the Third Front losers will support her in a heartbeat and so will the Congress' alliance partners. In fact, the only one who would suffer heartburn would be Ram Vilas Paswan, who cannot muster the numerical might to throw a spanner into the works. Moreover, Mayawati has a way of getting things done, of producing major thrusts and her single minded ambition to become PM might stand her in good stead.

Then, there is Mayawati's arch rival: Mulayam Singh Yadav. Such is the pathetic state of ideological confusion within the Third Front and indeed the boudaries of the UPA that any or both of these rival leaders may turn out to be part of the ruling coalition post election. Mulayam Singh knows, however, that his moment has passed. If there was one, it was when he had peaked to a solid tally of 37 MPs from Uttar Pradesh in 2004; and as a thumb rule, anyone who suffers a loss of seats in the ensuing election will be out of running for the Prime Ministership.

Jayalalitha is an intriguing figure in this election. Just how many seats she will pick up is anyone's guess. The question of whether Jayalalitha is seriously considering a Prime Ministerial bid is even more significant. The Dravidian parties have traditionally had a tendency to stay slightly aloof from the government in New Delhi, but there is a possibility that a "Tamil PM" might prove to be a unifying issue. As such, a more "colourless" Tamil leader, such as one from the MDMK or the PMK might emerge as a winner. Sivaganga MP and Home Minister P. Chidambaram, who was a runaway best performer in the UPA government should have been a good choice under these circumstances (and a great choice for the country as well) , but the Congress is in no mood to advance anyone other than Dr. Singh (except Rahul, of course).

One man who should never be counted out is Chandrababu Naidu. For one, Chandrababu would make a fairly good Prime Minister. Although many will disagree with his vision and his approach to development is often facile, Naidu does not lack good intentions. That, in itself, places him way ahead of leaders of many other regional parties. Naidu's one major impact on the national scene, i.e. the elevation of Dr. Kalam to the highest office, is remembered with pride and gratitude by most Indians. Of late, however, Naidu has been wallowing far too low in the filth, allying with the Left, with K Chandrasekhar Rao and sundry others. The Oracle would like to believe he is the same Chandrababu of old. But, perhaps, that is not to be.

BJP's balance sheet of allies

2009-03-15T21:25:00.004-04:00

Those of us with even moderate political foresight have known for some time that the Congress has been living in a fool's paradise. Now that the parties that used to be in the somewhat optimistically named "United" Progressive Alliance have all decided to go their merry way, suddenly the BJP's balance sheet does not look so bad.

The NDA's core has, of course, come down to just 3 parties other than the BJP: the Shiv Sena, the SAD and the JD(U). The BJD used to be a core member until it decided to overreach itself. Fortunately for the BJP, the BJD does not have much of a choice once the elections are over. The prodigal son of the NDA will have little recourse than to troop back to base camp soon enough.

It would be more than just a stretch to imagine that these five parties (including the BJD) can muster a majority on their own in the House. The BJP, however, has no reason to despair, since all that the NDA needs to do is finish ahead of the "UPA", whatever form the latter alliance might have at that moment. The key is to clearly demonstrate that the "UPA" has lost the popular mandate, if it ever had one. If that is achieved, it will not be very difficult to get fencesitters, many of them estranged friends to support and/or join the NDA. These "fencesitters" have made things more efficient by putting themselves up for sale on a single unified forum the Left likes to call the "Third Front". Post election, a winning NDA can offer great careers to these unemployed former Chief Ministers.

The NDA has a lot of estranged friends. Some have faded into oblivion. Some are fighting for life. Some others are actually doing well. Some would want back in, but have drifted too far to do a volte face. The AGP, the INLD and the RLD belong to the second category and all three have done the smart thing by joining hands with the BJP. The Congress is sitting on two remarkable performances in both Asom and Haryana that would be hard pressed to repeat. In western Uttar Pradesh, Ajit Singh's RLD might give a much needed boost to the BJP's demoralized and depreciating rank and file.

What about others? First, the funny ones: like the National Conference and the Lok Janshakti Party. A father and son Muslim party like the National Conference should never have allied with the BJP in the first place. They have faced up to their embarrassment and are now busy ruling their ancestral land, with help from the royal family in Delhi. Good for them.

Ah... Paswan of course. Why is it that Paswan gets tricked into joining some alliance or another each time elections take place? He was with the NDA until 2002, then with Laloo in 2004 and then claimed to be Laloo's biggest challenger in 2005! He made a fool of himself every single time. His latest gambit is to ally with the RJD he had sworn to uproot from Bihar. Let's see how long that lasts before Paswan finds an excuse to join the winning alliance.

Things are more interesting for the BJP down south. In Andhra Pradesh, the TDP and the TRS have actually tied up, although few could have predicted this five years ago. The BJP has been putting in a lot of money and energy in the state and any meaningful gains there will help the party to attract, for instance, the TRS into the NDA fold. In fact, now that the TDP and TRS are together, it should be possible to bring the TDP in tow if needed. Chandrababu Naidu has been cozy with the Left for far too long. Out of a sense of denial, Chandrababu wants to believe that the drubbing he received in 2004 was due to his BJP ties. Instead of blaming himself and his outlandish governance schemes that he liked to refer to as his "vision", his blatant inability to stem the tide of Naxalism, Naidu still believes that the BJP weighed him down in the 2004 election. Fortunately, the worst is over for him. The electorate might not have switched sides entirely, but people are beginning to consider him again. His promise of providing social security to the poorest of the poor might also help in reviving his fortunes. If the NDA agrees to make a few cosmetic concessions to the state of Andhra Pradesh, it will not be too difficult to have Naidu back in the BJP camp.

Then there is the AIADMK, which knows that it is carrying the momentum of the election in Tamil Nadu. It is not for nothing that the PMK switched sides in such a dramatic manner of late. State elections in Tamil Nadu are far away and Jayalalitha would want a foothold at the Centre. The Congress has invested a little too much into its alliance with the DMK to be in a position to take AIADMK support. In any case, it is impossible for the Congress to take in Jayalalitha without immediately losing DMK. The NDA has a vacancy it should look to fill right there.

The role and purpose of the NCP in Indian politics has always been somewhat of a question mark. Initially, it was Congress strongman Sharad Pawar's ego that drove the party. However, with passage of time, the NCP has evolved more and more of a state level personality as opposed to the wishes of Pawar Sahib who has always wanted a more pan-Indian presence. The NCP's proximity to the Shiv Sena has been a source of both consternation and consolation for the BJP. The personal equation between Balasaheb and Pawar Sahib has kept both the BJP and Congress on tenterhooks. Even so, it is far too speculative to imagine the NCP joining the NDA camp after elections.... not yet...maybe in a post Pawar era....

Whether the BJP can get Mamata Banerjee back depends on how well the TMC does in Bengal with Congress support. If Mamata is able to deal a body blow to the CPI(M), as she probably will, she will try her best to keep the Congress with her. This can change only if the Congress has to take Left support in order to form a government. Mamata Banerjee has defined her politics by her opposition to Left Front hegemony. And even though nothing, not even joint Congress - Left -TMC support for a Central Government can dent that image, leave it to this highly emotional politician to freak out over the ethics of having a "semi-alliance" with the Left at the Centre.

That leaves Mayawati and Mulayam Singh, the two worst politicians in the country. For the NDA, Mayawati is the more "natural" ally. Maulana Mulayam, the one who ordered the shooting of VHP workers, has few bridges to the BJP. However, the extreme bitterness between the Samajwadi Party and the Congress, the propensity of the Samajwadis to justify just about any alliance as well as their desire to have as many anti-Mayawati forces together as possible, suggests that the NDA can have some sort of "arrangement" with the SP. For its part, the SP wants the Congress to act as a subservient doormat in UP the way the latter typically submits to Laloo (not this time!!) in Bihar. The Congress, on the other hand, cannot get over the fact that the SP treats the Gandhi family as though they are nothing special...just flesh and blood like everyone else. Perhaps Mulayam Singh's dislike of dynasties has roots in the fact that his own political guru Charan Singh passed him up to give preference to his son Ajit long ago. Advani practises politics as the art of the possible. Should the opportunity present itself, he will not make light of it.

Pressure group building within UPA

2009-03-03T10:10:00.008-05:00

In a striking anticlimax, the coming of elections has been heralded by a string of betrayals, snapping of alliances and breaking of promises. It is almost as if our politicians can't seem to wait until after the election is over.

Given that the UPA, a post poll alliance (lest we forget!) from 2004 has not contested any elections as a united force, there is small surprise that the formation is in disarray a month before the polls begin. The Congress Party has been in firefighting mode, striving to preserve some semblance of dignity in the seat sharing arrangements it has to work out in state after state.

The Congress' problems stem from the fact that it is a spent force in almost all states where it has alliances and is locally dependent on its regional allies (such as SP, JMM, RJD) to a much larger extent than the BJP is. Ten long years of ineffective government by the Congress has weakened the party's position in Maharasthra vis-a-vis the NCP, which has an axe all of its own to grind. The Congress is in a very difficult situation in Mumbai, Konkan and has lost a lot of ground in Vidarbha and Marathwada regions. The NCP has always maintained a slight distance from the Congress and as a result, the Congress Party is completely cornered in Maharashtra. As for Tamil Nadu, it seems clear that Jayalalitha has the initiative and whatever remains will go in favour of the Congress' Dravidian ally. Although the DMK's overall position has weakened, it is in a much stronger position to bargain with the Congress. In Andhra Pradesh, the Congress can only lose seats, though probably not too many. Similarly, the Congress will lose seats in Delhi, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and is likely to be pushed to the wall in Gujarat and Karnataka. Even though Rajasthan will probably offset some of the losses and they will make minor gains in Madhya Pradesh, this is not enough to make up for the difference. The party is facing disaster in UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and there might be surprises in Assam. As a result, the allies realize that it is the perfect time to rub the Congress nose on the ground.

Consequently, the UPA allies have not only asked the Congress to accept less than 5-6 seats in most states, but they have also decided to challenge the claim of their "Big Brother" to the post of Prime Minister. Sharad Pawar and Ram Vilas Paswan have openly expressed their desire to be Prime Minister and for Laloo Yadav, the claim that he will be "Prime Minister one day" has been a continuing refrain over the years. Of these, Sharad Pawar is the only one who is dead serious about his desire to be Prime Minister. A first sign that the Congress has been scared by its allies is Pranab Mukherjee's recent statement that the UPA need not project a Prime Minister at all. Lest we forget, Pranab Mukherjee nurses an old wound over the issue of Prime Ministership; Pranab da circulated his CV among the Congress leadership after Indira Gandhi's death to stake claim to the highest office, but was reprimanded for imagining that he could become Prime Minister while an able bodied, adult Gandhi family descendant was still alive. This blemish of thoughtcrime has since stayed with him and in 2004, the choice fell on Manmohan Singh, a man whose record of loyalty to the Gandhi family was as spotless as his white kurta.

Unfortunately for the Congress, its list of current allies includes the Samajwadi Party and the latter commands the skills of Amar Singh, who is the foremost practitioner of realpolitik in the country today. The crafty Thakur who can make alliances literally appear out of thin air and strike fantastic deals you never thought possible; is capable of slitting the Congress' throat with surgical precision. The fact that Amar Singh has met Sharad Pawar in person, following which Pawar saab has made his Prime Ministerial ambitions public, should raise a lot of eyebrows. In classic Amar Singh style, Pawar's talk about a "Maharashtrian PM" has made the Shiv Sena sit up and listen. Sharad Pawar, a man grappling with cancer, does not have much to lose. Amar Singh realizes that; and the SP has a great personal rapport with Laloo Yadav. The fact that the SP is Mayawati's principal challenger makes Paswan a natural ally for Mulayam Singh Yadav, while events in Sri Lanka have pushed the DMK to move away from the Central government; it could hardly get any worse for Congress. Most of the Congress' allies are on highly cordial terms with the Left Parties and by extension, the so called "Third Front".

What does this mean for India? It follows that should the UPA finish ahead of NDA, it will still have to bridge a yawning chasm of at least 70 seats to get to the majority mark and one of the concessions the allies will demand is the giving up of the post of Prime Minister. In fact, the Left Front, which is one of the gluing forces in the "Third Front" will find it impossible to support a Congress Prime Minister after the drubbing it will likely receive at the hands of the TMC-Congress alliance in West Bengal. In fact, should such a situation arise, the Congress might be confronted with a fait accompli over the formation of a "secular government". If the Congress refuses to swallow its pride at such a point, the BJP, which will get the BJD back on its side in a flash after the polls, might be able to put the numbers together, by attracting say Jayalalitha, Mayawati and others. In such a scenario, the "blame" for letting the "communal BJP" have its way will fall on the Congress.

Rahul Gandhi has succeeded to the Congress leadership at a difficult time. The party organisation is in bad shape and alliances have weakened the party beyond recovery in several states. The party of his fathers seems oddly bereft of inspiring leaders and if only clean image were everything in politics, S M Krishna would have been in power much longer than Rabri Devi did. There is some urban sympathy over the persona of Dr. Singh, but if only that were enough, Atal ji would have never been shoved out in 2004. And now, given that there is uncertainty over the leadership of Dr. Singh, this positive might wither away. Rahul Gandhi, with the weight of his hundred year old dynasty on his shoulders, is older than Advani in practical terms. Young India has not fallen for Rahul's unintelligent antics and Priyanka Gandhi's possibilities have been let go waste, possibly because her children might not carry the Gandhi surname. The Congress needs to dictate some terms, but it seems that, for now, the "allies" are the people doing all the talking.

Let's discuss the media

2009-02-24T10:27:00.013-05:00

The Indian media is sharp, lively and so much a part of our lives. Buzzing with activity at all times, the media plays a huge role in shaping our perceptions about the politics of our nation, society and future. In this article, the Oracle will assess the media and its impact on our world.

Unfortunately, in this article, the Oracle will only be able to discuss the English language media. This is the form of the media that the Oracle is most familiar with, and let's confess; loves to hate. Therefore, it behooves the Oracle to first acknowledge a debt to this media for providing the considerable volume of information that the Oracle in order to form his opinions.

Here, we use "English language media" as a generic and rather loose term to describe cable news delivered to middle class homes by the top media houses. We clarify that this term will be applied even to channels such as Zee News, Aaj Tak and Star News and NDTV India which do NOT report in English at all. Perhaps "elite media" would have been a better term.

Though freedom of the press would be defended by law in any real democracy, there will always be elements in power, in Government and society that will try to intimidate/subvert the media in subtle ways. The Indian media has generally performed well on that account, managing to remain fiercely independent at most times. And, even though the media may be accused of being hawkish in its tactics or insensitive in its reporting on some occasions, they deserve credit for keeping the citizenry fully informed of national events on a minute to minute basis. Brutal competition is usually good for any industry. Our media, its brashness, its enthusiasm, its zeal is in many ways a testament to our vibrant democracy.

Let us consider the "standard of reporting". It really depends on how we see the media withing the framework of our democratic society. For instance, we could excoriate the media for being obsessed with certain events of no consequence such as reporting on ... say .. Slumdog Millionaire (to take a fairly recent example) in the top story section. We could take the media to task for reporting on the Abhishek-Aishwarya wedding way beyond its actual relevance. A slightly different allegation would be that the media is insensitive and seems to revel in tragedies. A case in point would be the stampede at Chamunda Devi temple in September, 2008 in which 249 people were killed. The media has also come under fire for irresponsible reporting during the Mumbai terror attacks when they were accused of allowing details about Army positions to pass to terrorists through the TV news. To sum up, the media often caters to the obsessions of the public with celebrities or feeds its voyeuristic desire to see blood and gore.

Of course, there is another way to see this. The media is a business and fools who fail to recognize it as such have only themselves to blame for any delusions that might arise. The dangers lie in the fact that the media often gives the public a false sense of empowerment. The corporate media masquerades as the "voice of the people". The Oracle has pointed out elsewhere that the corporate media is actually the least democratic of all the so called "estates of democracy". This is a fact that seems to escape notice completely. What actually happens is that the media essentially reports its own points of view rather than those of the people and we are told that these viewpoints should somehow take precedence over our own. Why? Are the mediapersons, journalists, newspaper columnists elected in any way? Do they even represent a fair cross section of our society?

There are many things we seem not to notice about the media. For one, we must remember that journalism is a fairly low skilled profession. Journalism, on an average, requires a skill set that can be hardly rated as being more specialized than an actor. Just because journalists pass judgement on issues does not mean that they are smart people who know what they are talking about. A glaring example would be the media reports on legal representation for captured terrorist Kasab. Not one journalist seemed to understand the depth of the ethical and legal subtleties of the situation and instead focussed on random remarks made by politicians, knee jerk Shiv Sena reactions and the like. Another case in point would be the ruckus created by Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami demanding the removal of a fellow Election Commissioner, when the media reported on the general smoke screen of sensation and completely failed to display even a basic grasp of the constitutional issues involved. Science journalism is, of course, the best evidence for the proposition that journalists are only semi-literate. We need look no further than the story of the "$10 laptop" that embarrassed India and IIT Chennai recently. The swanky studios, the eye catching graphics, the dramatic background music and imposing names like "Face the Nation", "We the People", "The Big Fight", etc. are all bluff and bluster; a cover for semi-literacy. It is a classic case of anything that glitters being taken for gold.

To be fair, the media never claimed they were experts in anything. "We the people" are responsible for our own stupidity. If we are unable to glean "information" from "opinion" and make up our minds based on what people with the most shoddy academic skills have to say, it is our problem.

Of course, no discussion about Indian English language media can be complete without paying a tribute to the dogged dedication with which the media is committed to eradicating the BJP from the country. There was a time when the "communal" BJP was an untouchable in Indian politics, even more than the forces of communism. Then the BJP forged alliances with anti-Congress forces in state after state and this tag of untouchability became all too redundant. Credit goes to the media for keeping the tired old genre of BJP baiting alive.

Even today, at the drop of a hat, the media goes into a frenzy of anti-BJP ranting at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, it is not even necessary for the proverbial hat to drop. A wonderful example would be the recent tirade that the media has launched against the BJP at the snapping of the BJP-BJD alliance. Instead of castigating the opportunistic stance of the BJD for betraying a trusting old ally at a vulnerable moment, the media is all too caught up with celebrating the BJP's setback. The buzz in the media is that the NDA is imploding, notwithstanding the fact that the BJP has added two allies (RLD and AGP) in the last two weeks; and the INLD before that. It also makes no difference that ever since the UPA was formed in 2004, the "United" Progressive Alliance has not managed to contest a single election as a unified whole. It also makes no difference that the BJP has won 7 of the last 11 Assembly Elections outright and made huge inroads into an 8th (J&K) and has just managed to defend two incumbent governments with substantial majorities in two large heartland states. In contrast, the Congress has managed to win one (Delhi) and emerged as single largest in another (Rajasthan). That has not, however, held the media back from declaring that the Congress is on an upswing. Take another instance, when the BJP bagged Karnataka last year, defying obviously contrived* and dishonest opinion/exit poll predictions, the disconsolate media sought solace in pointing out that the Congress would still be ahead if the Assembly segments were grouped in terms of Parliamentary seats. No one cared, of course, to do a similar analysis on Rajasthan. And when the BJP won 5 out of 8 Assembly bypolls in Karnataka at the end of 2008, and the Congress did not manage even one, the plan was to look the other way.

So, why would the media do this? In the short term, the media is relieved that the Mumbai terror attacks did not result in a paroxysm of support in favour of the BJP. But why would the media be against the BJP in the first place? We have to understand what a journalist does. The average journalist is faced with important political, economic and diplomatic issues on a daily basis and yet does not possess the intellectual capacity to process these in an appropriate manner. As such, the average mediaperson finds it vastly simpler to jump on to bogeys, focus on buzzwords and act like a swarm of bees than to think. 24 x 7 television further heightens the need to look smart as opposed to being smart. Blaming the BJP is easy. The BJP lacks a systematic multi level worldwide terror infrastructure unlike Islam does: ranging from the "few misguided youths" who fly planes into buildings to the "peaceful demonstrators" and "victims of discrimination" who burn down Bangalore because dictator Saddam Hussein is about to be hanged. In fact, the motley band of Shiv Sena thugs who show up to break glass panes make for excellent reality television; the meagre financial losses these events entail are more than justified by the money the channel makes by subsequently telecasting this "riot". Understanding the "secular argument against the savagery of Islam" is a nuance that is beyond the intellectual capability of the average journalist.

Perhaps the more pertinent question is : why is the media able to get away with this? The reason is that the media has the privilege of writing its own performance review, and therefore, is effectively free from the constraints of professional responsibility. When the media drives itself into a corner, as it often does, the media can pull out simply by deciding not to talk about their blunder any more on the airwaves. What India needs is a second line of defence against forces of misinformation, such as a higher penetration of media such as blogs and youtube. Media personalities such as Barkha Dutt have already gone public with their dislike of blogs. The fact that the media is the least democratic of all the estates of democracy is a point that cannot be stressed enough. Although we the people are grateful to the media for the wonderful coverage, we should know better than to let the opinions of some semi literate, self appointed intellectuals to influence our opinion beyond a point. Fortunately, most of us already know that. Election results bear that out.

* As a postscript, the Oracle will explain why he considers the Opinion Polls to be "contrived and dishonest". We start by agreeing that opinion polls have gone grievously wrong in recent years. The failure can be blamed on either of two sources (or a combination thereof): the science that underlies an opinion poll or the integrity of the people who administer the exercise. In view of this, the Oracle would much rather question the honesty of the mediapersons than the power of science and logical reasoning.

Political soup in Jharkhand

2009-02-17T11:04:00.003-05:00

The political compass has been spinning madly in Jharkhand for a while now. Just so we can get a sense of how Jharkhand became the most politically unstable state in the country (perhaps after Goa), let us take a look at the timeline of events that have happened since the Assembly Elections of 2005.

1. Shibu Soren forced upon the state as Chief Minister by Governor Razi, by falsely claiming the support of 2 MLAs in his letter to the Governor.

2. BJP smuggles out 5 MLAs through Bhubaneshwar to Delhi and parades them before the media.

3. Supreme Court strikes down the nomination of an Anglo Indian member by Soren, asks proceedings of the Assembly to be videotaped: Arjun munda forms government. Governor Razi receives a severe reprimand from the President for his partisan role.

4. Coup engineered by Laloo yadav unseats Munda, replaces him with independent Madhu Koda who had been supporting the previous government.

5. Shibu Soren is convicted of murder and sent to prison.

6. Koda abdicates in favour of Soren.

7. Soren seeks election to the Assembly from Tamar constituency, loses miserably to a candidate from the Jharkhand Party.

8. President's rule is imposed.

...phew! It is difficult to believe that all this could have happened in just four years. And now the UPA "partners" continue their machinations to prop up a new government as the enraged Opposition demands fresh elections. The question is: could a political class get so self involved, so self centred that they actually forget that they are representatives of the people? The state of Jharkhand performs miserably on every indicator of development, the majority of the people languish in desperate poverty, illiteracy is rampant and social unrest threatens to boil over. Jharkhand is a microcosm which parallels the many states in Africa, etc. that are complete disasters.

The state of Jharkhand has, on an average, struggled to keep any maintain an organized polity. In Ranchi, for instance, where local bodies went to polls last year, the number of candidates was so large that special arrangements had to be made. While this is symptomatic of a vibrant democracy, this also suggests that the state might be falling over the edge into anarchy. Small state Assemblies have always been a bane, with smaller parties and independents having a field day, but Jharkhand has taken this to a whole new level.

So what options do the political parties have? The BJP has had to lie low ever since Arjun Munda failed to save his government. Ever since, the party has struggled to win by-elections, mostly due to organizational and local problems. The state unit has been torn apart by factionalism. Uncomfortable personal equations between party leaders such as Yashwant Sinha and Yadunath Pandey have taken a toll on the BJP's fortunes. Although party backed candidates performed handsomely in the local bodies a year ago, the party has let its tribal support slip away. The major architect of this decline has been former BJP leader Babulal Marandi, who is usually credited with having run a fair and decent BJP government in the state. But, in this election year, the BJP seems to be getting its act together. Recently, party leaders were in the streets of Ranchi together, in a show of unity, demanding fresh elections. The party has also gradually expelled the malcontents, who have found seats of opportunity in other political corners.

The BJP has also had to deal with a sulking JD(U). After JD(U) lost Namdhari, the party has been reduced to nothing in the state. This has not stopped JD(U) leaders from demanding a large chunk of the seats in the state. As a result, the BJP is now threatening to go on its own in the Lok Sabha elections. As in 2004, this gambit could cost the party dearly, since even marginal number of votes can tilt the outcome decisively in such a fractured polity.

Fortunately for the BJP, the UPA camp has been plagued even more seriously by internal problems. The bonhomie between all anti-BJP parties that brought all seven of them together as a mammoth alliance in 2004, is nowhere to be seen. It is noteworthy that the seven parties together had managed to notch up a mere 2% larger share of the popular vote than the BJP had on its own. Had the BJP been in alliance with JD(U) at that time, it would have won at least 5 seats.

The UPA's abysmal failure to run a confidence inspiring government or to put up a united face is going to cost them dear. No one ever took Madhu Koda's government seriously and how the people feel about Soren has become amply clear with the Tamar bypoll results. To my knowledge, a sitting Chief Minister seeking entry into the Assembly has never been turned down by the people. And Tamar is an utterly rural seat in the tribal heart of Jharkhand. If "Guruji" cannot make it there, he should think twice before trying his luck. The decline in JMM's fortunes is largely due to the fact that people are tired of the blatant opportunism of the party. The integrity of JMM is so low that disgust is the only possible reaction. The party has never had success in the urban areas of the state and now it is beginning to fall apart in tribal areas. This is the fallout of the whimsical leadership of Shibu Soren. JMM ranks cracked even as Assembly elections were in process in 2005, with the exit of Stephen Marandi. Less than three weeks later, Stephen Marandi was back at Soren's side as his trusted lieutenant. Things kept changing even after that; and Stephen was in the company of Babulal Marandi when the Oracle lost track of him.

The JMM's sour relations with RJD have not helped. In the aftermath of the Tamar fiasco, the RJD rushed through a proposal to have its own Annapurna Devi as Chief Minister (the RJD's obsession with food continues.... from Rabri to Annapurna). Soren, for his part, wanted Champai Soren to hold the position until the former managed to win a later bypoll. After Champai was rejected by UPA partners, the choice fell on Nalin Soren, then on Salkhan Soren and finally on Sushila Hansda. It took Shibu Soren four tries to figure out that the Congress was happy to rule the state through Governor Sibtey Razi and didn't mean to have anybody from the JMM as Chief Minister. Now Soren is threatening to contest the Lok Sabha polls on his own if the UPA partners do not cooperate. Given that the UPA has failed to contest a single election in the last three years as a united whole ever since it was formed in 2004, this is what would have happened anyway.

In all this, the man who has looked rather unperturbed is Babulal Marandi. His Jharkhand Vikas Morcha has gone from strength to strength. Some of this has to do with his stubborn refusal to return to BJP out of a sense of honour, a rare commodity in Jharkhand politics. His party has sapped the membership of the BJP, the latest being legislator Pradeep Yadav, who is now principal general secretary of the JVM. However, the JVM still lacks a credible cadre across the state, which means it might not be able to translate the generally positive impression of his party into votes.

There is a case to be made before the people of Jharkhand about rising above the minutae of local party politics. Too many parties have come up in Jharkhand in too short a time, each with its own axe to grind, each commanding a small sliver of the population that is too myopic to see beyond some small issue that is of marginal significance to affairs of the state. The outcome: the Congress, which has zero public support in the state, is now ruling the state by proxy. Governor Razi now enjoys power without responsibility. This is what happens when people abdicate their responsibility to the state and the democratic process.

Let's talk about Islam

2009-02-16T10:23:00.006-05:00

It is easy to see that "Free Speech" in the modern world has an obvious internal contradiction. In its original sense, "Free Speech" stood for the right of all people to engage in open debate over any issue, thus allowing for an all out war of ideas without pushing humanity into self destructive and mutually exhausting violent conflict. But "Free Speech" has never really been free; there have been curbs imposed both ways. For instance, under ordinary circumstances, there is a de facto ban on freely expressing extremely offensive and hateful views, such as racism, Nazism and the like. On the other hand, an excuse can be made on behalf of similarly hateful views, if only they are expressed, not in the name of personal convictions, but in the name of "religion". In this article, the Oracle discusses Islam in the modern world, with "modern" being taken to mean "democratic and friendly to scientific, intellectual and artistic advancement".

The first major difficulty in talking about a religion, any religion, is the social requirement that religion be given "enough respect". Here "respect" refers not only to facilitating a full and fair hearing to all sides of the case, such as one would expect in a court of law, or in a scientific debate or indeed, in any enlightened conversation, but also to humouring the opposition with platitudes and making sure that the opposition is not made to feel stupid. This is the unfortunate burden that anyone who wishes to engage a religion in debate is expected to shoulder; or risk being taken, quite ironically, for an illiberal bigot.

The second major difficulty that arises often in such situations; and more so with Islam, is the threat of physical violence in retaliation to "disrespect" to the religion. What makes it worse is that the religion in question is usually given a free hand in setting the bar for what counts as "hate speech". Given the fact that Islam doesn't really believe in debate (even by the standards of other religions) and has an extremely low bar for what counts as hate speech, it is extremely difficult to talk about or talk to Islam. However, with the stakes being as high as they are, we in the modern world need to have this difficult conversation with Islam, and, should Islam be unwilling to engage in the discourse, we in the modern world should have this conversation among ourselves. In the latter case, we should, of course, leave a vacant chair for Islam at the debating table to make it clear that Islam is welcome to join the debate whenever it so pleases. In other words, if we can't talk to Islam, we will talk about Islam, which is the very purpose of this article.

The face of Islam that is willing to talk, often depends on certain buzzwords, such as "ignorance", "cultural insensitivity" and "Islamphobia". The Oracle takes a particularly strong exception to the term "Islamphobia". By definition, a "phobia" is an irrational fear. Would the fear of violence from radical Islam qualify as "irrational"? You wouldn't get that impression from looking at the newspapers. As they say, it's not paranoia if they are really out to get you.

"Ignorance" comes next. The idea is the following : "If only people knew more about Islam, they would not feel so negatively towards it". This line is played endlessly in the United States and Europe, urging the people of the democratic West to look, not at reports coming from Saudi Arabia or from Pakistan, not even to the collapse of the twin towers in New York, the bombings in London, Mumbai and Madrid, but to the average Muslim in the West who may well be a doctor, lawyer, scientist or engineer. This argument is severely flawed.

a) First, the real way to learn about anything is to observe it in its "natural habitat". To learn more about Islam, it makes no sense to look at the miniscule minority of Muslims in the West. Instead one must observe the social mores, governance systems and jurisprudence in the 57 countries that make up the Islamic World and are members of the Organisation of Islamic conference (OIC). If we really want to learn about animals, we should go to the jungle and not to the zoo (no inherent disrespect intended by the mention of "animals"; I, for one, think it is high time we stopped using the word "animal" to mean "non human animal" and accepted our position as integral part of Kingdom Animalia) To give another example, one could point out, for instance that Indian Americans are the richest and most educated ethnic group in the United States. Does this suggest that Indians are genetically superior to other races, or that India is the richest or the most scientifically advanced nation in the world?

If anything, the presence of countless peaceful Muslims in the West is a powerful argument for basic human values that are common to all of us. It is a superb argument against racial prejudice. It shows explicitly that Islam is the specific retardant in the "Islamic world", not the people.

b. Secondly, the argument from ignorance might fly in the United States, but its weakness is exposed by the fact that it does not even begin to explain the situation in India, where Muslims similarly claim to be stigmatized and stereotyped, despite being a healthy 12-15% of the population, up to 30-35% in several major areas, thus numbering close to 150 million in all!

And then, there is, of course, the accusation of "cultural insensitivity". In order for this to make sense, Islam must decide for itself whether it wants to be seen as a race, a culture, a religion, a political philosophy or a system of law. The problem with Islam is that it claims to all of the above. And Islam believes it has the divine right to make the rules not only for itself but for everyone else as well. The argument from "cultural sensitivity" is then used to thrust Stone Age abominations into the civilized world. There are many ways in which the argument from cultural sensitivity can be examined, exposing its obvious flaws. For instance, does Islam respect a non Muslim's right to draw a cartoon about their Prophet? Is Islam tolerant towards the culture of democracy? A woman wearing a burkha proclaims proudly that all men should be considered potential rapists prima facie, but what if I were to say that all Muslims are prima facie terror suspects? She gets away because it's her religion, while I am held guilty of thinking for myself.

There are many religions that are out there and all of them curb fundamental freedoms of people, but why would the Oracle single out Islam? Because Islam goes to great lengths to abolish free thought, even by the standards of other religions. Note, for instance, the requirement that Muslims must pray five times a day, that too facing towards Mecca. Is it not strikingly reminescent of a day in the life of a citizen of Oceania, imagined by George Orwell? Islam requires men and women to be attired in a certain way, requires that music and entertainment be given up completely and people donate a fixed portion of their income to the mosque. Laws on marriage and divorce, punishment for specific crimes, the process of judgement, the relative weight of the testimony of the two genders in each situation are all described in gruesome detail. An Islamic world is one that is frozen in time, specifically in the 7th century. This is a problem Islam shares with Communism, in that it calls for time to be brought to a halt. The message is: think no further and submit. And there are still people who ask why anyone who believes in scientific and intellectual advancement would be worried sick about the steady rise of Islam.

The most ridiculous of all people are those who believe that Islam should be given a free pass because any criticism further reinforces the seige mentality of Muslims and works to the advantage of Islamic radicals. Never before in history has an argument been so steeped in moral cowardice. For one, Islamic radicals are the cutting edge of Islam; they set the agenda for Islam and dictate terms of the debate. The moderates are just that, moderates. They are content never to raise their voices because that is what it means to be a moderate. Stepping away from critcizing Islam merely emboldens the radicals and that hurts the moderates anyway.

Nagpur meet: BJP tries to close ranks

2009-02-09T11:42:00.008-05:00

The Nagpur meet has come as a change to party watchers who thought the BJP's campaign would never begin. It has been a while since the BJP and NDA declared L K Advani as the Opposition candidate for Prime Minister and tried to build a buzz around his personality. The strategy never worked; Advani's efforts failed to arouse little more than scholastic interest among political junkies. To his credit, the formidable Advani tried his best to become larger than life; he wrote a massive volume compiling his immense political life experience, tried to reach out to the young through the internet and recently, through blogging; but things never qute took off. Advani was ridiculed for being too old to lead an aspiring young nation and a shamelessly partisan elite media kept rooting for Rahul Gandhi to take over as an "Indian Obama"... that's right; a man with a shockingly low political IQ as Rahul Gandhi, whose elevation to high office should cause any hard working man or woman to swear under his/her breath against the "class privilege of the lazy rich"; is suggested as a parallel to America's transformational new President, who overcame barriers of racial prejudice, institutional power and poverty to rise from the middle class wasteland to Harvard, to the United States Senate and then to the White House! It does not get any more surreal than this...

The BJP's Nagpur meet was an improvement in the sense that one saw nothing of the blame game that has become pervasive in BJP circles. The BJP is under pressure and frustrated at not being seen as a favourite to win the Lok Sabha polls in April-May. Ever since the BJP-NDA declared Advani as the Prime Ministerial candidate, there have been 8 major Assembly elections. Of these, the BJP has won 5 on its own, improved its performance vastly in a sixth (J&K) and lost two. The Congress has won one, emerged as single largest party in one and lost six. That is 2 positives to the BJP's 6! The BJP realizes that it has to use its worker base to pull itself up by its own bootstraps, since not even a 6-2 advantage will translate into the slightest media coverage in favour of the party.

With this understanding, the BJP began at Nagpur, with LK Advani urging party workers to probe the ground and listen to the people. This meet lacked the bluff and bluster of previous party meetings, in that it was austere in self congratulation and forthcoming in terms of self evaluation. First of all, the BJP has decided to opt for a more "dissipated" campaign, with regional leaders taking charge of each state. This has been done in the absence of a single polarizing national issue and the failure to create an aura around the person of Advani. Advani, for his part, has been extremely dynamic in the last one year, struggling to repackage himself. Although the venerable leader probably realizes that it is well nigh impossible for him to break all associations with the past, he is not about to give up. Advani has been, in fact, spectacularly optimistic ever since he was declared as candidate for Prime Minister. Advani has appeared at book signings, has created a website with a smart new feel and tried to be everywhere at once. The party organization has often failed him in this respect. Advani conceived the series of Vijay Sankalp rallies across the country, but the party machine could hardly bear him out. Nevertheless, he has refused to be discouraged. At one such rally in Ranchi, he was so moved by the response that he asked for a personal video copy of the events.

At the Nagpur meet, Advani was his new self yet again, refusing to read from the prepared text of his address, instead launching into a fiery speech all on his own. In his speech, Advani mentioned each of the BJP's second generation leaders in turn, reserving the fewest words but the most fulsome praise for Modi. Modi, for his part, still seems to be taking stock of the situation, content to let the BJP leadership and the media hang on to his every word, holding back word on whether he plans to become Prime Minister one day. Modi's tirade against the Gandhi dynasty made headlines all around, but little else was heard from the BJP's most charismatic leader.

Apart from this, the BJP made some stunning decisions at the Nagpur meet. Following 2004, the BJP had, for long articulated their decision to make the top leadership of the party contest elections. It, therefore, came as a shock that both Venkaiah Naidu and Arun Jaitley had decided to stay away from contesting elections. Only Sushma Swaraj would try her luck, possibly from Bhopal. This is precisely the kind of flip flop that has been letting the BJP down in Delhi. Despite winning so many states, the BJP has never looked very decisive in the last five years. From Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi; and from Bihar to Jharkhand and Orissa, there is a sense that the BJP is bowing out of contests, very much like the Congress.

The absence of an NDA outlook at this crucial meeting was conspicuous. This can only mean that the BJP is getting too comfortable with its NDA allies and has stopped taking their occasional disgruntled murmurings seriously. After all, the NDA core group consisting of the JD(U) , Sena, SAD and BJD has come to be so closely identified with the BJP that chances of these parties seeking realignment are few. The BJP's main concern should be with how small this group really is and how the party has failed to draw any other major regional party "into orbit" since the elections of 1999. There have been alliances: with Chautala's INLD, Mayawati's BSP, Jaya's AIADMK, Naidu's TDP and Gowda's JD(S), but little has come of these alliances that is of lasting value. In fact, the BJP has grown increasingly distant from two former friends: Chandrababu Naidu and Mamata Banerjee.

The BJP is, therefore, caught between two stools. On the one hand, the party has had to contend with increasing disenchantment of core supporters, bickering among party factions and a diminishing Hindutva vote. On the other, the party has the challenge of coalition building. Paradoxically, the same issues that unite the BJP and give it its unique identity are those that scare away potential allies. Coupled with the fact that the BJP has been stripped of its "rising star" appeal of the 90's, the party has been limping around the political arena, looking for friends. The eagerness of the Congress to negotiate and compromise on all issues except the leadership of the divine family has proved to be a superior asset for the sake of coalition building. The extensive "name and shame campaign" carried out against "communal forces" in India still has some bite left. For the BJP, the stigma has remained, the star quality has not.

The BJP, in turn, chose to put its house in order. The party chose to project the two issues that virtually every BJP worker, leader and sympathiser can agree upon: building the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and bringing down the Gandhi dynasty. This effectively means that the BJP has decided to seek no new alliances until the election. It's a cynical approach, built on the idea that post election support will coalesce around whoever is ahead. The trouble is; if the Congress goes into the election with too many allies and the BJP with too few, the NDA might just fall a few seats short of the UPA, at which time the secular bogey will be evoked to thrust yet another Gandhi government upon the country. The BJP hopes to maximise the number of seats contested by having fewer seat sharing arrangements, thus winning the race to become the single largest party. Unless the BJP can beat the Congress by a considerable margin, this strategy will not work.

As the BJP gets back to the business of working on the General Elections, it is good that the party has given itself a moment to plan about the future. It had been said that the BJP's political rise was only meteoric, with the party sure to fall apart due to internal bickerings soon after losing power. It had been said that the NDA would disintegrate after May 2004. In the later half of 2004, there were plenty of signs that all this was about to happen. But, slowly yet surely, the BJP and the NDA have prevailed over the prophets of doom. A face has begun to emerge, a hint of the "chaal, charitra, chehra" of the the BJP that is to be. It had been lamented that, "once upon a time, the BJP had a strong leader at every level", a setup that had collapsed when the BJP leaders flocked to the Centre to share power in Delhi. Ten years hence, Vasundhara, Modi, Shivraj Singh, Raman Singh, Yeddyurappa, Sushil Modi have fallen into place again. The managers and spokesmen: Javadekar, Jaitley, Swaraj, Naqvi, Ravi Shankar have come to the fore. A farmer's son has taken over as party president. It is a victory, not of dynasties, but of organizational ability. It has been a long time coming for the only political party in India with an internal democracy, but it has happened.

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

2009-01-21T16:23:00.005-05:00

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?

2009-01-21T10:43:00.006-05:00

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

2009-01-11T12:11:00.007-05:00

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

2009-01-06T10:59:00.008-05:00

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?

Terrorism and the Elections

2008-12-28T11:42:00.008-05:00

The failure of the BJP to notch up a victory in Delhi has started a lively political debate in India regarding the electoral marketability of the "issue" of terrorism. Some have argued that, much like that of Madrid train bombings of 2004, the impact of the Mumbai terrorist attack of 26/11 on Indian voters has been transformational. It has been suggested that terrorism has been elevated to a "national issue", which is an euphemistic way of saying that the people of India refuse to see it any longer as a communal issue and refuse to believe any particular political party is any more serious about dealing with it than any other.

This pipe dream of the English language press has been played up no end, with newspaper after newspaper effectively congratulating the voters of Delhi for rejecting the "communal" BJP in favour of the secular Congress. The message was so shrill that a version of this was picked up by the BBC and the Associated Press, but not before the Indian liberals had carefully inserted the words "Hindu Nationalist" before the BJP and had made sure to remind the world that the Congress was "the party of Mahatma Gandhi". One wonders why no newspaper ever reminds African Americans that the Republican Party is "the party of Abraham Lincoln".

Back home, the Oracle opines that this might be a case of reading too much into a small state election. Delhi, after all, is the smallest of the four heartland states that went to elections and the personal popularity of Sheila Dikshit, her focus on state issues and the highly informed electorate of Delhi (which can discern State and Central government powers/concerns very easily) played a huge part in the outcome. The BJP certainly has reasons to worry, after whittling away a healthy pre-election lead; and then losing dismally in the immediate aftermath of a "spectacular" terrorist attack.

But not too many! If you look carefully at the electoral history of India, you will notice that major events have, of themselves, rarely proved to change public opinion overnight. What one needs is time... time for a political party to build a political campaign around the event. In the case of Delhi, this is precisely what the BJP lacked... enough time to make political capital over the Mumbai terrorist attacks. A simple example of this phenomenon would be the following: the burning of the Sabarmati express did not have an immediate effect on electoral outcomes in Gujarat. In fact, the Congress won handsomely in several small, local elections held after the Godhra incident, leading at least one senior Congress leader to say smugly: The Congress has swept all the elections in Gujarat pre-Godhra and post-Godhra. If Narendrabhai had not crisscrossed Gujarat on his Gaurav Yatra, or if VHP cadres had not campaigned in the tribal areas of Gujarat wearing tee-shirts with the message "क्या आप गोधरा को भूल सकते हैं ?", the outcome might well have been different. Kandhmahal would be another case in point, where the BJP made very little impact in local body elections despite the highly publicized communally charged situation on the ground. Again, the BJP hardly campaigned in Kandhmahal on the issue of Hindutva.

The lesson for the BJP is that it cannot hope to benefit from any communally charged situation unless it actually campaigns on the issue. As far as Delhi is concerned, the BJP never had the time to work the issue into the campaign. A last minute advertisement in the newspapers does not count as a campaign and it gives ammunition to BJP bashers in the media. Compare this to the situation in Jammu, where the BJP's performance was stellar. There the BJP had time to convert the groundswell of public anger into votes, by means of an effective campaign. At one point, the BJP was leading in 17 seats, a score that shrank to 11 (which is still a gain of 10 seats!!), probably due to widespread public realization that, of the 4 parties: Congress, PDP, NC and BJP, the BJP alone has no chance at power at all. Nevertheless, Ghulam Nabi Azad's statement that the BJP's gains are "worrisome" is extremely reprehensible. The connotation that the BJP is somehow anti-national is reprehensible and rather ironic, particuarly because the Congress party declared that it was open to tie up with a party that was both "secular" and "nationalist". The PDP does not make the grade as either "secular" or "nationalist" and the Congress should know that. Apart from that, the Congress should be reminded of its seat sharing arrangement with the Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala. Of course, Ghulam Nabi toned down his remark later on to say that "BJP has won but Jammu has lost, because the BJP will never make it to power". Yet, the act of an elected leader thus belittling the verdict of the people as well as the accompanying admission that the new Government of J&K intends to punish the Jammu region is despicable.

The issue of terrorism remains at the heart of the Indian election. The media should stop insulting the intelligence of the people by suggesting that the masses are being somehow anti-national by linking Islam to terrorism. For what it's worth, people will never stop linking Islam to terrorism, nor Walt Disney to Mickey Mouse. However, the BJP must admit that the "old Hindutva" package has outlasted its utility. No longer do the people of India respond emotionally to the building of a temple in Ayodhya, Bhojshala or in Chikmanglur. People want peace and progress and terrorism threatens both of these aims. It is not very wise to think that people will not respond positively to a message that aims to deal with terrorism with a heavy hand.

However, in order to make the issue of terrorism more effective, the BJP needs a better public relations campaign. The party knows that it is not a favourite of the English language media and has not taken sincere steps to remedy the situation. The party's campaign managers have also been ineffective in sending out certain messages to the people. For instance, the BJP often comes under fire for having let out Masood Azhar during the Kandahar crisis. The Congress has been given a free hand by the media to twist the story so far out of shape that now it usually reads like as though the BJP Government eagerly surrendered to the terrorists, not with 189 Indian lives hanging in the balance. To my knowledge, the BJP has never mounted an offensive campaign to compare and contrast this with the shameful surrender of Indian national interests to the personal interests of Rubaiyya Sayeed in 1989. Instead, Advani has cowered, sinking to the extent of suggesting that he was not even part of the decision to release Masood Azhar. The BJP must learn to fight the media battle, or else, as the Delhi verdict showed, one does not always have enough time to hit the streets and campaign. The Congress instead, had the luxury of their campaign message being beamed directly into the living rooms of the city, without having to put a foot on the ground.

So, what have we learned? We summarize as follows:

a. The "old Hindutva" is dead: Construction of temples, etc. is no longer a major issue. Public discourse has moved beyond that.

b. "Hindutva" needs to be repackaged as anger against Islamic terrorism in order to make an impact. This is because terrorism threatens the promise of a rising India.

c. There is no automatic route from "communal incidents" to electoral victory: A lot of energy has to go into the campaign, before an issue can be translated into votes.

d. For "Hindutva" to be effective, the atmosphere must be conducive and the campaign effective: Kalyan Singh tried to evoke Hindutva out of nowhere in Uttar Pradesh in 2007 and it resulted in nothing but disappointment. Hindutva must be accompanied with a strong commitment to development, with Hindutva justified by the necessity to do "all it takes" to remove obstacles to progress. It's the idea of "Hindutva+". In Gujarat, they call it "Moditva".

e. The BJP needs to have better relations with the English language media. A crop of argumentative, English speaking leaders who can dictate the airwaves would be a pleasant change. There is nothing like the luxury of having the media campaign for you, for free.

Assembly Polls-II: Congress couldn't care less about losing 2 states

2008-12-24T11:58:00.012-05:00

That the Congress read the results of the latest round of Assembly polls as a victory for itself shows how little the grand old party expects of itself. The Congress retained Delhi, while in Rajasthan, Gehlot's forces, soundly thrashed 123-51 five years ago, barely limped to within a small distance of the finish line. The BJP, on the other hand, registered convincing victories in two other states.

Although the Congress is probably sleeping more soundly than the BJP, alarm bells are sounding for the former across the country. The Congress has been shrinking in the South and the East and the West. One of the strengths of the Congress thus far was its ability to routinely unseat the BJP wherever it was incumbent (except for Gujarat, of course). With this election, all that has changed. The BJP is becoming the "natural party of governance" in Central and North Western India, building a solid bulwark from Orissa to Gujarat. The Congress is facing wholesale disaster in Maharashtra and has managed a half hearted mandate in Rajasthan. The BJP is also set to take advantage of the political mess in Jharkhand and Nitish Kumar seems to be holding in Bihar. As part of the long term picture, the Congress party is getting boxed into a strip of land around Delhi (Delhi-Punjab-Haryana), much like the Mughals in their last years.

The convincing nature of the BJP's victory in Madhya Pradesh has taken everyone by surprise and brought much fanfare to the humble Shivraj Singh Chouhan, one of the less fancied politicians in the country. The Chief Minister deserves much praise for singlehandedly bringing the party out of doldrums in the state. Less than a year ago, when the BJP suffered humiliating defeats in Khargonne and Sanwer Lok Sabha constituences, most pundits had written the BJP off. The Congress sensed the surge and called on its cadres to do an encore at a massive workers rally in Chhindwara. Then something changed: the people's Chief Minister decided to get involved. He stemmed the rot by camping for a month in Betul for the Assembly bypoll and gave the BJP some breathing space ahead of the election. Then, two months before the election, Chouhan began his "Aashirwaad Yatra". Although the Chief Minister's soujourn was captured by few television cameras, reports of rural mobilisation in response to Chouhan's reassuring message of continued, diligent development continued to surface throughout. Chouhan's tour transformed the electoral landscape completely; forcing comparisons of the former's developmental image with Digvijay's dysfunctional regime. Once the mood in MP had become more conducive to the BJP, changing party candidates projected the cathartic approach of the party and negated local anti-incumbency.

Chhattisgarh followed much the same script; a "humble" Chief Minister with halting English who was fluent in the language of the masses, the message of continued development, new faces in the list of candidates and a sweet victory for the BJP. The election also showed the BJP's lock on the tribal vote and a much mellowed Ajit Jogi freely conceded that the Congress inability to appeal to the tribals had cost them the election. The BJP swept Bastar and almost all of South Chhattisgarh, affirming that tribals across the country, once a Congress core constituency, had switched over to the BJP nationwide. The stability of the tribal votebank makes them a precious asset to the BJP, be they the tribals of Gondwana, Jhabua, Dang, Amravati, Surguja, Ganjam, Mewar or the Scheduled Tribes down south in Karnataka.

The BJP's victory in Chhattisgarh is also a firm, democratic affirmation for the pro-national Salwa Judum. Although it is a pity that Congress leader Mahendra Karma who mooted the idea of the Salwa Judum ended up losing his seat, the nationalist stance of the voters has silenced many critics. The verdict is a fitting retort to the storm of misinformation created by zealous Indian liberals who have made a career in the West out of misrepresenting the unusually tolerant Hindus as the most bigoted people in the world. Documentary after documentary showed smug "human rights" workers hurling invective and prevarication at hysterical, sloganeering Salwa Judum rallies, but conveniently forgot to translate the slogan of "Bharat Mata ki jai" that was actually being raised at those events for the benefit of Western audiences. Of course, no one suspects that the people's verdict will cause Arundhati Roy and her ken to drop their anti-national stance, but one can hope she will be taken a little less seriously.

On the whole, the BJP seems to have done reasonably well in protecting two incumbent governments and seems to have discovered a workable formula for retaining power. Since most the lethargy, bureaucracy and corruption exists at the local level, MLAs tend to accumulate a fair bit of incumbency baggage. If the party can provide a leader at the helm who can be seen as a serious proponent of development, incumbency need not necessarily disable a party in the election. The other achievement for the BJP is the creation of solid regional leaders with a following all their own. The party has perfected the art of transforming lightweights into public icons: Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Raman Singh, Vasundhara Raje and B S Yediyurappa. Even the formidable Narendrabhai Modi used to hang around in the back alleys of the BJP's office at Ashok Road in New Delhi before he was catapulted into the Big League. The Congress structure of starving upcoming leaders of opportunity in order that all glory may lie with the divine family is the real reason why the party does not name its Chief Ministerial candidate ahead of an election. In this respect Sheila Dikshit has set a new standard of courage by not thanking Sonia Gandhi even once after the results in Delhi. We'll drink to kind, old, endearing Sheila ji ! And please, please change the age old Punjab alcoholic beverages act to bring the drinking age in New Delhi down to 18 from 25, if you can!

Assembly Polls -I : Congress celebrates as BJP falls short of its own expectations

2008-12-19T10:07:00.007-05:00

The Congress and the BJP had approached the latest round of Assembly elections very differently. On the one hand, the Congress was ready to take whatever it could get, even though the party was supposed to be on the offensive in 3 states. On the other, the BJP set itself up for disappointment, happily anticipating a 4-0 result, even though it walked in with 3 incumbent governments. The race ended in a dull draw; the BJP forgot to celebrate its spectacular victory in 2 states, while the Congress workers could not care less that their party was steamrolled a second time running in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

Delhi has the state that soured it most of all for the BJP. The BJP had been on a high in the state, sweeping the Municipal polls a year ago; even in August, BJP insiders had been assured that the party had a 5% lead over the Congress. All they had to do was grab the cake and eat it. For the BJP, this was a case of a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. They named the wrong leader, paid heed to the wrong people while distributing tickets and even drummed up the wrong issues. It is fitting that disappointed BJP workers shouted slogans against Chief Ministerial candidate V K Malhotra when results were declared on Dec 8. V K Malhotra never quite had the charm of the suave Sheila Dikshit. Sheila Dikshit, despite her advanced years, speaks to those that talk about the future of Delhi, while Malhotra is a left over from the Punjabi politics of old.

Again, it wasn't entirely Malhotra's fault. He did what he knew best and that was the politics of old. The party was wrong in picking him in the first place. This shows the lethargy of the BJP command in New Delhi. In 2003, the BJP brought Madan Lal Khurana back from the wilderness and asked him to take over the reigns. The party suffered. The BJP tried the same botched policy yet again in 2008. A hardworking man with a clean image such as Dr. Harshvardhan should have been put up against Sheila Dikshit. Dr. Harshvardhan singlehandedly worked to bring the party a spectacular victory in the MCD elections early last year. If the BJP stops rewarding honest political achievement like it once did, it will have to face many more setbacks. Also the BJP's Delhi bigwigs did not want to step up to the plate; Arun Jaitley wanted to be a "national leader" and Sushma Swaraj would rather be the chief of the party's campaign committee than hit the streets of Delhi.

That apart, the issues that the BJP raised did not resonate well with the people. Delhi is distinct from all other Indian states, a "made in media" state as Rajdeep Sardesai cleverly called it. Naturally, this means that the Delhi voter is more informed and sophisticated than any other kind of voter in the country. This includes, among other things, the ability to discern state issues and national issues and global trends from the failures of the state government. Sheila Dikshit realized that her party was sinking and on the campaign trail she challenged her detractors to find fault with her administration for the issues facing Delhi. The approach worked, principally because Dikshit's work and initiatives have been fundamentally good for the city. The people of Delhi knew better than to accuse her for the terror attacks in Delhi and elsewhere, even in the face of extreme provocation in Mumbai. Some "issues" that the BJP raised, such as suggesting that Sheila wanted to build a death trap for citizens by creating the Bus Rapid Transit corridor, actually insulted the intelligence of the voter.

Dikshit has proved a winner in every way possible. One might remember that she kept away from the campaigning for the MCD polls last year; a clever ploy that allowed her detractors in the Congress to squabble in full public view and commit political suicide. She never had to take the blame for the Congress defeat in the MCD and she even went so far as to publicly congratulate the BJP on its resurrection. In Dec 2003, she had to suffer a humiliating 10 day wait after winning the election as party insiders tried to ambush her behind closed doors; she made sure that would not happen again.

Vasundhara Raje has every reason to feel sorry for herself, since she has been the only incumbent Chief Minister who has had to put in her papers after these elections. Apparently the last minute visit to the deity in Banswara has had not had an effect. Even before the results came out, the BJP had been nervous about Rajasthan. The party had won the state by a mere 2.5% margin in 2003, a margin that many would argue, would be impossible for an incumbent government to defend. Add to that a horrible caste war and a 78-95 loss does not seem so bad for the BJP after all. Rajasthan has a history of rotating governments and a 17 seat gap is one of the thinnest margins ever in the state. Besides, one must note that, technically, the Rajasthan Assembly is hung (a fact that many media outfits seemed to forget as Rajasthan was included as a Congress "victory" without much reflection; although the BJP did not get similar treatment when it was merely 4 seats away from power in Karnataka this year) Compare it to the 120-53 victory that the BJP achieved in 2003 and you see why Vasundhara Raje has no reason to be ashamed of herself.

Sure, the BJP failed itself in ticket distribution. The party held back decisions till the last minute, created lots of confusion and suspense, dropped lots of sitting MLAs, but it didn't quite work in the end. Chief Minister Raje didn't have a free hand in ticket distribution and had to defer to part "elders", who despite having no electoral worth whatsoever, were able to unduly influence the nomination process. The difference could not have been more stark; the exhilerating response to Vasundhara's rally on Nov 6 filled BJP workers' hearts with enthusiasm, while the same people were glum and complaining the day the party nominees were named. The common BJP worker and his Chief Minister have every reason to feel let down by their party. There have never been more favourable circumstances in Rajasthan for a ruling party going into elections and the BJP was unable to make the most of the goodwill for Raje.

The positive for Raje is that she has become a mass leader, a far cry from early 2003, when many suspected her ability to connect with the people. The party's top leadership has taken cognizance of the difficulties she faced and will, in all likelihood, give her a lot more say when the Lok Sabha polls are held next year. Since Lal Krishna Advani, unlike Vajpayee, has only nationwide recognition and instead of nationwide appeal, he will have to rely on state leaders to deliver for him. And Rajasthan is what many would consider "a natural BJP state". After losing badly to the Congress in the Rajasthan polls of 1998, the party rebounded spectacularly in the Lok Sabha polls held less than a year from that date. The Congress has secured a reluctant madate from the people and has already put a foot wrong by installing Gehlot, a man much disliked by the Jats. Hardly anyone in Rajasthan voted to bring back Gehlot's unresponsive administration.

(We deal with Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh in the next part)

Terrorists claim more casualties as heads roll in Congress

2008-12-06T17:48:00.002-05:00

The Congress led UPA Government at the Centre has finally found itself under pressure to act. After the second attack in New Delhi months ago, the government promised to set up an anti-terror agency and Cabinet Minister Kapil Sibal assured the nation that the government was moving its feet. It turns out that those feet were made of solid lead.

Stung to the quick by public outrage over the Mumbai terror attacks, the Congress has had to remove the most notorious of its lazy figureheads. Senior Gandhi family loyalist Shivraj Patil, having disgraced the Home Ministry for four long years, has had to put in his papers. The same fate has befallen Vilasrao Desmukh, who between hopping socialite parties in South Mumbai and pushing for his son's movie career, has never taken affairs of state very seriously.

There are two questions here, one obvious and the other more subtle. The obvious question is why the underperformers in question had not been previously removed. Does it take scores of terrorist attacks, culminating in a 60 hour showdown in the financial capital of the country to remove a Union Minister who, time and again, has been rated as the worst government functionary, a man who has neither administrative ability, political acumen nor mass support.

The weakness of the UPA government actually follows from a political culture created way back in 2004. After the rousing victory of the Congress and its allies, the winners took the extraordinary step of excluding the enthusiastic new leaders from the administration. Those such as Ambika Soni, Jaipal Reddy and even Kapil Sibal were either excluded from the ministry altogether or pushed into unimportant positions. Young leaders such as Milind Deora, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Sachin Pilot and Jitin Prasad were also kept away, for fear that they would steal the thunder from the Congress' highly unintelligent heir apparent: Rahul baba. Instead the group of people who were summoned to New Delhi to govern the country were mostly die hard Gandhi loyalists, leaders of a bygone era. The plan was to make the country slide backwards into 1980.

The second, more subtle question is what actually impelled the government to act to remove its senior functionaries. Was it public pressure or media pressure? There is an uncomfortable class war issue underlying the Mumbai episode that needs to be addressed. After the 26/11 attacks, those in the elite media realized that their own lives were under threat as well and that their support for the human rights of terrorists had not earned them sympathy of radical Jihadis. Much to their horror, they figured out that terrorists understood the power of symbolism and henceforth would be more likely to attack "high value targets" instead of taking the cheaper human lives on footpaths and temples. Notice that the media, the fourth estate of democracy, is actually the least democratic of all. Ironically enough, it always seems to be the most democratic of them all...the true voice of the people. Therein lies the danger.

The Mumbai Eye Opener-II : India Attacked

2008-12-06T12:27:00.004-05:00

India has been attacked and India needs to respond. The Indian government must take action before the whole world loses respect for us. Minister Pranab Mukherjee started proceedings by declaring that "all options are on the table". In this article, we take stock of all the possibilities that lie before the Indian state.

First and foremost, we must mention that there are two options that are so dangerous that they are altogether unthinkable. One of them is nuclear war. The other is doing nothing at all.

Fortunately for us, the ruling UPA government is scrambling to keep some of its dignity alive as Lok Sabha elections loom on the horizon. And the BJP is, as always, advocating a tough stance on terror. Finally, it does appear that we can have some consensus on the issue. But, as I wrote in part I below, unless Indian Muslims come out of denial/complain mode and Hindus start putting country above caste, very little can be achieved.

1. External measures/options: (a) Conventional war with Pakistan: Although this might seem like a very satisfying option after all that "they" have done to our beloved cities, it is not very clear what such a conflict would achieve. What would be the war aims of India going into a conflict like this? Would it be similar to America's war aims in Iraq? And most importantly, how would the military ensure that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is neutralized at the very outset? With a pacifist President in the White House and the US military facing a difficult challenge in Afghanistan, it is almost impossible to see how India could carry world opinion on its side.

(b) A war of "limited aims": The much more viable option is for India to mount missile strikes on specific locations in Pakistan which are marked out as terrorist camps/hideouts. How much this can achieve depends, to a large extent, on the diplomacy that accompanies such a move. Right now, world opinion is on India's side. It is up to Indian diplomats to translate this into some support for real measures.

The biggest imperative is to get the United States on India's side. If India can ensure NATO support for anti-terrorist activities in Pakistan, India will have won most of the battle. The US has actually already come around to the idea that the epicentre of Jihad in Pakistan must be hit in order to make progress in the war on terror. The US military has already made several strikes in Pakistan and has openly declared that it does not consider it necessary to mention its intentions to the Pakistani authorities before striking inside Pakistani territory. The way ahead for India is to draw up a meticulous list of terrorist locations inside Pakistan and occupied Kashmir and furnish the list to the Americans.

Things will not move ahead from that point unless India itself undergoes a revelation. Terrorism is not a local problem limited to Pakistan; it is an all embracing global nightmare come true. This means that India must commit substantial forces to the US effort in Afghanistan and perhaps even to Iraq. Contributing troops to Afghanistan serves a dual purpose; one, it takes Indo-US relations to a whole new level and two; once Indian troops arrive in Afghanistan, America will lose almost all hope of getting any real cooperation from Pakistan in its war against the Taliban. This will drive Washington further to place its bets on India rather than Pakistan.

Unlike what one might imagine at first, targeted missile attacks on specific locations in Pakistan need not lead to war directly. As long as these attacks are carried out with clear intent and prior information in NATO diplomatic circles, Pakistan may not have face to declare war. In fact, such attacks will probably cause public anger in Pakistan to boil over and overthrow the fledgling government of Zardari, causing General Kiyani to take over the country.

The overthrow of Pakistan's "democratic" government is important for India. Zardari's government has legitimacy but no authority. And, contrary to what the West might think, offering moral support to Zardari's government will not make him any stronger inside Pakistan. The real reason Musharraf lost power was not because his authority had been illegitimate in the first place, but because the General came to be seen as a darling of the West and even, to some extent, a favourite of India. Therefore, in the current situation, Zardari's government basically provides covering fire to terrorists who rule the streets of Pakistan. The newly elected President may not be a terrorist, but his protestations about the sovereignty of Pakistan do get in the way of India's war on terror. In truth, Pakistan is a failed state and a problem for the world. A nation without an effective government aka "a failed state" has no legitimate claim to national sovereignty.

As such, the sooner Pakistan finds itself back under military rule, the better. Not only is it better to talk to the real rulers of Pakistan rather than some strawmen with no real authority, but it is also a lot easier to mobilize world opinion against a dictator.

2) Internal measures:

The building of effective public opinion

With 26/11, the debate on terrorism is over. It is time for us to draw conclusions. India has faced terrorism since the early 90's. The attacks have only multiplied in frequency, intensity and audacity. The media and the middle classes must make up their minds now. This will require a sea change in attitude of the people towards the so called debate on terrorism.

First, the liberal media must stop making excuses for Islamic terrorism. This is in sharply contrary to their current stance, in which anything goes, any view is aired, no matter how anti-national or inflammatory. No sooner is India struck by a terrorist attack, the media lunges forward with the standard "excuses": Babri Masjid, Gujarat riots and almost anything that can be used to lash out at the favourite whipping boy: the BJP and Sangh Parivaar. Blaming the BJP and the larger Sangh Parivaar for a conspiracy of global proportions is truly preposterous and belittles the intelligence of the public.

There is a rot that runs through the Indian media. This rot is an elitist craving to be seen as neutral and detached from the situation on the ground, from the emotions of the unwashed masses. This rot is a deep desire to be seen as internationalists even as the nation comes under threat. For the liberal media, this is an itch that needs to be scratched. Their contempt for the Indian nation is apparent at many levels; from their deliberate inability to pronouce Indian names correctly to their lack of desire to speak up as Indians first in any situation. From watching them, you would get the chilling impression that they want to believe in age old Western stereotypes about India.

Strengthening police and paramilitary forces

The Indian police is woefully underequipped understaffed and yes, underpaid. The low profile, the low respect and the low pay of Indian law enforcement agencies accounts for much of the corruption and low morale among the forces. The average Indian policeman is the most unenviable person in the whole world; he has a gruelling daily beat, career growth simply does not exist for him, he does not have good weapons and he has to shoulder the blame for everything.

Take, for instance, the case of inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, who bravely laid down his life in the line of duty while fighting terrorists in Delhi. The media paid him cursory respect and then got down immediately to bad mouthing the Delhi police and calling the Batla house encounter a case of police atrocity. Few saw the irony when the same mediapersons made much of criticizing Narendrabhai Modi for shedding crocodile tears over the death of ATS Chief Hemant Karkare. Presumably, the media had wiped away its own crocodile tears over Inspector Sharma a few days ago.

The solution is widely expand the powers of the police with regard to terrorism. The solution is to provide them with top of the line equipment, both lethal and non lethal weapons and access to world class intelligence. The imperative is to build trust in our police and law enforcement agencies. Certainly, there is perhaps no Indian who has never paid out a petty Rs. 20 bribe to a policeman, but there is also no Indian whose life has not been made safer by the sacrifice of a brave policeman.

Special Protection Groups for each major city

Every Indian state capital (including the states in the perilous North East) and other major cities deemed terror targets need to be protected by their own special forces, which have been specially trained to fight terrorism. This would entail a loss of several civil liberties. But India has a nuclear armed failed state on its western border and a monster waiting on its northern frontiers. Indians must trade away some civil liberties if they are to live through this geopolitical nightmare.

Sealing the Eastern and North Eastern borders

The border with Bangladesh is another of India's major concerns. To make matters worse, the Indian side of Bengal is ruled by parties whose anti-national leanings are all too well known and whose operatives are more than glad to flood India with enemies. Even so, the Border Security Force and the Indian Army which answer to India and not to the CPI(M) should be given the capability to effectively seal the porous frontier. At the same time, Assam faces a major demographic invasion and unless the invasion is stopped and the anti-nationals are repatriated to their undemocratic Islamic homeland, India cannot breathe easy.

The Mumbai Eye Opener-I

2008-11-23T07:01:00.010-05:00

The terrorist attacks of November 26 are, above all, a scathing indictment of the Indian people, our attitude and our state. They are a slap on the face of everything that India stands for and everything, that we, as the citizens of of the same democratic nation must accept blame for. If the flames on the Mumbai skyline will not open our eyes, what will? It is time to deliberate on where we stand as a nation, ask the toughest questions and accept that many of those questions will have dark answers. In this first part, the Oracle speaks about the role of the people in the aftermath of this tragedy; in a later part, we will discuss what the state should do in response.

The attacks of 26/11 are distinct from any other terrorist attack in recent history; they are an attack not on the people per se, but on the glittering symbols of Indian success and pride.

1. Stop blaming the politicians: One of the knee jerk responses that the Indian people have come up with in wake of the tragedy and one that the usually partisan English language media has declared as "safe and civilized" is an all out anger against politicians. Our politicians are a reflection of our own people. The politicians don't think about the big issues because we don't.

Politicians are not trying to divide us, it is we the people who are divided. Politicians have their finger on the pulse of the people; they know the fissures in society that exist and they act accordingly. Take for instance the events of the last few months: The despicable Gujjar-Meena conflict kicked off again in the summer in Rajasthan, leading to mindless violence. Overnight, India had some new politicians and political formations: Col. Bhaisla, the two new factions of the Gujjar Mahasabha and so on, while other diminuitive characters such as Kirori Lal Meena assumed immense importance overnight. None of this would have ever come about if the Gujjars and Meenas had seen themselves as anything more than Gujjars and Meenas respectively. In Rajasthan, the Congress fears to name Ashok Gehlot as the formal CM candidate: why? Because the Jats do not like Gehlot!

On the flip side, take note of the recent row in Mumbai over the "influx" of "North Indians" (quotes intended to emphasize the dubious use of words such as "North Indian" and "influx"). This is not the first time this row has been raised and each time it has failed to evoke a real public response. That is the main reason the Shiv Sena, despite having covert sympathies with the Marathi Manoos line, by and large, kept out of the recent agitation. The anti-North Indian stance cannot be translated into votes, because the people of Mumbai, by and large, reject this proposition. Politicians cannot divide the people if they do not choose to be.

Or, consider the time when Ram Vilas Paswan, buoyed by a windfall in Bihar in early 2005, decided to approach the election that November with the issue of having a Muslim CM. His efforts came a cropper, because the people of Bihar are not sufficiently divided on communal lines to warm up to his cause. Similarly, when the BJP carried out a viciously divisive campaign in the interiors of Uttar Pradesh in 2007, they were roundly thrashed because the "Ram Lahar" that the party had ridden to power in the 90's was nowhere to be seen. Instead the sands had shifted and people wanted to be divided with Brahmin and Dalit on one side and Muslims and Yadavs on the other. It is noteworthy that in the same election, the incumbent Mulayam Singh suffered only a marginal drop in vote share, while the opposition BJP lost comprehensively. And again, when Sonia Gandhi tried to revive the KHAM (Kshatriya-Harijan-Adivasi-Muslim) in Gujarat in December 2002, the Congress was wiped out.

Lesson Number One: It is the people who are polarized and it is people who must take the blame.

2. Tough questions to ask:

Why did it take an attack of this magnitude to wake up the nation to the reality of terror?

Calling the Mumbai attack India's 9/11 is the most shameful indictment of India that is ever possible. The 9/11 attack on the USA has two distinct aspects (a) It was the first ever major terrorist attack on US soil (the WTC had been attacked before, but the magnitude was never big enough) (b) It pushed the American public to take vigorous steps to ensure that something like that would never happen again. The Mumbai terror attack does not fit under part (a) and whether it can be filed under part(b) remains to be seen.

The question is why the people of India did not read the threat when the streets of Jaipur, or Ahmedabad and even Delhi were bespattered with blood? Why did the threat have to be spelt out in fire on the Mumbai night sky? Despite the serial bomb blasts in Jaipur, caste was the number one issue in the Rajasthan polls until December, not terrorism.

Are we a nation that thinks only about the small issues?

The question of existence as a nation dwarfs the issues of daily life, the so called "Bijli-Pani-Sadak". It is true that India has a lot of poverty and that life is difficult for many Indians, but are we so caught up with these petty struggles that we cannot spare a moment to think about the nation? Two generations ago, the people of India lived in even greater poverty and despair; yet they had the zeal in them that got this country free. Today, when Indians can see for themselves that India can become a world power in this very generation, do we not have the courage, the strength to think beyond the bread and butter issues?

Do we need to rethink secularism?

The purpose of this question is to countenance the practice of "political secularism" that is stifling the country. Secularism, by definition, means that the state does not adopt the practice of any religion in public life, an ideal that is eminently laudable, a jewel of democracy. But can religion be used as an excuse for deviating from national interest?

It is interesting to reflect on the true underpinnings of the idea of secularism. Religion gives laws for people to live by and different religions give different laws; and yet the secular state stands apart from religion and enacts laws that are based on common sense and humanism rather than superstition. Secularism, therefore, does not mean "equal respect for all religions"; rather it means "equal contempt for all religions".

So, why is it that in India we have different standards for different religions? Why does the Indian state allow certain religions and Islam in particular to have special status? Why does India not have a common civil code? Does the Indian constitution still, consciously or unconsciously, promote Dr. Iqbals' "two nation theory"? Should the modern Indian state pander to the caprices of a desert religion that has not moved forward in thirteen hundred years? Should the Indian state, for instance, tolerate barbaric practices such as "triple talaq", discriminatory inheritance laws and even disgraces such as polygamy all in the name of respecting religion? Does it not make the Muslims feel like they are a law unto themselves and suggest to them that their fraternal bond with Muslims from Pakistan to Sudan is actually stronger than their roots in India?

In order to purge India of its weaknesses, we the people must confront our failings first. Our state, our police, our judiciary reflect badly on us. We have become all too used to paying our respects to martyrs and singing patriotic songs in their honour and of course, blaming the politicians for everything. People have the power to change even as they sit in their homes or go about their daily business; the change lies in the attitude, the desire to succeed and the aptitude for enterprise. For many, Narendrabhai Modi of Gujarat is a symbol of communal hatred, yet the same hawk of Hindutva turned comprehensively to development and economic growth in 2007. This change was brought about by the attitude of the people of Gujarat, who wanted progress in the long run, not riots.

But we need more change. We need to change attitude. The Mumbai terror attack has shown us that if we are divided, or too absorbed in just getting by our daily routine, we will soon have no nation left. We need to demand more of life, more of our democracy and more of ourselves. Do you have a friend, a relative, an uncle perhaps who ever said something that belittled a person based merely on his/her caste/religion/gender? Have you confronted him/her with the accusation that his/her remarks are anti-national? Have you ever been too absorbed in sounding like the nice guy? When someone makes a remark like "every religion teaches peace"; have you demanded that he/she prove his assertion? Let us never believe anything without proof, without reason or rationale. It would give us the moral courage and moral authority to see through the barbarism of crazy violent "religious activities" and the smokescreen of political correctness.

Stop thinking, start dreaming?

2008-11-22T14:56:00.008-05:00

"How do you think the world would be different under Barack Obama?" was a question that Prannoy Roy recently posed while interviewing the formidable Henry Kissinger. In many ways it is a telling statement. As he spoke, Prannoy's face was radiant as that of a little child on a Christmas morning. The choice of words was also interesting: "the world under Barack Obama".

Prannoy's servility to Obama is symptomatic of what his media brethren have been doing across the world. For several months now, the media in most countries of the world have been drilling into the national psyche of their respective countries that Obama is some kind of messiah who is about to heal the world. Now avid reporting of an event so important as the US Presidential Election is understandable; but as the media began bleating for Obama, pleading with people as far as Agra to carry Obama-Biden stickers, the sense was more of nausea. The rest of the world does not vote in the Presidential election, neither should it; and hence it is important that the world media maintain a respectful distance from the process, refusing to take sides and dealing with the candidates strictly as they would deal with foreign leaders/heads of state.

Instead, the media from the rest of the world and the Indian media for the first time, barged into our living rooms, drumming into our people how important it was to "support" Obama. Now, what exactly does it mean for an Indian to "support" Obama? The US election is not a game of cricket (literally and figuratively!) that people can just choose to support a team. It is a democratic exercise meant exclusively for Americans. Instead, the media streamed in from various reaches of the American empire, pleading and begging for Obama. The independent foreign policy that was so zealously upheld through the last four years of nuclear diplomacy was undermined by the ready media campaign to sell to the Indian people the idea of being a US client state.

Barack Obama is perhaps the first politician who has been judged entirely by his campaign and not his actions. Now it is true that Obama represents a turnaround in the racial history of the US and his rise from a backwater to Harvard to the White House is a glowing tribute to the somewhat sullied notion of the American Dream. Yet, Obama is still a symbol, a man ushered in by the American people as an act of despair, a man who is as far removed from George Bush as could be. In the last two years, whiny Americans went from blaming everything, from the Shia Sunni conflict in Iraq to Hurricane Katrina on the policies of President Bush. What they failed to understand is that the US President does not act in isolation and there are events beyond his control. The Iraq war is a perfect example of American smugness; the American people were all for the war as long as it meant the US Marines pummelling an obviously much weaker nation to pieces. The war became unpopular only when fighting broke out in the alleys of Tikrit and Baghdad, killing Americans in large numbers. Instead of perceiving this as a challenge to their honour, most Americans advocated a speedy exit from the rough zone. It shows an allegiance not to the sense of purpose, neither to honour and diginity, but to convenience.

There has never been a perfect war. Things in the Iraq war went out of control for some time, and all that while, the worst inconvenience that Americans faced as their nation fought a war was high petrol prices! If Americans want to hold on to their numero uno status, they have to stop behaving like the fairy tale princess who felt the one pea through twenty mattresses and twenty feather beds.

It is particularly telling that the event that ultimately tipped the scales decisively in favour of Obama was the economic crash of October 2008. It just had to be Bush's fault. The fact that the endless, thoughtless spending by the American people, the tendency to buy everything... from houses to cars to clothes.... on easy credit rather than honest money has made middle class Americans as complicit in the crash as the executives on Wall Street, was wilfully ignored. Naturally, no candidate had the courage to tell the voting public that they had only themselves to blame for their miseries. For most of the population that was not otherwise obsessed with religion and the Bible, it was much easier to eject the Republicans and dope themselves with a dose of Obama. When you have whittled away your own riches and indeed those of your fathers owing to your whims, self deception is always the answer; just as the gambler who has just ruined himself will often take to drink.

In truth, Obama is still unknown and unproven, more like the new credit card everyone is excited about. "Live now, pay later" was a life philosophy that got Americans into a mess in which they lost their homes, their jobs and possibly their crown as the No.1 nation in the world. "Vote now, think later" is a policy that they might live to regret. As serious, professedly prestigious critical publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the International Herald Tribune debate among themselves which of the world's problems Obama will solve first, one can only beg the American public for a wee bit of sanity.

There are many wonderful things about Obama; he is as brilliant as can be, a powerful speaker and a plucky man who began as the less fancied candidate and then trumped the Clinton machine. His world view is also more inclusive than that of President Bush and his election can be taken as a net gain for racial equality across the world. If it were a perfect world, everyone should have voted for him.

But there are savages, in the Middle East and elsewhere, who see Obama's more civilized approach as an exploitable opportunity. It is up to Americans to make sure that their new President remembers that he is a partisan, a representative of America and its interests, rather than a man whose coming fulfils a prophecy. If Obama assumes office believing that he will be on the cover of every history textbook ever written, chances are he will leave the world worse than it is.

(The Oracle expects to come back to Obama, this time discussing more specifically, his position on India and Kashmir.)

The path to power- I : A fiery new dawn for India

2008-11-16T17:38:00.008-05:00

(Evaluating India's military and technological prowess today and in the days to come)

This week India became the fourth nation to plant its colours on the moon, behind the United States, Russia and Japan. On this momentous occasion, the Oracle starts a round up of the nation's defences, prospects and prowess.

1. First, with Chandrayaan: With the success of Chandrayaan-I, India has shown that it is capable of "getting it right the first time", which, indeed is a rare feat, even for the handful of nations that have access to the moon.

Although India reaching for the moon by itself can be compared to reinventing the wheel, one should not ignore that the mission has important scientific objectives, such as mapping the lunar poles and searching for Helium-3. By carrying instruments from NASA, ESA and the Bulgarian Space Agency along with instruments of its own, ISRO has shown that the spirit of national pride can be carried alongside the quest for scientific delights. In contrast, China's space programme has the sole objective of intimidating possible adversaries, a menacing aspect that debauches the spirit of science. The ISRO should be proud of having achieved this major distinction, which has underscored the moral superiority of democracy. Of course, the fact that the jealous Chinese questioned the success of the mission using familiar "reality control" techniques has been one of the most satisfying aspects of Chandrayaan.

2) Other space projects: With the success of Chandrayaan, the ISRO has suddenly found itself to be much fancied by the media and the youth. With the launch of Astrosat next year, India will have the largest fleet of civilian satellites. Next year, the ISRO also plans to launch "Bhuvan", India's very own version of Google Earth, except that Bhuvan is reported to have much greater capabilities, such as resolution as high as 10m (compared to 200m from Google Earth and 50m from Wikimapia) and the listing of mineral components at various layers of the earth. Now that ISRO has raised expectations, it will be hard to satisfy zealous young Indians unless the Government generously expands ISRO's budget.

And then there are other projects that are still on the drawing board: the building of the astronaut training centre at Devanhalli near Bangalore, the construction of the solar probe Aditya and shaping Chandrayaan-II. The ISRO needs to tread carefully with Chandrayaan-II, since the lunar rover for the mission is due to be supplied by the Russians, who have, of late proved to be capricious and unreliable allies.

3) Aerospace command: The long standing need for a separate Aerospace Command has been scuttled for far too long. Ironically, it is not an enemy, nor a lcak of money, nor a lack of planning that has kept us from accomplishing this. The issue comes down to petty rivalries between the three existing arms of the military. The other two wings of the military suspect that the Air Force will exert the most influence over the Aerospace command. It is pathetic that such a small issue can make such a difference to national security.

Despite having a huge civilian satellite system, and indeed the world's largest, India's military surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities are not significant, although the existing CARTOSAT-2A is believed to have some military uses. With the launch of Bhuvan next year, ISRO is expected to take another step towards building a remote navigation system that parallels the GPS used by NATO countries. So far, Indian efforts to build such a system jointly with the Russia, named the GLONASS, seem to be headed down a dead alley. The Russians have missed every single deadline on launching GLONASS satellites and the wait has been frustrating for India. Moreover, it is not advisable for India to have a remote navigation system jointly with Russia, since it compromises national security to the same extent as joining the GPS club with NATO would.

An aerospace command would bring projects such as remote navigation, spy satellites, etc. right to the fore. The competition has just been taken to a new level, since China has now demonstrated that it is capable of knocking satellites out of orbit. Stung by the Chinese leap, the US scrambled to put together its own system, which it finally test fired in Fenbruary this year. Currently, only the US, China and Russia possess an anti satellite weapon. India is behind. Although there have been efforts by all civilized nations to impose a moratorium on miltarization of space, given the human nature, militarization of space is an inevitability. India cannot ignore this reality.

4) The Air Force: Of late, the concerns about the state of the Air Force have become so severe that they have spilled out of the domain of geeky news gatherers into the consciousness of the general public. Although India's Air Force is sizeable and easily one of the most powerful in the world, the Air Force suffers from a lack of modern machines and from bureaucratic lethargy. There have been delays in ordering new planes when needed, although the government seems to have finally moved its rear end on this issue (but the Congress has still outperformed the BJP; the BJP could not even make sure the entire military budget was spent in 2002-2003).

India has made noises about acquiring more Russian aircraft, some of the Swedish Gripens and even the still somewhat mythical "Eurofighter" that is under construction. At the core of the problem is that India's plane manufacture capabilities are still nascent, a pity considering the fact that even the motley Swedes have the technology to make the versatile Gripen fighter.

Of late, however, India's technological establishment has seen a rise in prestige, which is, of course, contingent upon some success. The HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft is almost ready to be commissioned, since both the technology demonstrators seem to have performed successfully. The HAL Light Combat Helicopter is also due to be delivered in March 2009, a delay of three months from the target date of Dec, 2008. India is also rumoured to be close to completing the "Medium Combat Fighter" that will significantly increase India's strike capabilities.

Notwithstanding these gains, there remain even larger concerns over the availability and manufacture of the "less glorious" but essential units of the Air Force, such as training aircraft and heavy carriers. Currently, Lockheed Martin is building six C-130 Hercules planes to be delivered to India, as part of a $596 million deal. Once again, the key requirement of self sufficiency has not been met.

5) The Missile Programme: India's missile programme has registered some success in recent years, thus redeeming to the DRDO to some extent. After the embarrassing initial failure of Agni-III, the DRDO has successfully retested this missile, an act that has caused some heartburn in China. Nevertheless, the missile has not been inducted into the military as yet and hence most of the Chinese mainland is still out of reach for India. However, the stratagem of focussing on larger payload and lesser range has been a partial success, since India's potential enemies are located around its own borders, while the Chinese have had to strain themselves with building missiles that can fly all the way to the United States. This is in line with India's initial aim of establishing itself in Asia and then planning for worldwide power projection.

It is for this moment that India must prepare. Although government officials are yet to confirm its existence, India has been working on an ICBM for a while now, since 1991, according to some reports. The ICBMs Surya-I (and II) are expected to use India's GSLV rockets and Surya-I should be on display in a couple of years. The truly magnificient Surya-II, with its truly massive payload that will make it the most devastating in the world, is not due for a few years.

For now, India has to be satisfied with its Inter Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM). A nuclear arsenal is almost a white elephant unless a country possesses the requisite delivery system. India cannot rely on planes to deliver its nuclear bombs. The Agni missile is fully capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, but the missile itself must undergo more tests before it can be pronounced fully reliable.

No assessment of India's military capabilites is complete without the mention of the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile. The missile has helped India's reputation grow manifold. Apart from this, India has readied the nuclear capable K-15 Sagarika submarine launched ballistic missile that is expected to be fitted onto the nuclear submarines (ATVs) when they enter service at the end of the next year.

(To be continued... focussing on the Army and the Navy in the next part)

Nitish, Laloo and Paswan start a childish game in Bihar

2008-11-08T21:14:00.006-05:00

The recent events in Bihar and Maharashtra have started a kangaroo game in both states as have exposed the compulsions of national parties. Pictured above are Nitish Kumar, Lalu Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan, with Sushil Modi cut off on the left, which is a metaphor for how the BJP has been feeling in Bihar. The recent slanging match between the regional leaders of Bihar and Maharashtra have resulted in a crisis of credibility in both states. The Oracle looks at how each of the major players in Bihar has maintained ship in the political storm.

1. The JD(U): To his credit, the Bihar Chief Minister has tried his best to keep his stand consistent. As in the recent crisis with alliance partner BJP, the Kosi barrage disaster, the Chief Minister has proved to be a deft political player in the furore over Raj Thackeray's actions. In the three years he has been in power, Nitish Kumar has consistently worked to maintain the separate identity of the JD(U) within the NDA and has easily shrugged off the "communal forces" tag. He has actually kept the BJP at arm's length from getting a real say in government. His excellent relations with the Dy. CM Sushil Modi have helped him pull off political moves that are manifestly to the BJP's disadvantage. During the Kosi Barrage disaster, when the Bihar government faced serious allegations of negligence, Nitish Kumar kept a straight face, warded off Lalu and Paswan's criticism and maintained that all he wanted to address was the issues of the people rather than the mudslinging of mean minded political enemies.

The approach has worked for him this time as well. The Chief Minister stoutly refused to share a dias with the Shiv Sena's Uddhav Thackeray at the NDA "Sankalp rally" in Sonepat (as did Uddhav); and asked his five Bihar MPs to quit. He did not pressure his ally BJP to follow suit and refused to give much reaction to Laloo Yadav's demand that the Chief Minister himself, along with his MLAs, quit the Bihar Assembly in order to put up a united face. Even when Laloo followed this up with a personal attack on the Chief Minister, calling him a "kursi chipku", Nitish Kumar calmly suggested that the Railway Minister should resign if he indeed felt so strongly about the situation in Mumbai. The RJD supremo refused to make his own MPs quit and did not quit himself. In the end, Laloo Yadav's attack was too personal, too hypocritical to make an impact and it fizzled out. Nitish Kumar wins again.

2. The BJP: The BJP is the second largest party in the state, a fact that almost everyone, and most often the BJP High Command, seems to forget. Granted that the BJP was in an unenviable situation on the Raj Thackeray issue, but there was no reason for the party to take itself out of the picture. There was no reason for the BJP not to make itself heard as a voice of sanity and national unity. Perhaps the BJP did not lose points by keeping mum, but it does not augur well for the organization.

The principal offender here is Dy. CM Sushil Modi. Time and again, he has faced charges from party workers in Bihar that he has allowed the JD(U) too much leeway. There was a time when the BJP was seen as an "aggressive ally", one that could wean away your support base by joining hands with you. Then the party adopted "coalition dharma" and everything changed. The BJP, which holds fort in large swathes of rural Vidharbha, Marathwada allows the Shiv Sena to walk all over it, even though the latter is essentially limited to Mumbai and Konkan. In Bihar, the BJP has chosen to be submissive once again. It was Arun Jaitley who had strung together the alliance of independents that led to the Bihar Governor Buta Singh dissolving the Bihar Assembly. Even Laloo Yadav charged, shortly after, that these independents were about to join the BJP (of course, independents are forbidden by anti-defection laws from joining political parties, but since when does the RJD care about laws?). When it came to the election however, the independents were subsumed largely into JD(U), further shrinking the BJP's space in the state. The man who smiles and waves as these things happen is Sushil Modi. There is little anyone can do to prevent Sushil Modi from doing to the Bihar BJP what Lalji Tandon did to the party in Uttar Pradesh during Mayawati's tenure.

In summary, the BJP has missed a major opportunity to flaunt its "India-first" credentials. The party had a chance to pressurize both JD(U) and Shiv Sena into a solution that would effectively have isolated Raj Thackeray, or better still, tossed him into the Congress-RJD court. Instead, the party isolated itself, mentioned that it was neutral towards regional interests and waited for the fires to die down.

3) The RJD : Following his rejection by the people, Bihar's mascot of backwardness has sought to reinvent himself as star Railway Minister. Laloo Yadav is a lucky man. After a 15 year term in Bihar, he has had a life extension as Cabinet Minister. But even the best of times come to an end. Even if the UPA returns somehow, Laloo Yadav will have nowhere near the strength he had in the outgoing Lok Sabha.

Laloo Yadav knows this and he is desperate. "Bihari pride" has been an issue he has always wanted to harness, but has never been able to quite turn into votes. Some years ago, Yadav showed up defiantly at the India Today Conclave where Bihar was to receive the dubious distinction of being the most backward state and delivered a scathing speech wherein he blamed the backwardness of Bihar not on himself but on the rest of the country! He has even tried to play up a chance remark of Atalji : "Main Atal hoon magar Bihari nahin hoon". However, the ploy has never really worked for him, perhaps because people tend to take pride only in development and not in backwardness.

On the Raj Thackeray issue, Laloo has been upstaged by Nitish. The Bihar Chief Minister has stayed consistent and pulled out his MPs to build up pressure on the Centre. The onus is now on Laloo to make sure that the Congress and the NCP, his friends in the UPA who run the show in Maharashtra act against Raj Thackeray and indeed, in the interests of the country.

The students who attacked railway property in Barh were venting their ire against the Railway Minister who couldn't protect the interests of Biharis. It does not augur well for the RJD. Laloo Yadav tried to be too dramatic and failed.

4. The LJP: Ram Vilas Paswan has been looking for a perch in politics ever since he was rejected by all kinds of people in Bihar. His demand for a Muslim CM in the last election was far too obviously opportunistic to win him many votes. With Laloo Yadav forced to shift base to Delhi from Patna, there was little left for Paswan to do. It would be far too embarrassing to return to the NDA fold and sour relations with Laloo do not help. Therefore, Paswan's objective here is to mend fences with Laloo and, by sharing the spotlight with JD(U), RJD and BJP, give the impression that his party is on an equal footing with the bigger three. With Mayawati determined to seize a chunk of his core voters in the next election, there is little else for Paswan to do.

Even though Paswan had embarked on a strident "oust Laloo" campaign in 2005, he will now rely on the Congress to make sure he has a share in the UPA camp in Bihar in 2009. Fortunately, the UPA is on very slippery ground in Bihar and needs every last vote, so he will probably be offered some kind of arrangement. For now, the LJP wants to hang around Laloo Yadav, agreeing with him as much as possible.

Indian liberals find their holy grail: Hindu terrorist discovered?

2008-10-27T11:31:00.008-04:00

July 26, 2008: Islamic Jihadis bomb a hospital in Ahmedabad.

August 31, 2008: Islamic Jihadis take seven people hostage in Jammu, including four children aged between 2 and 9.

Sept 27, 2008: Islamic Jihadis hand over a live bomb to a nine year old boy, killing him.

As Islamic Jihad proceeded to break one humanitarian barrier after another, Indian liberals were feeling the heat. As people lay in the streets of Delhi, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Agartala and Guwahati, writhing in agony, the tide seemed to be turning against them. The liberals needed a game changer; and they got one.

Somewhat ironically, it was the Madhya Pradesh police, one of the several "communal police forces" in the country that gave them their deliverance. The boyish looking "Sadhvi" Pragya Singh was everything they wanted; a Hindu religious leader, an extremist with connections to the BJP. The extra icing on the cake was that she brought an Army man Lt. Col. Purohit in tow; since the liberal crowd has never taken too kindly to the Indian Army either, there was little reason not to celebrate. The outcome: the Malegaon attack, in which the Sadhvi was apparently involved, has now been reported on more than any other terrorist attack in India's history.

Since the national debate has now been pushed towards the issue of "Hindu terrorism", the Oracle has no choice but to say a word or two. Of course, I would much rather discuss building an advanced anti-meteorite defence system, because, quite frankly, an Indian stands a far greater chance of being killed by a meteorite than by a "Hindu terrorist".

The Sadhvi may be guilty, and it is quite likely she is. The larger question is whether the thesis : "Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist in a Muslim" has been disproved. Mathematically, yes! Statistically, no! With the Sadhvi's arrest, the possibility of a randomly chosen Indian terrorist being a Muslim has just fallen from 100% to 99.9% and, in all fairness, this little change should not be alowed to reflect on state policy. If anything, her arrest proves that Hindus in India are just beginning to lose faith in the protection of the state; which is all the more reason that Islamic terrorism needs to be dealt with convincingly. Since we in India spend a lot of time trying to understand the Muslim grievance, perhaps it is time we spared a thought for the Hindus.

It is harsh to say so, but the so called "Muslim grievance" seems to be a global phenomenon. Some Muslims, clerics in particular, seem to have taken it upon themselves to stay offended as a profession. The business of finding grievances seems to live rather well even on the most humble of provocations: such as a Muslim cabbie in New York being "offended" by a passenger carrying alcohol. The provocation could be a cartoon published in an innocuous Danish newspaper; a transgression in distant Denmark is used as an opportunity to typecast white persons, Western nations, Christians, Jews and indeed any other non believer as part of the same vast conspiracy against Islam. And then the logic is turned on its head to complain about Muslims not being greeted in the streets with a big smile the day after 9/11. The same sense of fairness that is used to demand more civil rights for the people of Kashmir (by ending special powers of the armed forces) is then debauched to justify ethnic cleansing of the valley by purging it of 500,000 pandits; a call for tolerance accompanied by a demand for holocaust, all rolled into one in the guise of Islam.

Even so, India has to face this monster of "Muslim grievance". This fire breathing monster runs riot in our streets, killing and maiming people every day. As pointed out in the previous paragraph, the monster has a global face and thus it is too much to expect of India to come up with a solution all on its own. India can do its part by making the nation as democratic as possible, but it is nevertheless important to keep the nation together. The Constitution won't stand if there is no nation left. The need of the hour is, therefore, to build respect for the law. A good way to start would be an act of Parliament that actually outlaws terrorist activities expressly.

The political consequences of the arrest of the Sadhvi are actually rather small. The people of India are too preoccupied with mourning their dead to actually wonder about the spectre of "Hindu terrorism" or what perils a handful of youth calling themselves "Abhinav Bharat" may bring to bear. The theme that will play out in rallies across the country is that of the very real threat of Islamic Jihad. The theme that will play out in the media is rather different. One could well say that the debate over terrorism has now been pegged back in favour of Islamic Jihad for at least a generation. In talk show after talk show and debate after debate, you will hear the cheerleaders of terrorism say: "A Hindu terrorist has also been captured. So anyone who thinks that Islamic Jihad is a problem should back off!". Unfortunately, more often than not, the way these debates go are reflected in the laws Parliament makes, which means that our fight against Jihad has suffered a setback.

Of course, no matter how disproportionate it is to the magnitude of Islamic terrorism, any signs of extremism in the Hindu majority are worrying signs for a nation that is looking to take off. It could get out of hand if the problems are not addressed. The correct approach to take would be to treat Islamic Jihad as a sordid disease such as malaria or smallpox that needs to be eliminated. Any effort to brand Islamic terrorism as India's fault is approximately on the same level as the medieval belief that leprosy is a form of divine retribution. Those such as Teesta Seetalvad, Arundhati Roy, Shabana Azmi or Shabnam Hashmi who preach this dangerous superstition should be treated as enemies of the people and of the democratic state.

BJP adopts revolving door policy: Can they make it?

2008-10-26T23:34:00.009-04:00

For a while now, I have been itching to write about the upcoming elections in the Hindi heartland; but have suffered because the two major parties have offered nothing to write about. From the manner in which the BJP and the Congress have been conducting themselves, you could hardly say that a major round of elections is just a few weeks away. Even when the Election Commission announced poll dates, the reality of the upcoming trials did not seem to register with either high command in New Delhi. However, the malaise in both political formations finally shows signs of abating; and some progress is being made.

The BJP, for its part, has finally managed to get off the mark and announced some candidates, mostly in Chhattisgarh and furnished the media with some vague pointers as to the overall nature of the party's preparations, expectations and candidates for the polls. The Oracle analyzes the BJP's state as follows:

1) The muted BJP campaign is in stark contrast to the euphoria of 2003. The party has realized that there is a difference between the campaigning as the incumbent and campaigning as the opposition. In 2003, Vasundhara Raje and Uma Bharati braved the heat and dust of the road in a brutal summer. This time, the BJP leaders have mostly stayed indoors; realizing that it was the Congress' turn to slog on the streets. The Congress, of course, was closeted in the even more comfortable environs of New Delhi and made no such effort. Besides, the BJP has been "lucky" in the sense that the Central Government has been pushed to the wall over rising prices and terrorism. A lot of the focus has been taken off the performance of its own state government. Going by the nature of the Indian electorate, incumbency is always a heavy cross to bear, even if the government has performed well; and the jury is still out on whether the BJP rule has resulted in a net gain for the states.

2) The BJP has also paid more attention to the views of its local units in the states in which it is the incumbent. This is also a departure from 2003, when Vasundhara Raje was handpicked by Mahajan to secure Rajasthan for the party while Uma Bharati was persuaded to go down to Bhopal and take charge. Once again, we see the BJP adopting a different tactic when it is the Opposition: in Delhi, the party has thrust V K Malhotra's candidature upon the organization, when the most deserving man for the job would have been the hard working and understated Dr. Harshvardhan.

In the heartland states, the party high command has also stayed away from the direct campaigning and left the state units to figure out their agenda on their own. In particular, the post of prabhari, to be occupied a calculating man sent by the BJP from New Delhi to micromanage the campaign, is conspicuous by its absence in all 3 heartland states.

3) A lot of media attention has been drawn to the BJP's new revolving door policy; the so called "Gujarat model". Assured of the still enduring appeal of its Chief Ministers, the party has commissioned internal surveys to obtain assessments of all MLAs from their constituents. The party promises to drop a third of its sitting MLAs to negate anti-incumbency at the grassroots level. By keeping these assessments secret, the BJP has managed to keep the MLAs on their toes and members of local party units enthused about their prospects of earning a party ticket. By announcing candidates only at the last moment, they have staved off the possibility of denied ticket seekers or unseated MLAs surfacing as rebel candidates, a phenomenon that hurts an incumbent party a lot more than it hurts the opposition.

Moreover, the BJP understands that Uma Bharti's BJSP has been waiting in the wings to snap up rebel BJP MLAs. The party has tried to contend with this situation by offering unseated MLAs tickets at the local level, or even berths in the "Zila Sarkars". Whether the party manages to keep from ripping at the seams once all candidates are announced remains to be seen.

4) Even with the best of strategies, the BJP will have a hard time defending three major states at once. For now, the party is putting up a brave face and even a hint of a swagger. This is partly due to the fact that major media organizations have not carried out their own opinion polls. For now, all projections in the media seem to come from anecdotal evidence. The BJP, for its part claims to have carried out its own meticulous surveys; itemized its strengths and weaknesses and analyzed its chances of victory. Though one could hasten to dismiss the BJP's talk of its own surveys as mere propaganda, we must remember that it was the BJP's own projections that came closest to the real picture the last time these states went to elections.

The BJP's biggest friend seems to be the utter disarray in the Congress camp. The Congress has been in two minds about its leadership in both Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. In Rajasthan, conflict continues between party chief C.P. Joshi and Ashok Gehlot. Although Gehlot seems to enjoy an advantage over Joshi, probably due to the former's proximity to Sonia Gandhi, he does not quite seem to be in control of the campaign. Also, in an election where anti-incumbency is the Congress' main plank, it does not make a lot of sense to bring back a leader that has already been set aside by the people. The people of Rajasthan unseated Gehlot five years ago; it is more likely that they would want to see a new leader as the agent of change, rather than a throwback to the past. A wildcard such as Sachin Pilot could have done a lot more to energize the party workers and the electorate. The Congress party's apathetic and ambiguous stand on the Gujjar issue that rocked the state a few months ago also hasn't helped. In fact, Bhaisla has all but called upon his supporters to vote for the Rani. Besides, Vasundhara Raje does seem to be capable of holding on to her grassroots appeal and still manages to hold huge rallies at a moment's notice.

In Madhya Pradesh, the Congress is, once again at a loss for leaders. And disunity does not help. When Sonia Gandhi rallied her party workers in Kamal Nath's constituency earlier this year, she repeatedly called on them to make common cause with each other. At one point there was a broad consensus that Suresh Pachauri should be projected as CM. But as Pachauri locked horns with the Chief Minister in a prestige contest ... and then lost a bypoll in the summer, he seemed to have shed some of his sheen.

The game in Chhattisgarh is being played out much more subtly. In the early years of BJP rule, the party's star had begun to fade rapidly. But in the last two years it seemed to be making large gains, even wresting seats from the Congress and BSP in tribal areas of the interior. In Chhattisgarh, the two parties have often found themselves in the same boat; defending against the ever present threat of Naxal violence. Even though tribals account for close to 50% of the state's population, the BJP has installed a non tribal Raman Singh as CM and the surprise is that this has not become a huge issue. This is made even more strange by the fact that the BJP swept the tribal regions in 2003, taking as many as 25 of 34 reserved constituencies; which therefore account for about half its tally of 51. As the election draws near, the BJP has been reminded of the influence of the disgraced Judeo in the crucial Jashpur region and the party has offered a ticket to Judeo's son Yudhvir Singh. Sonia Gandhi has also deployed one of her favourites, the wily Ajit Jogi to retake the state. This time, however, the contest is entirely bipolar, with leaders such as Vidhya Charan Shukla having faded into oblivion.

A lot of heat remains to be generated in this round of state elections. Of late the country has had too much talk of nuclear deals, uranium, inflation, credit crisis and too little of genuine electoral politics. The Oracle's heart yearns for the flavour of the older brand of non elitist, scorched earth campaigning. As the Hindi heartland steps up to vote, can we see some more of this?

Raj Thackeray breaks the sanity barrier

2008-10-25T16:10:00.007-04:00

The other day Laloo Yadav observed: "Raj Thackeray to full mental case ban gaye hain" (Raj Thackeray has a mental health condition) . One can't agree more. Now, politics watchers in India are a hardened lot; we have seen so much of nonsense and rabble rousing, even the worst kind of violence, that one does not expect to be taken completely by surprise. Remember when George Fernandes said cynically in Parliament, referring to the Gujarat riots: "Is this the first time in India that a daughter has been raped in front of her mother"? Even so, Raj Thackeray's achievement of pulling out a riot out of nowhere is truly remarkable.

As Raj's version of the Sena threw Mumbai into disarray, several points came to fore. On the question of whether people of Bihar, or any other part of the country, have an inalienable right to live and work in Mumbai, and on whether the people of Maharashtra enjoy reciprocal rights anywhere else in India, there is only one reasonable side in the debate. We will not go into this; rather we shall try to understand what hit Mumbai and why it did.

1) Raj Thackeray's lack of a support base is rather appalling. As I have observed so many times before on this blog, regional identities in India are on the wane; an appeal to regionalism just doesn't work any more. The dream of a common glorious future, apart from the hardships we face, and even the terrorism we suffer as a nation have brought the people together. When Balasaheb founded the Shiv Sena in 1966, there was still room for a middle class Marathi Manoos that wanted to live a sheltered life and enjoy the benefits of being in proximity to India's premier city. There are no sleepy classes in India any more. The mobilized masses of today have little patience for narrow minded struggles over linguistic and regional identity; most are energized by global dreams. As such, Raj's gambit is a mere throwback to the past; he himself is only a shadow of his illustrious uncle and as such, he is doomed to failure.

2) Given that Raj's party is a fringe player in Maharashtra politics, one may well ask how he manages to hold the entire state to ransom. In this both the Congress and the Shiv Sena are at fault. When Raj Thackeray broke away from the Shiv Sena, the Congress was understandably delighted. Raj's dissociation from what some may call his "ancestral party" and his very public spat with cousin Uddhav; coming on the heels of other high profile desertions from the Sena (from Bhaskar Jadhav to Sanjay Nirupam and even Narayan Rane) was supposed to bring the Shiv Sena to its knees.

That didn't happen. The Congress tried harder. When Raj Thackeray first embarked on his militant campaign to oust North Indians from Mumbai, the Congress kept mum. They expected that his foul mouthed utterances would wean away chunks of Sena support in Mumbai and the rest of the state. Each time Raj broke another law, the Congress stepped back a little more. And Raj's confidence kept growing.

Now that Raj has broken the sanity barrier, the Congress led government has finally put its act together and set the wheels of justice in motion. The Congress had tried to maintain a lackasaidal attitude this time around as well. When MNS goons attacked Bihari students in Mumbai, the Chief Minister cheekily told the media that the Railway should have asked for protection in advance if it had needed any. Should Mumbai be attacked tomorrow by terrorists, one wonders whether the Chief Minister will say "If the public needed any protection, they should have asked for it".

3) The Shiv Sena's role in this entire episode has been quite mysterious. Although the Left Parties have tried to play fast and loose with facts and accused the Sena itself and by extension, even the BJP, of being in cahoots with the MNS (one wonders how the Left feels about about the political culture of its own allies like RJD and BSP) the Sena has, in fact, stayed away from the MNS' campaign. In fact the only reaction from the Sena has been an article in Saamna by Balasaheb who has accused Raj of not being the "real" defender of the Marathi Manoos; fairly routine... no fireworks there.

What is surprising here is the restraint with which the Sena has attacked Raj Thackeray, especially if one compares it to the violent condemnation with which the party has treated other renegades. "Lakhobha" (Chhagan Bhujbal) and "Narya" (Narayan Rane) are still swear words in Shiv Sena rhetoric. At one time, Balasaheb used to greet dissenters with a defiant "Jao, chale jao!" (go, get lost!) When Bhaskar Jadhav deserted right before the 2004 Assembly Elections, the normally suave Uddhav called on his party workers : "Nestanabood kara" (destroy him!). In contrast Raj Thackeray has faced little vitriol from his party. Despite his departure, Raj refuses to criticize Balasaheb directly to this day and reserves his venom for cousin Uddhav. Neither does the Sena supremo respond in his familiar tone of voice. Is it because a section of the party itself, and even a part of their leader, is sympathetic to Raj and his Marathi rhetoric? One will never know unless the Sena says something.

At the time of Raj's last tirade, the Sena actually gave protection to some North Indian settlements in Mumbai. Apparently this has not happened this time around. Also, one wonders why the Sena, which is considerably stronger than Raj's ragtag army does not come out in the streets against the MNS. That the Sena refuses to engage Raj's men physically on the streets out of sheer respect for the law, is too much more than what one would logically expect from Shivsainiks.

4) Raj's activities have also sparked off a race in Bihar. The backward state is critically dependent on money sent home by manual labourers working in metros outside; its youth lives only to compete in nationwide examinations. The RJD and JDU are trying to outrun each other in condemning Raj Thackeray. Both are plagued by difficulties. While the RJD and its Congress allies have to accept blame for the loose handling of Raj Thackeray, the JDU and BJP will suffer from the perception that Raj is still very much toeing a core Shiv Sena line, albeit much more emphatically. Who will suffer the most is yet to be seen, but one would normally expect equal damage.

A final point that needs to be touched upon is the strange sentiment that seems to be sweeping Bihar that is not altogether different from Raj's. Although Laloo is the Railway minister and the former Chief Minister is wont to running things as though they were his personal fiefdom, the Indian Railway does not belong to Bihar or to Laloo in any sense. The mobs that torched trains at Barh station did seem to project a sense that Bihar has somehow more entitled to having its way with the Railways. Obviously the immediate guilt does not lie with them and they were responding to an extreme provocation. Rather, it is just another item in an aggravated behavioural pattern that has been observed in Bihar since 2004. Of course, such a sentiment is nothing new; the Railway in India is almost a state in itself and the sentiment of "our minister, our railway" has made its rounds around the country.

Mumbai did not become India's premier city in a day. The people of the city have steely resolve that has seen them through calamity and terror. And they have the people of India behind them. As I said before, we the people of India have been through a lot together. We have put a flag on the moon. Regional squabbles just do not register in our pschye any more. The Indian dream has begun; with the whiff of achievement, a thousand squabbles are forgotten.

Tamil Nadu seized by political storm

2008-10-18T16:45:00.004-04:00

As blood flows freely in Sri Lanka, the Indian government finds itself in a struggle of political interests and Tamil Nadu finds itself in a tizzy. In this particular crisis, it is particularly difficult for the Indian government to separate emotion from calculation and pragmatism from pride. The Oracle examines all of these complex questions, almost exclusively from the point of view of Indian interests and finds that there are hardly any good choices to made.

First, India needs to understand the emotion of her Tamil constituents. For all other Indians, the Tamils are family and hence India should prioritize the Indian Tamils' point of view in determining state policy towards the LTTE situation in Sri Lanka. First the Tamils of Sri Lanka do have a very good case against their government; they have long been oppressed, denied civil rights and even citizenship. The Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948 expressly prevented people of Indian and Pakistani origin from obtaining Sri Lankan citizenship. In fact, until 2002, people of Indian origin in Sri Lanka were not recognized as equal citizens even on paper. As such, the Tamil grievance towards the Sri Lankan government has a firm basis in fact. Not all militancy is equal; there is still such a thing as desperate people being forced to arms for self defence in a lawless land with a repressive government. The government of Sri Lanka should not be allowed to take advantage of the sweeping global sentiment against "terrorism" and masquerade its unjust, racist self as a legitimate government seeking to weed out enemies of peace; not when they denied civil rights on the basis of race a mere six years ago.

Revolutions tend to take on a life of their own. Although the LTTE was born out of legitimate grievances, it has spun itself into a hateful, murderous militant organization that holds down Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka with a iron hand. The LTTE turned against the IPKF many years ago and even went on to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi. The LTTE deals with dissenters such as Col. Karuna with a heavy hand and has a taste for extreme violence, blood and gore.

As such, the task of the Indian government is three fold:

a) To explain to the Tamils of India that the LTTE is a violent organization that has no respect for human rights and can only bring further poverty, despair and death to the Sri Lankan Tamils.

b) To make it clear to the Sri Lankan government that India will take any action necessary to ensure that Indian Tamils in Sri Lanka live are afforded with the fullest extent of civil, human and democratic rights once the LTTE has been wiped out.

c) To scare away the Chinese, who are looking at Sri Lanka to be another bead in the "string of pearls" they want India to wear. As such, India needs to step up its military presence in the region even further. As the United States increasingly looks to Colombo as the primary strategic station in South Asia, instead of Karachi in unstable Pakistan, India's task should not be too hard. Nevertheless, with the Chinese paying for a massive port in Sri Lanka, India needs to beware of the Chinese beachhead in the Indian Ocean.

President Rajapakse of Sri Lanka is a wily man; even as the United States, India and China eye his country for strategic goals, he is able to work with the major powers to his own advantage. Under the now universal bogey of fighting terrorism, he is flushing out the LTTE to make space for himself. He has repeatedly refused to mention what peace he would offer to Indian Tamils once the war is over. The war itself has been conducted with the bloody ruthlessness of an expansionist monarch, rather than with the cautious approach of a legitimate government that is conscious of human rights. The aims of his war have been, almost entirely territorial, rather than the enforcement of justice and law.

For India, this situation is simply unacceptable. Unless India is capable of mustering its huge military forces for power projection in its own backyard, India will remain a second class power. Unfortunately, India has sent no messages at all to this effect.

So much for the international situation. The flip side of this issue is in Tamil Nadu, where both the AIADMK and DMK are vying to project themselves as friends of Lankan Tamils. However, both sides lack the conviction to take concrete steps. When the DMK ministers and MPs at the Centre resigned, Jayalalitha dared Karunanidhi to step down from power in Chennai. This was an inane remark, since policy in India is decided at the national and not at the state government level. Similarly, Karunanidhi "expressed satisfaction" over the Centre's efforts to change the situation in Sri Lanka based on a mere statement made by Pranab Mukherjee to Parliament, when, in fact, the UPA Government had done nothing to make itself heard either in Colombo or in Kilinochchi. The country can have a sigh of relief over the fact that both sides are just lame ducks. It means that neither has the conviction, or even the lung power, to raise the bogey of "Tamil Nationalism", whatever that means. It shows that regionalism in India is a dying ideology, one that cannot win many followers even when the provocation is extremely strong. In all this confusion, blood and gore, that is the only piece of good news.

In the line of fire?

2008-10-14T00:50:00.007-04:00

The outbreak of communal violence in Orissa could not have come at a worse time. After a spate of terrorist attacks across the length and breadth of the country; from Agartala to Ahmedabad and from Bangalore to New Delhi, it had seemed for a while that North and South Block would wilt under public pressure to act tough on terror. However, the events in Orissa relieved that pressure and gave the Congress and the liberal media an excuse to wiggle out of a tough corner. It sometimes feels as though in democratic India, it is only terrorists who can create pressure as and when they want, with the general public being only a seasonal player.

It seemed for a while that the force had turned against the Congress and its allies. The holy cow of political correctness had been tipped; as even left liberal heroes like Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt goaded the Congress led government for its utter inaction. The press hailed the martyrdom of Mohan Chand Sharma, the police officer who died in the Jamia Nagar encounter. Amar Singh (no less!) promised the brave inspector's family a reward of Rs. 10 lakh and the media painted those who pulled out conspiracy theories to thwart the police action in a less than glowing light. The Vice Chancellor of Jamia-Millia Islamia was quizzed over his motives behind providing legal aid to those of his students accused of heinous crimes against the state. For the left leaning English language media that holds the middle class in thrall, it was a first. It was a far cry from June 2004, when the media gasped in horror over Modi's police shooting down an "innocent" 19 year old Ishrat Jehan Sheikh, who apparently lost her way while she was going for a job interview from her home in Mumbai and wandered as far as Ahmedabad to find herself in a car with three armed men. It was a far cry even from March 2007, when the secular press shed tears of blood over the death of Sohrabuddin, the man who happened to be on a wanted list in a mere four large states. Never have so many tears been shed on the death of an innocent child in terrorist attack.

Fortunately, the freaks in the Bajrang Dal were there and eager to help. They have started a despicable campaign of violence against tribal Christians. In doing so they have handed the Congress a perfect excuse to divert the national discourse from the issue of terrorism.

Some of the violence in the Kandhmahal District is perfectly ethnic and has nothing to do with religion. But the work that the VHP and Bajrang Dal have done to consolidate the tribal Hindus has ruffled feathers in the Roman Catholic camp. In the swathes of tribal territory in the heart of India, there are many potentates trying to prey on the simple minded poor people who inhabit these regions. The third main force, apart from the Church and the Saffron brigade, is the band of Naxal rebels, who claim responsibility for the killing of VHP preacher Lakshmanananda Saraswati, the event that started the violence. In the bitter struggle for the hearts and minds of the poorest of the poor, the well funded Church has a huge advantage, an edge that the VHP seeks to meet by going berserk with violence and intimidation. Both are equally condemnable.

Now that the Catholic Church is no longer the malevolent bully it once was, its vast campaign of mental abuse goes almost unnoticed. At a time when the people of India are yearning for progress like never before; the Church is injecting superstition and bigotry into the veins of the most downtrodden of India's people. This week itself, the Church announced that it had ascertained that some Sister Alfonsa of Kerala had performed two "miracles", and this long dead person was rewarded with the status of a "saint". Now, I believe we should all be progressive and bury the records of Catholic bigotry as long as those atrocities and ideologies remain a thing of the past. But promising to help the sick and the dying, or to feed the poor and starving in return for swearing allegiance to a vast potentate of no legal international status such as the Catholic Church is most despicable. We can and we should all forgive Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) for having been a member of the Hitler Youth; but when the Pope says that "condoms are more dangerous than HIV", the Church should be recognized as a force up to no good at all.

At the same time, one should not mince any words about the manner in which the Bajrang Dal brings shame to India. The most dangerous development of all is the fact that the Dal perceives that it can have a free run in any BJP ruled state. Since the reins of power in New Delhi may soon be assumed by the BJP, reining in the fanatical fringe is no small concern. The aggression of the Dal also makes life difficult for BJP allies, as the beleaguered Navin Patnaik has found out in no small measure. However, it cannot be stressed enough that the Bajrang Dal is still a bit player when it comes to the total amount of unconstitutional activity taking place in the country. Hindu fanaticism is fed almost completely by anger over Muslim appeasement and Christian guerilla warfare at the social level. For instance, the Andhra Pradesh government recently decided to award a subsidy to Christians seeking to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Though the drain on the exchequer resulting from this measure will be small indeed, it is these little day to day favours to minorities that rankle in the collective Hindu mind.

While the debate over who killed the VHP preacher rages in political and police circles, some of the rhetoric indicates a worrying trend. Most of the Congress and the UPA want us to believe to that the preacher was killed by Naxals and as such the violence of the Bajrang Dal is "unjustified". First, even if Lakshmanananda had been hacked to death by Christian priests, there would have been no excuse to ransack Christian homes or burn down churches. More importantly, death at hands of Naxals is NOT a "natural" death. The murdered VHP preacher deserves to have the Naxal rebels brought to justice. The fact that the Congress and the UPA never once mentioned the menace that the Naxal scum have become speaks volumes about their commitment to public security in this country.

In fact, the Congress party should have come to its senses and gotten busy with creating an anti-terror agency that could deal with Naxals, Islamic terrorists and secessionists in the Northeast. The prospect of the creation of such an agency seems to grow dimmer by the day. Some weeks ago, after an innocent 9 year old boy was killed in New Delhi, minister Kapil Sibal assured us that the government was working overtime to come up with a solid strategy to tackle terror. As of Oct 18, 2008, nothing has been done in this direction. Instead the paltry gains made initially, such as in the Jamia Nagar encounter or in the arrest of terror masterminds, are being whittled away in endless political squabbles. Instead of acting tough on terror, the Congress party decided to call a meeting of the National Integration Council. Perhaps they should remember that the time for peace is not during the war, but after it.

Thinking ahead : A host of new allies for India

2008-09-28T18:19:00.008-04:00

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?

2008-09-26T08:30:00.013-04:00

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!

2008-09-24T18:23:00.005-04:00

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?

2008-09-23T23:49:00.014-04:00

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?

2008-09-16T00:05:00.010-04:00

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.....

2008-09-15T00:09:00.006-04:00

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?

2008-09-08T02:41:00.007-04:00

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

2008-09-07T20:02:00.017-04:00

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

2008-09-03T18:11:00.008-04:00

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.

US fazed as Russia renews the Cold War

2008-08-25T00:44:00.007-04:00

It is like watching history reverse itself. An age has elapsed since the Cold War ended and both sides resolved to work towards burying the bitterness. Then, suddenly, something stirred, both sides closed their minds and went back to where they had been twenty years ago. The Russian action in Georgia and the hostilities that followed have left the world brooding over what comes next… another Cold War at best and a nuclear holocaust at worst?

The actual events are trivial; it is all about the attitudes that sustained and deepened the divide. The violence could have been avoided, perhaps, if Georgia had not sent troops into South Ossetia to subdue the rebels and kill ten Russian peacekeepers in the process. But the rebels in South Ossetia and Abkhazia would not have been a real threat unless the Kremlin had issued a slew of Russian passports to the local population. And Russia would not have muscled its way ruthlessly into Georgia unless the West had welcomed Kosovo into its lap. One could go on forever… in the aftermath of the Georgian crisis, the Americans need not have sent humanitarian aid on military vessels and the Russians need not have bothered to step up their Black Sea fleet. It is impossible to fix the blame on anyone.

1. The Russian attitude: Russia has become a nation of opportunities, but in the process, it has, sadly, lost its only ever chance at becoming a democracy. With prices of both major Russian exports, oil and food, soaring in markets across the world, Putin, the former KGB agent, has had little trouble uniting his “resurgent Russia”. His politics is a cauldron of patriotism, a sense of wounded national pride and cold hard coercion. At the risk of sounding exaggerated, one must point out that some of these very things went into Nazi philosophy. The idea that Russia never really lost the Cold War… and will live another day to fight it … is one of Putin’s main arguments. Does that sound familiar?

Although some will protest his policy of blood and iron towards his detractors, the Russians are, by and large, content with Putin’s rule. The steep decline and chaos that marked the last decade of the previous century has been arrested and most Russians can look towards a prosperous future. The Russian people owe some of this to Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man, who knew just how to set a tottering nation back on its feet, some of this to the fortuitous rise in oil and food prices and finally, some of this to a reckless America that bate off more than it could chew. Dictators are dangerous and this is even truer of popular dictators like Putin. The latter has lost no time in making the most of Russia’s wounded pride and declaring himself Russia’s absolute ruler. The most impressive show of power came earlier this year, when Putin confidently shoved a puppet Medvedyev into the President’s chair and continued to rule as Russia’s Prime Minister.

Putin and his people agree on one key aim that defines his rule: the desire to reinstall Russia as a superpower. The first step to becoming a superpower is, of course, acquiring a “sphere of influence”. The obvious targets for the Russians are the former Soviet republics and their million fragments. These areas are literally crawling with conflicting ethnic identities, nations without a sense of direction and people without a future. As such, petty squabbles swell into blood feuds and ragtag rebels provoke major conflicts. The monetary and military cost of power projection in these troubled areas is minimal.

Putin realized that Russia could afford this. The Europeans are too dependent on Russian oil to retaliate economically, while recent misadventures have made the US take the military option off the table. As the West celebrated Kosovo, Putin plotted revenge. Above all, he wanted to show the world the might of the Russian military. He wanted to match …uh, well…the United States in defying world opinion.

2. The American attitude: The US has been wholly caught unawares by the sudden possibility of power shifts in the world. This goes not only for the inept foreign policy advisors of the Bush administration, but also for the ruling elite in all political quarters, the intelligentsia and the common folk. But this is not to imply that the United States and its strategic partners have not done anything to provoke or exacerbate the situation. The evidence points to the fact that the US has often acted recklessly in the last ten years, too assured of having won the Cold War and too often sparing too little thought for the egos of others.

It would be preposterous to accuse the US of trying to encircle Russia with a definite view towards a future war. In fact, the US and the rest of the world might have to pay dearly for America’s reluctance to disable its Cold War machinery. Although the Warsaw Pact and the Comintern ceased to exist long ago, NATO has continued to expand, amassing ever more military power, building larger and larger missiles, persuading more and more countries into its fold. This is despite Bill Clinton’s promise that NATO would maintain a respectful geographical distance from Russia. From the point of view of the Kremlin, it is impossible not to see the constant wooing of Romania and Ukraine, the patronization of Georgia, the harbouring of Kosovans and the militarization of Poland as mean spirited at best and hostile at worst.

Caught unawares by the events in Georgia, and that too in a time of Olympic festivities in Beijing, the Bush administration took some time to respond. Beyond letting the two thousand Georgian troops return to their country from their posts in Iraq, the US could think of little else. Valuable time was lost as the US groped for a response; causing immense damage to America’s credibility as a strategic ally and deepening the impression in the Kremlin that the overcautious democracies would be too careful to act (incidentally, this is an impression that all dictators share).

Once things had settled down, some saber rattling was in order. The US immediately cleared a controversial missile deal with Poland and sent humanitarian aid in military vessels. Ukraine was prodded to raise the rent for the Russian Navy that has a twenty year lease to control the Ukrainian port of Sebastopol. The NATO vessels in the Black Sea soon outnumbered the Russian fleet; and this little to defuse the situation. In fact, the Russian commander of the Black Sea fleet commented that the NATO fleet could be destroyed in “about fifteen minutes”. The world has not heard such language for a long time.

3. The European attitude: They are the ones caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they have an organic dislike for the Russians and on the other; they realize that their dependence on Russian oil puts them in a difficult situation. Above all, the spectre of war is taken all too seriously in Europe. Little surprise then, that President Sarkozy was all too eager to broker the peace deal between Russia and Georgia.

By creating the European Union, the Europeans have managed to set into motion a wonderful process of human integration and civilization building. However most EU constituents have their NATO obligations and privileges, which they would not want to give up in a hurry. Europe also owes a debt of gratitude to America for its economic revival after the ruinous decade of the 40s. In most of Eastern Europe, Russia is seen as the traditional hegemon and in Western Europe, Russia is seen as the traditional enemy. However, the increased prices of oil and food and the steep rise of Russia after the ruin of the 1990’s have made it impossible for Europe to break away economically from Russia. In the tussle between America and Russia, Europe runs the risk of suffering the most.

The solution for the Europeans is, of course, to strengthen the EU. A strong Europe, without weak, disparate, smaller states, would be an economic, political and military entity just as eminent as the United States, too big either to be shoved around by America or to be seen as a soft target for Russian expansionism. This will effectively rule out the possibility of the emergence of yet another bipolar world.

In conclusion, we note that it is a major tragedy to watch Russia slip right back into the hands of dictators. And dictators do have a tendency to attribute the conflict of opinions in the democratic world to a weakness of will. Even so, one must point out that the responsibility for history lies with the democratic world. The solution for the free world is to tear itself even further from all forms of bigotry, build stronger democratic institutions and develop even more respect for the life of the human being. Cold War tragedies happen when Great Powers see people in “lesser nations” as “expendable”. This is exactly how Russia sees the people of Georgia and of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The US is about to subscribe to the same system of thought, with regards to the people of Poland and Ukraine.

Holy wrath: Hindu Intifada in Jammu

2008-08-24T11:59:00.006-04:00

When Islamic extremists in Kashmir spilled out onto the streets, desecrating Indian flags and calling for death to the Indian state, the overwhelming feeling was that of déjà vu. Then, a strange thing happened; ordinary Hindus, bitter and betrayed, wrested themselves from the drudgery of everyday life, and demanded, with reckless bravado, that the oneness and integrity of India, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, be proclaimed with pride and without fear.

The sense was surreal. With no real prodding from the RSS or any other branch of the Sangh Parivaar, the Hindu movement sprung up from the grassroots and took on a life of its own. In fact, so far reaching was the movement that the fundamentalist organizations were almost taken by surprise. Congress politicians from the Jammu region, fearful of their electoral future, openly broke with their party’s position and tried to mend fences with the Hindu majority by running a series of highly pathetic advertisements in local newspapers. The BJP suffered once again due to a lack of political reflexes. The party tried to make up for lost time by calling for a nationwide bandh, but it failed to make an impact outside of BJP ruled states and, of course, Jammu. The Amarnath Sangharsh Samiti openly rebuffed the BJP’s offer of “help”, while the major embarrassment came on August 20, when the Samiti announced that it had no plans at all to hold a rally on August 25, which was supposed to have been addressed by both Advani and Rajnath Singh.

No one could have foreseen the perfect storm. For several years now, the state of J&K had been largely peaceful; tourism and resumed and there was even a trickle of industry, investments; some talk of building universities and renewing hope. With a hi-tech electric fence marking the Line of Control and Pakistan finally facing the brunt of its homegrown monsters, Kashmir could breathe easy. Ghulam Nabi Azad’s government cleared a decision to handover some land to the Amarnath Shrine Board, so that it could be used to facilitate the hundreds of thousands who travel to Amarnath each year. In a rational universe, this would have been viewed as a regular administrative decision, a stride on the natural path of progress. In response, the people of Kashmir threw a violent fit of rage, protesting vehemently over the “Indian conspiracy to change the demographics of the Kashmir valley”. We all know that the mind sees what it chooses to see.

Ghulam Nabi Azad is a dedicated Congressman; he swears by the ideology of appeasement expounded by his party in general and the Gandhi family in particular. By revoking the land transfer, he placed himself in the august company of party luminaries such as Rajiv Gandhi. The people of Jammu would not hear of it any more. Kashmir has always had the bulk of government largesse, the lion’s share of seats in the Legislative Assembly and larger representation in Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that Jammu has a larger population. The people of Jammu do not like Schedule 21; they do not want to be part foreigners in their own country. Although the scale of Hindu protests in Jammu was unprecedented, it was certainly not unwarranted.

In this fiasco, the PDP has won the distinction of being the single most hypocritical political party in the country. The initial proposal to transfer the land to the shrine board passed the State Cabinet in sight of all, including the PDP affiliated Forest Minister, whose office cleared the decision as well as several other senior PDP ministers. In spite of that, the party pulled down the Government over this decision and joined in the Kashmiri movement against it. To enforce its separatist credentials, the party joined in a provocative march to Muzzaffarabad with moderate leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz, determined to cause bloodshed. In what followed, the Army performed its task of mowing down the enemies of the state and the PDP got its wish as well. There are at least three reasons why the march to Muzzaffarabad was an overreaction at best and a conspiracy against peace at worst. First, the so called “economic blockade” of the Kashmir region was nowhere as effective as alleged, as can easily be confirmed from Govt. figures on trucks entering and leaving the region. Second, a demand from the Fruit Growers’ Association, no matter how pressing, is not sufficient grounds for attempting to forcibly cross an international border, much less an India-Pakistan border. And third, it would have been only too easy to give the tense border bridge a miss and head for Jammu instead, if the real purpose of the mission was to sell apples.

The role of the National Conference has been dubious. Ever since the Amarnath controversy broke upon the scene, there has been a somewhat deliberate attempt on behalf of both father and son to obfuscate. Omar Abdullah made an inspired speech in Parliament on the day of the confidence vote, expressing pride in being both Indian and Muslim. The senior Abdullah has also made similar noises about a settlement to the Amarnath dispute that is acceptable to all. But this did not prevent both leaders from toeing the separatist line at countless other media appearances. Quite possibly, the National Conference believes that, being the opposition party, its role is restricted to backing every possible argument in turns, thus leading to an overall escalation of the political mayhem.

We have always had a sense of the fact that the Muslims of Kashmir want to part ways with India. The events of the last few months have left no doubt as to what is the will of the people of the valley. As such, the question arises as to what is the duty of democratic India to the people of Kashmir. A closer investigation is required: first, the plight of the Kashmiri pandits cannot be ignored. Due to ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri pandits, popular opinion in the Kashmir valley no longer enjoys the moral authority of a democratic majority. The separatist majority in Kashmir is built not upon consensus, but upon coercion. In particular, when the perpetrators of genocide accused India of “trying to alter the demographics of Kashmir”, the hypocrisy could not have been more damning. Secondly, we must investigate the grounds for the separatist demands. The separatist demand is not based on a desire to acquire the right to vote or to enjoy civil liberties, but on communal hatred. Is it fair to admit a demand for liberty that is based on communal hatred? And thirdly, there is a practical concern. An independent Kashmir would be turned, almost immediately, into a radical Islamic state, obsessed with jihad against India. It is better to retain administrative control of the territory than not.

One nation...above all!

2008-08-15T10:48:00.012-04:00

India: A tribute

The Ten Greatest Achievements of India

Challenged... again

2008-08-12T09:51:00.009-04:00

Given that this article was posted so long after the tragic blasts in Ahmedabad and Bangalore, we have the advantage of hindsight. In some ways, the Gujarat Chief Minister has already answered the question posed to him in the headline above. Twice now, anti-national elements have thrown the gauntlet before Modi and both times the iron man has risen to the occasion. Having had the delight of watching the perpetrators of the Gujarat blasts pulled out of their foxholes in Andhra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, UP and Kerala on national television, we begin this post by praising the genius of the man who combines a powerful will for development with a determination to crush the enemies of the state; as well as by hailing the Gujarat police for delivering this major success. In less than one month after the Gujarat blasts, the police has not only laid bare the plot behind the events in Ahmedabad, but also solved the Bangalore blasts, exposed the identity of the Indian Mujahiddeen as well as the extent and depth of their all

India

network.

The political fallout of the Gujarat blasts was minimal; while the BJP harped on its demand for reinstatement of POTA, the ruling Congress hedged the issue with hackneyed arguments over human rights and “secularism”. The result, of course, is that India, the nation which has the distinction of suffering the highest number of terrorist attacks per year, does not have a law dealing explicitly with terrorism. Instead, a cynical Digvijay Singh told reporters: “Whenever the BJP is in trouble, blasts take place”. How can we fight terrorism if the ruling polity will not even acknowledge the existence of terrorism in the country?

The recent spate of blasts reflects the lack of Government will to fight terror. It is safe to say that had this happened in the US, Canada or any of the nations of Europe, there would have been overwhelming pressure on the Government to act, in any way possible, in a knee jerk manner if so be. It is a pity that we the people of India, on the other hand, did not find such punitive action to be necessary, much less a pressing concern; it is a sign that despite the fact that our national esteem has grown manifold in the last few years, we continue to undervalue our lives, our rights and entitlements as citizens of a powerful democratic state. The courts cannot act unless the government gives it the laws to work with. While the UPA government continues to see the repeal of POTA as one of its “achievements”, GUJCOC (a clone of POTA that applies only to Gujarat) gathers dust in the office of the President. The lack of will to fight applies not only to terrorists, but also to Maoist guerrillas. Despite Prime Minister Dr. Singh having referred to Naxals as the “greatest internal security threat”, his government has done precious little to contain and crush this movement as it proceeds across state lines, cutting deep into the Indian tribal heartland. The proposed all India mechanism for fighting the Naxals has remained only on paper. The lone hero of the battle against red terror has been Chief Minister Y S Reddy, who seems to have stemmed the raging tide of Naxal violence in his state, particularly in the Telengana region. In the absence of Central forces to fight Maoist guerrillas, the Raman Singh government has had to go for a dangerous gamble by creating the Salwa Judum. Although the Salwa Judum has strengthened the hand of the state in Chhattisgarh, the fact that it exists and is necessary undermines the fact that we live in a modern nation where citizens are supposed to be protected by legitimate armed forces.

The Gujarat blasts, as well as all other terrorist attacks, make it necessary to start a frank discussion on Islam in India. While the media made much over the rise of the “Indian Mujahiddeen”, this is only manufactured news. It would be naïve to think that the terrorist attacks in India to this date have been conceived, plotted and executed entirely by enemy elements from Pakistan and Bangladesh, with no cooperation from local Muslims. However, this idea does fit into the preferred framework for the Left Wing and pseudo-secular press, which, for all its professed liberal internationalism, sees terrorism in India entirely as a response to the Babri demolition and the Gujarat riots, rather than as part of a larger global conspiracy against civilization. Frontline led the way in this regard, stopping just short of saying that “Gujaratis are bad people who deserve to die anyway”. But then, these are people who would rather believe in the continued existence of the “Project for a new American century” rather than in the existence of Al-Qaeeda.

The Indian state is secular and cannot bother to concern itself with the nuances of every conceivable religion. The Indian state should be concerned with ensuring the dignity of security of its citizens. As such, it is the primary duty of the Muslims in India to spill out onto the streets spontaneously and disown terrorism. The state need not know what Islam “really” is; or for that matter, what the “real” version Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Scientology and sundry others is. The state needs to make sure that our children have a chance to study modern science, our women can assert themselves fully and achieve their entire potential and that our citizens enjoy their rights and liberties free from discrimination and coercion. We need to ask tough questions: why do we have an “All India Muslim Personal Law Board”? It is disrespectful to Indians in general and Muslims in particular to have their democratic interests represented by a self appointed organization. And even if they were to be elected, did we not agree long ago that Muslims are NOT a separate nation within India; and that India is ONE nation devoid of all dual identities?

Thank you boys ... for the entertainment - II

2008-08-09T10:00:00.008-04:00

We continue with our post on the drama surrounding the no confidence vote.

3. The BJP: Originally, it was the BJP and more generally, the Opposition NDA that stood to gain most from the certain embarrassment and possible fall of the Government. Instead, the BJP emerged from Parliament looking grumpy and bitter, having played pathetic, desperate and sensationalist politics. The epic weakness of the UPA government has offered the BJP many opportunities over the years and each time the latter has been found wanting in political acumen. One can only conclude that Advani jis famed political instincts are losing their edge.

The BJP is yet to fully acknowledge that indiscipline is rife in party ranks. No party leader or party unit, including the formidable Narendrabhai has been spared the brunt of this growing phenomenon. As yet another example, 26 MLAs belonging to the party in Uttarakhand moved to New Delhi to press for the removal of Chief Minister B C Khanduri yesterday. Of course, the solution is not stifle the voices of discontent, but to create a larger system of inner party democracy, as in the US or Canada. Despite being the world's largest democracy, our political parties have never been democratic on the inside. The Consitutional requirement that all political parties hold free and fair organizational elections is fulfilled only in name and rarely ever in spirit. A system where the High Command rules by decree is no longer tenable, particularly in running a national party like the BJP. A senior BJP leader lamented: "No longer does the power lie with the organization men in the state units; the focus is on the prabhari for the state, directly nominated by the coterie of top leaders". The Congress, despite being equally large, has a distinct personality cult that is a miracle to all. As such, it does not face the challenges the BJP does.

One must also concede that the BJP was fighting heavy odds in the horse trading market for MPs votes. A number of BJP MPs will lose their seats due to delimitation and therefore, once the current Lok Sabha is dissolved, they face an uncertain political future. With the business community generally favouring stability and survival of the Manmohan Singh government over an immediate shuffling of political cards; as with Amar Singh's hands right inside Anil Ambani's deep pockets, arranging astronomical sums of money for the defecting MPs was never a challenge.

Even so, the BJP was caught blissfully unaware of the situation. It should have taken the precaution of moving its MPs into a safe house, or at the very least, some of them. The shame is that virtually all the defectors came right out of BJP ranks; while smaller parties, the more obvious suspects in terms of cross voting, took only minor hits. The BJP made an abortive bid to shame the government by waving wads of cash in Parliament, after allegedly having taped the conversation in which they were offered money to abstain. Instead the episode turned into an embarrassment for the BJP and the 3 MPs concerned looked more tainted than ever. Obviously, the BJP MPs should have known better than to trust Congress mouthpiece CNN-IBN with exposing the Government. The channel sat on the tapes even as the political class in Delhi exploded over the cash for votes controversy, leaving the 3 MPs looking like fraudsters.

4. The SP and the BSP: Interestingly, both rivals seem to have fulfilled their political objectives. The SP has managed to gain immediate political relevance and a possible alliance with Congress in the next General Elections. On the other hand, with the BJP looking ridiculous, Mayawati has bolstered her image as a viable alternative. It has also given her breathing space to prepare political ground for the next elections.

5. And finally, the people: What about them? The Oracle opines that stability is good for the economy and the people. The Prime Minister is a well meaning man and now that the backbiting from the Left is at end, he has ample opportunity to put India on a superhighway of economic reform. The people of India will have an opportunity to speak as well, when the next elections take place in due time. The lesson we need to learn is that it takes self restraint in order to become a successful democracy as well as a successful economic power.

Thank you boys, for the entertainment!-I

2008-07-23T19:55:00.010-04:00

This is why I love democracy, not just at an intellectual level, but also for its extreme entertainment value. The people of India have just been treated to one of the keenest political contests in our history. The Oracle now undertakes a systematic analysis of the situation and how it affects all parties concerned (including the nation and its people, lest we forget).

1. The Congress: For a party that has been parched in waiting for election victory the results of the confidence vote were as sweet nectar. Across the Capital and across the country, Congress workers celebrated the moment with gusto. And who could blame them. Now that the euphoria is over, it is time for the Congress to take stock of the situation. In spite of all the murky deals, seedy subplots and dirty handshakes, the Congress has come out of the battle relatively unscathed. This was partly due to the uproarious manner in which the survival of Manmohan Singh's government was welcomed by the business community, the media and diplomats across the world. The other part was due to a "feel good factor" that ran through the people as soon as they knew the yoke of the Left had finally been lifted, without the immediate stress of a General Election.

This is Manmohan Singh's finest hour. He will almost certainly clinch his beloved Nuclear Deal and he has about nine months to pursue his reform agenda without being straddled by the regressive Left and concerns over the survival of his government. Besides, the confidence vote has bolstered his image, both nationwide and internationally, as a tall leader. This puts some wind into the Congress sails as they go into the 2009 elections projecting him as Prime Minister. Dr. Singh has finally been recognized as a politician of substance.

Sonia Gandhi's great success over four years of power has been to control sycophancy within her own party from reaching unsightly levels; for she has managed to get her Congressmen to regard the Prime Minister with some respect. The victory in Parliament on July 22 was projected, almost exclusively, as a victory for Dr. Singh and his UPA government. Of course, Sonia ji's ultimate aim is to secure the throne for her son Rahul. Unfortunately, the second part of her plan is yet to really take off. Rahul Gandhi's highly boyish speech in Parliament during the confidence vote confirms my suspicions that he is a highly unintelligent person. Sure, he has completed his Discover India tour and connected with many many people, but traveling the length and breadth of India surely does not seem to have increased his wisdom. Rahul has to come to terms with the fact that the Gandhi name no longer enjoys the credibility it had two generations ago; therefore in the absence of a real party organization and an inspiring slogan, he will, for the most part, be dismissed as just another politician with promises to make and little to offer.

The Congress has to come to terms with its new relationship with the Samajwadi Party. Something tells me that they haven't thought this through. In fact, in the heat of the contest, the party was too eager to employ the manipulative skills of Amar Singh to think much about Uttar Pradesh. If the Congress allies with the SP in Uttar Pradesh, its remaining base will be completely destroyed. If it does no, the government will enter Election 2009 looking like the potential loser. The party should realize that the current "feel good factor" about the survival of the Government is strictly about stability; the Aam Aadmi will completely reevaluate this piecemeal government before the elections.

More praise is in order for Sonia Gandhi. She has swallowed her pride and broken bread with the same Mulayam Singh that denied her the PM's post in 1998. She has managed to maintain that the confidence vote was all about Dr. Singh and thus enhanced his stature as a credible leader who has some measure of political control over his own government. This follows her previous successful political moves such as reaching out to the DMK (despite the Rajiv assassination accusations), building alliances in 2004 and declining the Prime Minister's chair. Sonia ji has proved to be one step ahead of her party.

2. The Left: There must be a lot of hand wringing going on at AKGopalan Bhavan in New Delhi. For four years the Left promised to bite and when they finally did, it turned out to be an empty boast. The Indo-US nuclear deal is all set to go through and there is nothing they can do about it. The newly unfettered Dr. Singh, in all probability, has a ruthless reform agenda in his mind. Worse still, election prospects in Kerala are awfully dim and West Bengal is, ever so slightly, beginning to slip away.

Serves them right: you could say. For four years the Left has borne out the UPA on the floor of the House and refused to take responsibility for the actions and policies of the same government. The arrogance reached its peak when the Left objected to the fact that the Prime Minister had declared his commitment to the nuclear deal to the people of India (before leaving for the G-8 meet in Tokyo) without taking them into confidence. The Left demanded that the Prime Minister seek "clearance" from them before flying to meet the G-8 in Tokyo. The Left demanded and demanded, cribbed and complained and finally went home with nothing.

The Left parties are the actual culprit in the political deadlock over the nuclear deal. This is because of the approach that the Left takes to governance. That is because the Left does not see democracy for what is. Democracy is NOT a dictatorship of the majority. The Left prevented the Prime Minister from walking over to the BJP and asking for support on the nuclear issue. It would have been delightful if the Congress and the BJP could have come together and negotiated a Deal that was manifestly in national interest. Given that the BJP was responsible for the "pro US turn, pro Israel turn" in India's politics, carrying out the first military nuclear tests, talking the Americans out of all the sanctions they had imposed and coming up with the idea that their could actually be nuclear trade between the two countries, it would never have been too hard to get the BJP on board. Instead, the Left mounted a humiliation offensive on the Opposition benches, firing from the shoulder of the ruling UPA. If only the Left had conceded that the Opposition had a right to exist, things would have been quite different.

No mention of July 22, 2008 is complete without a reference to Somnath Chatterjee's role. In all fairness, he has no moral right to continue after the Government survived the vote and his party is in the Opposition. It is true that the Constitution requires the Speaker to transcend party politics. Somnath Da needs to understand that this moral obligation (of being above party politics) applies to the Speaker only regarding the decisions he makes in running the House. In other words, the Speaker is called upon to face a difficult challenge; that of being objective and fair in all decisions despite being a member of a political party.

The problem with Somnath Chatterjee is that he is a narcissist. He believes that his own interpretation of the Constitution is above that of any other, including that of the Supreme Court of India. We all remember how Somnath Da objected to the manifestly fair decision of the Supreme Court in the Jharkhand confidence vote contest in 2005. And by the way, Somnath Da, the same Inder Singh Namdhari stepped down as speaker when Arjun Munda lost the confidence of the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha .... wish you would have a spark of shame left in you.

We will continue with the analysis of the situation in the next post.

What is the big deal? The Indo-US nuclear agreement-I

2008-07-19T05:37:00.013-04:00

There has perhaps never been an issue that has shaken up India's politics the way the Indo-US nuclear deal has. With global ambitions creeping into the Indian psyche, we Indians are investing in our future like never before. And if we are to achieve The Dream, we the people must watch over our elected government like never before.

Click here to read the text of the Indo-US nuclear deal

Click here to read the text of the Hyde Act

In terms of bare bones, the Nuclear Agreement will allow the US, as well as all other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, to sell both nuclear fuel and nuclear technology to India. This gives a windfall of business to American companies and gives India access to cutting edge nuclear technology instead of having to persist in its attempts to reinvent each wheel separately. In return they ask that India use this nuclear fuel strictly for civilian purposes and that it be up to the IAEA to independently monitor whether India is sticking to this requirement. The big idea is that this would free up domestic uranium completely, thus allowing for a more rapid expansion of India's small nuclear arsenal.

First up, there could be nothing possibly wrong about the IAEA inspecting India's civilian nuclear facilities. Some of our facilities are old and not in good repair. International inspections would make sure that they are held to a high standard and eliminate concerns over a (dare we say it) major accident. This is the least compromise that one could be expected to make for living in a world community.

The question of national pride comes next. And this is where things get difficult. The Nuclear Deal is complicated by the US Hyde Act, which details American nuclear policy towards India. One of the particularly insulting provisions in the latter is the requirement that a comprehensive report on India's nuclear programme be tabled with the US Congress each year. The other disturbing fact is that the Hyde Act calls on both India and the US to "set a date for cutting off the production of fissile material ". Although the former is a cause for India to feel slighted, it is not in itself reason enough to reject an agreement with such profound implications. After all, the Americans could conversely point to the fact that they have swallowed their pride on roughly three decades of US policy, rolled back all the economic sanctions that followed Pokhran-II and lost diplomatic capital by admitting brazenly to the world that America will make exceptions for its friends. The latter is more serious. If the US were to put its foot down over the demand that India cut off production of fissile material at some point, things could get worse very quickly. Any number of things might happen in the future and it would be downright foolish to sign a document hoping that some clause in it would be forgotten in course of time.

Of course we all know that the powerful can make excuses for themselves. The concern is over whether this deal can be used to rein in India and actually prevent it from becoming too powerful, or more precisely, hold India permanently in place as a second class partner to the US. The fact that, in an emergency, America reserves the right to walk out of the agreement altogether and demand all the nuclear fuel back, does nothing to address these concerns. Despite displaying all the signs of a durable alliance, we should remember that India-US relationship is still in its infancy and one need not commit too much, too early. The text of the nuclear agreement says clearly that both sides understand fully that a recall of nuclear material would have extreme consequences on the relationship between the two nations. But are the odds against this course of action forbidding for America? The Bush administration has made America a very unpopular force in the world. As such, what could America gain by making enemies in New Delhi? But then again, this state of affairs might not last forever and America could gain in worldwide popularity again; surely this is something that could happen in the next 20 years which it will take for the nuclear deal to become fully operational.

Perhaps the weakest argument in favour of the deal comes from the question of energy security. This is all the more regrettable, since this is the one that is quoted most often. It is well known that the nuclear deal, when fully operational, would provide India with a mere 7% of its energy needs. If the time and energy spent on the diplomatic process and the money spent on buying foreign equipment were diverted to developing environment friendly, renewable sources of energy, or even to thorium based nuclear power, surely we could make up for this 7%. We have to digest the unpalatable fact that precious resources such as mineral oil and natural gas seem to occur almost exclusively in the most dangerous and disturbed parts of the world. As such, America and soon enough, both India and China, will have to fight more wars for oil.

It would be an extreme conclusion to say that the Nuclear Deal would make India into a subservient client state. To imagine that India, with its 1100 million fiercely proud people, with ever growing economic power to boot, could become subservient to any other nation is pure pessimism. The fact that this deal is on offer is a major diplomatic achievement that must be hailed by all; America has gone from imposing sanctions to ardently lobbying for nuclear partnership in ten years straight. America's apparent "generosity" has grown in direct proportion to India's rise as a world economic power. It therefore makes no sense to assume that the current deal is the best that we can get or that this deal can be availed only as long as Bush lasts in office. Although the UPA at home and some eggheads in the US (and businessmen wherever they are!) would have us believe that the deal is a "giveaway" and hence, a "limited time offer", there is no reason to buy into their self serving interpretation. However, it does make sense to see the Deal as some sort of beginning, a template that can be improved upon, the first step onto a minefield. It is dictated by geopolitical necessities, most of which will continue to exist long after Bush has left power.

If the Deal were to be dropped, perhaps the greatest losses would be incurred on the military front, with untold damage to India's credibility. Then there are issues that involve our domestic politics, religious sensitivities and (lest we forget) moral issues! We will address these in Part-II.

--------------

Drama in New Delhi - II : Man of many seasons

2008-07-07T03:46:00.008-04:00

Amar Singh knows a political opportunity when he sees it. Two weeks ago, with the Left on the verge of withdrawing support to the UPA, the SP secretary looked to pull of a superb political manoeuvre; outflanking the Left during their assault on the government, tempting the Congress into a lease of life at the Centre and preparing the ground for an alliance in Uttar Pradesh that would go to the detriment of both BSP and INC. Pointing out the fact that the nuclear deal had the backing of the widely respected (and highly popular!!) Dr. Kalam was another great excuse. Although the plot didn't quite work as well as had been planned, with at least 5 of their MPs poised to embarrass the SP, the new relationship between the Congress and the SP deserves closer examination.

The SP's motives are obvious. They have little hope of winning as many as 39 seats again should fresh elections be held now. Ever since she stunned the political pundits by winning Uttar Pradesh outright in 2007, Maya has gone from strength to strength; and is currently in the process of building a larger than life image for herself in the state. The Samajwadi's have been yearning to assert themselves for sometime now. Should they be able to draw the Congress into an alliance in Uttar Pradesh, they will be able to match Mayawati's growing clout. Such an alliance would effectively end the Congress career in the state and transfer all of its remaining support to the SP. In 2004, Mulayam Singh even ran for Parliament on the wings of hope of becoming Prime Minister. Despite a solid performance in UP, the party's newly minted MPs found themselves all dressed up with nowhere to go. As the Congress and its allies celebrated victory, with the Left ready to offer support to anyone but BJP, the Samajwadis were quite the unwanted guests. In the final year of this government, all that is set to change.

Of course, the SP must have known that their support alone was not enough to see the government through. They might have hoped that once they could create a favourable buzz about the government, other smaller parties, fence sitters etc, all of whom are averse to the idea of election, might join ship. This hasn't happened; rather all of these possible allies have taken the lead from the SP and have not been ashamed to name their price. The trend started within the SP itself, with 5 MPs staying away from the party meeting. Shibu Soren was not one to be left behind. His party has the highest number of seats in Jharkhand (among the UPA partners) but he has been left out in the cold. And he has had to spend time in prison. He wants to take his disappointment out on the Congress. The TRS, which had recently been reduced to dust in a series of byelections in Andhra, is fancying its chances as well. They have organized a series of dharnas and demonstrations demanding a resolution for a separate Telengana state.

If the government falls on July 22, it will be yet another failure for the Samajwadis. Unless they secure an alliance with Congress, it will go steadily downward from that point. The Congress, which is plagued by worries on all fronts, might just agree. Although Rahul Gandhi is rumoured to be in favour of the old Congress stance of going it alone, the party leadership might still be tempted to acquire an ally at any cost. And they might just play right into the hands of Mulayam Singh. The SP will lose no time in capturing all of the Congress base and forever limit the party to Amethi and Raebareilly, that too, only at the Lok Sabha level.

An interesting question that springs to mind is how "Maulana" Mulayam could possibly come out so strongly in favour of a deal with America. This fact reflects, yet again, the sorry state of Muslims in India. Given their lack of economic clout, widespread poverty and ignorance, the "secular" parties know all too well that they can take Muslims for granted. Mulayam knows, quite simply, that the Muslims have nowhere to go, except seek refuge with the Samajwadis. But Mayawati, who recently made history by forging a Brahmin-Dalit alliance, will definitely want to fish in these waters. She must have noticed that there were murmurs of her moving closer to the BJP. As such, Maya promptly went in for a course correction and appeared in public with the now desperate Prakash Karat, apart from inviting a cross section of (self appointed) Muslim community leaders to her residence in Lucknow. It is unlikely, however, that she will be able to stage a real exodus of Muslims from the SP anytime soon. The SP's projected gains from usurping the Congress support are far more than any trickle of Muslims "defecting" to the BSP side. But, on the knife edge of UP politics, every point counts.

The Congress has, so far, conducted itself very honourably on the issue of the confidence vote. They were adamant in their belief that the nuclear deal was good for the country, that it had to be completed right now (before Bush leaves office) and that the Left parties should either desert or fall in line. The windfall of support from the SP has made them more buoyant for the moment. The Congress has also shown the integrity to resist unreasonable demands from the SP as well as from current and former alliance partners. After running a spineless administration for over four years, Prime Minister Singh has finally decided to assert himself. It is a pity that he might lose his government over this principle.

Drama in New Delhi - I : Left without options?

2008-07-06T08:50:00.009-04:00

When the UPA government took off in 2004, few expected the Congress-Left relationship to be an amicable one. Although the Left never did actually bite the government, their barking kept the Prime Minister awake at night. For four years, the Communists quibbled incessantly with the UPA, but got very little in practical terms. Instead they made themselves into an object of contempt for most of the Indian people. Just when the Communists had finally decided to make an advance upon the Central Government, they have been completely outflanked.

It is fair, of course, to remember that the Government cannot save itself merely with the support of the Samajwadi Party. With SP support, the numbers add up to 264, which is still 8 short of the majority mark. This means that the UPA will have to seek out Ajit Singh, perhaps a couple of independents and maybe even mend fences with K Chandrasekhara Rao. Even though the Congress well expects to live a nightmare all the way to the next election, it is glad to have the Communist albatross off its neck. And who knows; maybe the Communists will realize how desperate their position is and troop back to their original position with their tails between their legs. The important thing is that the Left can no longer assert confidently that the survival of the Central government depends on their support.

The title of this post is perhaps misleading: the Left does have options, just no good ones. There is the soft option. They could put up a grumpy appearance for a couple of weeks and then slowly nudge their way back into their sour alliance with the UPA. They could let the deal pass the House with SP support and continue to support the government otherwise. That is precisely why the BJP wants a confidence vote on the floor of Parliament immediately. The BJP's plan is to deny the Left the political space to separate the nuclear deal from the issue of the survival of the government. Should the Left now vote with the BJP on the nuclear deal and with the Congress on the confidence motion (harping on the stale slogan of "keeping communal forces at bay"), the Communists will lose whatever credibility they have left.

The other option is to make an 'honourable' exit from the government and let it continue for a few months in power with the support of SP and other tidbit parties. This is the hard option; it is more honest and keeps the identity of the Left intact. It entails salvaging the wreck of the party in Kerala and stemming the erosion of support in West Bengal. This heroic gambit is unlikely to save the party. Despite the petty squabbles, there is but one India; the people of West Bengal, the people of Kerala, the children of the poor and underprivileged want to succeed as much as anyone else. The people of India want to have a piece of their flourishing, expanding economy; they want good relations with the West and eventually, superpower status. As such, the "sour puss" politics of the Left is unlikely to capture their imagination.

The funny thing is that it didn't have to be this way. Had Harkishen Singh Surjeet been in saddle as General Secretary, this would never have happened. The old man understood ideology, but he also understood the need of the hour. But Prakash Karat dug himself and his party into a hole. This feature, wherein the young guns become too ideology driven and lose all sense of moderation, is not typical to Communists, the same has been noticed in the Muslims population in the Middle East, India and the West: while the older generation has had a sense of balance between religion and progress, the young ones have picked out the radical Wahabi version of Islam. The General Secretary must now own up all responsibility for this debacle. He was unreasonable from Day One, hardening his stance with each passing week, finally threatening to withdraw support if the Prime Minister even met Pres. Bush at the G-8 summit in Tokyo. He would have done well to remember what Atalji called "coalition dharma". He would have done well not to oppose a popular Indo-US accord and perhaps let the more earthy Sitaram Yechury have a say.

In happier times, it was Yechury who drove Amar Singh, then an unwelcome guest, to Sonia Gandhi's victory dinner. It is the Left that is unwelcome now. The Communists need to give up on their dream of a non Congress, non BJP front and embrace the inevitable. Either the Congress, or the BJP will always be within measurable distance of forming a government and as such, it will be impossible for the "third front" parties, including the Left, to resist the temptation of power. There can be no real "third front", it can never be more than a handful of small parties that will always be up for sale to either the Congress or the BJP. And that's the way it will be.

Back in business?

2008-06-30T03:09:00.008-04:00

Chief Minister Vansundhara Raje can afford to breathe easy. The fires from the Jaipur blasts have been put out and the dust has settled on the Gujjar agitation. With the nation turning its attention to the shameful controversy surrounding the Amarnath shrine and then to the much larger issue of the survival of the government, Rajasthan can take a much needed break... before the breathless campaign for the November elections begins. Amid the lull, it seems to be of little concern, either to the government or to the people, that the perpetrators of the Jaipur blasts have gone free and that peace with the Gujjars was bought at the expense of the law. Precious little has been heard of the outcome of the 30 day exercise Raje ordered to collect information on illegal Bangladeshi immigrants living in Rajasthan. And the fact that Rajasthan now has over 50% reservation, as do Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, thus defying a Supreme Court directive, is not causing any clamour.

In this election year, the obvious question is whether Raje has found a politically expedient solution. A few weeks ago, the government had looked helpless in face of the Gujjar violence. This has certainly dented the image of the administration, there is bound to be a broad consensus among non Gujjars that the agitation left the government with little scope for reasoning. The most interesting part of Raje's solution is the 14% reservation she declared for the upper castes. This is a direct appeal to the BJP's core upper caste votebank, which feels left out in the cold in the relentless struggle to be classed "as more and more backward" among social groups. In its own warped manner, there is a certain fairness to a 14% upper caste quota: with the "general category" openings in government institutions shrinking to zero, it is only fair that upper castes should have some little ground to stand on. As such, upper caste reservation is no longer as counter-intuitive as it may seem at first glance. The Raje government pulled it out, much like a surprise gift. In the bitter, caste ridden society of Rajasthan, this might just energize the BJP's base. The major challenge, of course, is to implement this decision; it might be remembered that the erstwhile Gehlot government declared a similar 10% quota for Brahmins, but never took the idea seriously.

As for the Gujjars, their initial demand of ST status has not been met, but they have made it pretty good with a 5% bracket inside the OBC quota. The Gujjar leader Col. Bainsla has played his cards pretty well. His successful gambit was to enlist Congress support to scare the BJP, but he never let the Congress take over the movement. The colonel was in control at every stage of the agitation and the storm passed before the Congress could make up its mind over whether to cast its lot firmly with the angry Gujjars. It is likely that Bainsla has now won iconic status within his community, despite having led them down a path of bigotry and vandalism. When the crisis was finally over, he made sure he was polite and gracious to the chief minister, even projecting a certain bonhomie with the BJP, just so that in the months ahead, both parties would be vying for his support.

Sachin Pilot's evasive attitude might have cost the Congress. As Rajasthan burned, the Congress dragged its feet over the issue. Sachin Pilot blew hot and cold over the issue, first offering "moral support" and then shying away from leading the movement himself. This made it easy for Bainsla to stay in charge. Pilot's attitude probably stems from his desire to establish himself firmly at the helm of his party in the state. Five years ago, the Rani's parivartan yatra had galvanized BJP workers across Rajasthan and given the people an opportunity to connect with their Chief Minister. Like Pilot, who is one of Rahul Gandhi's band of followers, Vasundhara had also started merely as a favourite of her party high command, with little or no acceptance statewide. She earned her spurs in the 2003, campaigning in the heat and dust of the desert state. In contrast the Congress has made little progress and in fact, has hardly shown even a desire to drive the BJP from power. Although anti-incumbency is fairly reliable in India and the people of Rajasthan have a decent record on rotating their politics, it is unfair to suggest that the incumbency cycle will beat the BJP automatically. The elections of 1998 were held in an exceptional political climate. Those of 2003 involved a charismatic leader who connected instantly with the people, a severe drought that spread anger and disaffection among the people, together with a ruling Congress that seemed to have given up even before the election had begun. It is somehow easier to think of Rajasthan as a place where things change slowly; in order to seize power, the Congress must shake the establishment rather wildly. As of now, the typical issues that breed anti-incumbency, such as price rise and unemployment, have come to be identified more closely with the Congress than with the BJP. If the BJP has lost some prestige due to its apparent helplessness during the Gujjar agitation, the Congress led UPA has lost a lot more. And some in the Congress are still waiting for Rahul's magic to take effect.

Reservation is a disease. It has crippling effect on government institutions and other arms of the state. It poisons community relations, celebrates low achievement and discourages independent effort. It makes discrimination endemic to the system and undermines respect for the law; for principles of justice, fairness and equality. Upper caste reservation is its newest symptom. This monster takes many forms; some of them ridiculously illogical; think, for instance, of the "NRI quota" in the IITs that has now been scrapped. In the new century, the countless communities in India suffer from the weight of age old suspicions and superstitions; a kind of social debt accumulated over centuries. This debt must be paid out in full before we can make this century our own. Reservation is no way to pay off this social debt. One can only hope that democracy finds a solution on its own.

Is the UPA tottering to its fall?

2008-06-29T18:59:00.009-04:00

Matters have come to a head for the ruling alliance in New Delhi. Four years of living with the stifling embrace of the Left is beginning to tell on the leaders of government. Thirteen stinging election defeats in the states have done nothing to improve morale. The famed "dream duo" of Dr. Singh and P. Chidambaram have managed to let inflation run wild. The unpalatable fact that despite its spectacular economic growth, India also has one of the highest fiscal deficits in the world, probably rankles in their minds. And with the nuclear deal stuck in the mire of party politics, the Prime Minister seems to be in a daze... what honest man wouldn't?

The BJP seems to be in its element. Advani has been touring the country, taunting the Congress for its weakness and trying to give the people a sense that the BJP is about to come roaring back to power. Advani refuses to concede that the Congress has done far better on the nuclear agreement and that the rise in food and fuel prices has largely been due to forces that are beyond the control of the government. In his mind, he is Arjuna, who is ready to send a shaft to sever the head of Radheya while the latter is engaged in lifting his chariot wheel out of the mud.

No one wants an election. Despite its bold positioning, it is the Left that realizes this the most. The Left is in for a decimation in Kerala and has been rattled by huge losses in the recently concluded round of Panchayat elections in their pocketborough of West Bengal. Secretary Karat knows that were elections to be held today, the people of India would not show any mercy to the Communists. Why then, does he keep digging the grave of this government. For one, political sabotage is what the Communists do best. He is also a victim of his own nature, the decades of strident anti-American propaganda pumped into his blood; the benediction of party elders such as Jyoti Basu and Harkishen Surjeet beckon him to protect the identity of the party over electoral interests. US troops have landed in India for joint military exercises; a US aircraft carrier has called at Chennai port and India is about to seal a nuclear alliance with the US. This keeps the Indian Communists awake at night.

Moreover, the Left has to confront the reality that, over the last four years, the Congress has, as a matter of fact, made very few concessions to the Communist Agenda. The economy has been opened far and wide, the promised employment guarantees have remained on paper and the government has refused to pick up the tab on fuel prices. In the days following May, 2004, the Left party leaders had told their cadre that they the new government would cater to their every whim ( a very public statement made by Jyoti Basu in Kolkata). That didn't happen: each time there was a crisis, the government parleyed with the Communists and the latter either gave in completely, or chose to pick up consolation prizes. For the Left and its 63 member contingent in the Lok Sabha; its highest ever; the dream has soured. And they are ready to drown the government in their bitter wrath and go back to the security of Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. Projecting power on a national stage is not to be, not for now.

The Congress is obviously dwelling on the possibility of dissolving the House and going in for fresh elections. Sonia Gandhi has told her party to ready itself for elections; but she is not sure what she can hope to achieve, except shuffling the political cards wildly for the moment. The prospect of the UPA achieving a majority of its own, or with the support of "like minded parties" such as the SP is too dim to consider seriously. The UPA would have to count on Left support to form any future government and that brings them back to square one. Since the nuclear deal has widespread urban public support, it is worthwhile to consider whether sacrificing the government over a matter of national interest might lead to some enhancement of prestige. But it is still likely that the nuclear deal is too remote to sway the poor and that the rancour over rising prices and inflation will drown the somewhat elite debate over India's nuclear ambitions. Besides, the Congress has to take the rest of the UPA along in its decision. Sadly, the other elements in the alliance are mostly headed by rustic leaders such as Laloo Yadav, who are, least of all, statesmen. They do not see the point in having to give up 9 months of comfortable lodging in the best part of New Delhi for some bomb making deal with "Amerika". With so many electoral reverses coming her way, the last thing Sonia ji wants is for the UPA allies to point fingers at the Congress.

As in 2004, however, there is no single national issue that will carry states across the board. The General Election of 2008 or 2009 will once again be a composite of state elections. Taken state by state, it is not really so dismal for Congress. Everything depends on which way the wind blows in the four major states going to polls in November. Should the Congress fail, they will be doomed. On the other hand, victories in these states would rev up the party machine and give the cadres a second lease of life. The Congress wants to make the most of the available anti-incumbency in these states, it does not want to tie these elections with a General Election.

For all its bluster, the BJP does not want fresh elections right now. Advani has been reviewing poll preparations in the states and there are many differences to be sorted out. The alliance with the SAD has reached a flashpoint and party units in Bihar and Maharashtra are deeply disgruntled. The BJP is barely done with the firefighting in Rajasthan and faces public disenchantment in Madhya Pradesh. Jharkhand has been neglected for far too long and there are no signs of life in all important Uttar Pradesh. The BJP is working not out of a sense of confidence, but a sense of urgency. When Advaniji offered an olive branch to Mayawati in Lucknow last week, it became apparent that he was jittery.

The build up to the next election is fraught with countless gimmicks, bluff and bluster, as always. But who knows, maybe the people of India, much like the people of Uttar Pradesh, will choose to vote for stability rather than create another political soup.

American Idol: The rise and rise of Obama

2008-06-13T02:18:00.016-04:00

In capitals across the world, among friends and foes of America alike, an impression has gained ground in recent months: that a star has been born. Soon enough, Barack Obama, the man who has been filling arenas from the blue east coast to the conservative deep south of America and all the way to glitzy Los Angeles, could be the man the whole world has to deal with.

His advantages are obvious. His candidacy has in itself revolutionized the political arena. He is part African; has had a Muslim father; holds a Harvard law degree and is a devout Christian: things which, for the most part, do not go together in the American consciousness. At a time when the American people have been driven to (premature) despair, Obama had little trouble finding people to jump on to his bandwagon of "change".

Barack Obama is a brilliant man. In an election year wherein most Americans were looking back fondly to the Clinton years of plenty, Obama outplayed the Clintons at every stage of the game. He teamed up with John Edwards in early November to launch an offensive on Hillary, each time choosing to hold himself back just enough to give the impression of being the "conscientious dissenter" from her opinions and letting Edwards look like the nasty guy who was being mean to a woman. Once Clinton lost her aura of invincibility, Obama's scorched earth policy in Iowa won the day. All the way upto "Super Tuesday" aka Feb 5, when 22 states held primaries simultaneously, Hillary kept looking for the knockout punch to throw Obama out of the race, while the latter focused on arithmetic; the fact that winning all the smaller states would negate Hillary's lead in the big ones. In effect, Obama realized that while the US Presidential campaign is hardly about every state in the union, securing a party nomination can be about all 50 states. Obama won nearly all the caucus states as well as the Texas Caucus; a feat which utilized his superb campaign organization to the hilt.

Brilliant men can also be dangerous. From the very beginning, Obama chose to position his rhetoric midway between the shrill anti-Bush screams from the Left and Hillary's level headed approach that utilized facts and proposals. Obama chose to speak in open ended sentences; caring only to sketch his ideas for the benefit of his "fans". He stays away from important Senate votes, such as the one on Iran's revolutionary guard and promises to "talk" to the Iranians, if elected. In agreeing to "talk", he appeals to the basic sense of fairness of his people, but refuses to provide more detail, since the American people might not want to hear how he would indulge in "give and take" with a rogue nation. He doesn't promise to "solve" problems, but instead promises to make them "go away". That is what the American people want to hear; they want to hear that they can escape to some parallel universe where it can be 1946 all over again, with the US placed ahead of the world in everything. Unfortunately, there are hardly any solutions to the geopolitical and economic crisis that looms large on America's future and those solutions are certainly not easy, even if they exist. Barack has managed to sell a pipe dream as a "vision" and in doing so he has enlisted legions of younger and first time voters. Young people always want to "save the world" and when it is so easy to save the world as to vote for Obama, it becomes the fashion... the rage, like the latest pop album number. That apart, Americans are addicted to religion and Obama has played this no end. It is circulated that Obama finds time for Bible Study on his campaign plane and oftentimes, he goes down on his knees to speak to God. Despite these cheesy details, Obama refuses to wear a US flagpin on his lapel, ostensibly to show that he believes in solutions and not in symbols. The fact that a publicly announced departure from a somewhat standard mode of dressing for US politicians is in itself a grand symbol seems to have escaped most people.

Hillary's basic scheme was to play to the gallery and win friends by promising them the stuff they said they wanted. Obama extended the idea; he promised some of the stuff they asked for and convinced them they did not really need the rest. For Obama's fans, he is not the man who gives them what they want, but a genuine prophet who also knows what is best for them.

On the world stage, Obama comes across as a sort of mystery. If elected, he is likely to remain so. It is improbable that he will address foreign policy issues other than those which elicit immediate reactions at home. Obama is the kind of person who would like to make grand gestures; it is even possible he will reach out to Cuba. Policy issues such as US' relations with the EU, the proximity of Russia and Israel, the ascension of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe; will probably stay in the background. Closer home, Obama is likely to stick to the cliched bogey of non proliferation and lack enthusiasm over the nuclear deal. In the long run, this should not be much of a problem, since the US offer seems to get better every day (think of how the deal that Jaswant Singh was negotiating with Strobe Talbot compares to the one that is currently on offer); what is to say that the next decade might not bring a dream deal to the table; especially since an alliance with India is becoming a more and more pressing policy imperative with each passing year.

And here is a final thought that I have always wanted to share: As part of an obvious political gimmick, there is a race among US politicians to blame the "Big Corporates" for everything. The slogan is that these "Big Corporates" must be cut down to size, since the horrible things that are happening to the middle class on the housing and health front "shouldn't be happening to Americans". That argument is a travesty: The middle class did not build America; the big corporates, the military, the industry, the scientists and innovators did. That is what made America No. 1. The American middle class was only lucky enough to find itself in the midst of these outstanding people. And if Americans really believe in individual success, they should focus on distinguishing themselves rather than hoping for government freebies.

And it did explode .... Gujjar violence in Rajasthan

2008-06-06T02:14:00.005-04:00

The Rani's cup of woes is full. The state of Rajasthan had scarcely managed to catch its breath after the horrors of the Jaipur blasts, than the Gujjar violence began to sweep the state. And for the last three weeks, a group of marauders have had the nerve of the northwest by the scruff of the neck.

One cannot deny that the extent to which the Gujjar community has been mobilized is rather striking. This overrides the initial temptation to dismiss the agitation as a rag tag attempt by a motley group of miscreants. The violence, which, by virtue of its sheer scale, deserves to be called a "movement", was started very deliberately on May 23. A policeman was lynched in Bharatpur district, spurring the local police into action; thereafter the government forces had their fingers on the trigger. The Gujjars counted some 30 dead; enough to provoke an emotional response throughout the community. From the nerve centre of Bayana, the Gujjar protests spread far and wide; blocking arterial roads and railway trunk routes. In a startling display of poor taste, the dead were lined up beside the blocked roads and funerals were turned into political rallies.

Although the violence has been fairly well coordinated, the leadership of the movement has not. Initially, Col. Bhaisla, the self appointed mukhiya; demanded that talks with the State Govt. be held only in Bayana. At the same time, one of his top aides, Dr. Roop Singh, went to Jaipur and started parleying with the Chief Minister's appointees. Bhaisla rejected those talks and stuck to his guns. A clutch of other self styled leaders even demanded Vasundhara's resignation before they came to talks. The principal failure of the Rajasthan Government was that it could not exploit these divisions to its benefit.

Vasundhara Raje is also guilty of sitting on the Gujjar issue so far. A year ago, when the demand first surfaced in a violent manner, her government seemed paralyzed; and the administration lost control so quickly that the police had to open fire, killing several protesters. From that point, the government knew that there was no going back. Yet, it offered a hollow sounding "economic package" to the Gujjar dominated areas and hoped that it would just go away. This underscores the attitude of the Chief Minister, who still seems to have some of her "royal temper". Five years ago, the Rani won millions of hearts by touring the state on foot. But, ever since, the people have never heard from her. And when the Gujjars started their violence on May 23 this year, the government, no wiser from the events of 2007; walked right into the trap yet again. This time they had no excuse.

When the agitating Gujjars came to their door, the government waved the Chopra Commission report in their face. In doing so, they were, both literally and figuratively trying to keep out fire with a shield of paper. The sorry fact is that some officials in the administration, including perhaps the Chief Minister herself, thought it would work. The govt then turned to the Centre and for a short while, that seemed to relieve the BJP somewhat. The Gujjars diverted their attention from Jaipur to Delhi. But it was clear that this was at best, a short term tactic. The Centre kicked the issue right back to the state and things were back to square one. There is now talk of the Gujjars being granted "Notified Tribe" (NT) status. If there was a way out, the government should really have thought of this sooner.

The role of the Congress, and more precisely, that of Sachin Pilot, has been deeper and more insidious. Throughout the agitation, Pilot has chosen to stay in the background, trying to act innocent; almost a statesman! His objectives are twofold: one, to destabilize the state before the winter elections and two; to establish himself as frontrunner for Chief Minister, should the Congress come to power. The agitation did spread to New Delhi for a day, but the Congress ruled Capital never really faced the full brunt of the protests and the protesters withdrew, somewhat mysteriously, to Rajasthan, without so much as a promise or an appeal from the Centre. Although a fairly decent case can be made for the Centre having to play an equal and possibly even a preeminent role regarding the issue of reservations, which are capped at 50% by a Supreme Court directive, the Gujjars never confronted the Congress with this demand. This is strange, since the Central Government is now handing out candy to everyone. An even more striking feature is that the protests have had an air of personal grievance against the Chief Minister; at one point, the Gujjars even threatened to blow up the Rani's palace! This brings into question whether the violence is spurred by a demand for reservation, or a shadow tactic to indict the BJP.

The Oracle opines that fueling the Gujjar violence may not be such a smart political tactic after all. For a start, Gujjars form a mere 5% of the electorate. The community has never been a BJP base, in fact there are only about 5 Gujjars in the BJP's contingent of 120 MLAs. The scale of violence is bound to alienate other caste groups and create some sympathy for the beleaguered Chief Minister. Those other groups are expected to become even more hostile to the demand for Gujjar reservation and the parties that support it. In fact, if the Gujjar issue dominates the election instead of familiar anti-incumbency, the BJP will win. This is one reason the Congress has chosen to keep its role under wraps so far, refusing to openly come out in support of the Gujjar demand.

Finally, there are three things we should take note of:

1. The Gujjar movement has created a new paradigm for political protests in India. This is sectarian violence at its worst. What is to say that tomorrow the TRS, or Raj Thackeray's people will not adopt a similar tactic? That is one reason why the Gujjars, whenever they are pacified, should not be seen as having succeeded by "helping themselves through direct action". It would set a fairly dangerous precedent.

2. A larger question is why, at a time of massive all round economic growth; a government job is still "a life and death issue" for so many people. A clamour for reservation is a symptom of acute hopelessness, a time of scarcity, when its every man (or rather, every community) for himself.

3. And finally, this isn't China! The fatalities incurred during the initial Gujjar protests prove that our police need more access to rubber/plastic bullets rather than mortal ammunition. And they also need more training in crowd control tactics. It must be clear that opening fire on a group of civilians, peaceful or otherwise, is simply unacceptable. There are ways and means by which better organized government forces can prevail upon a bunch of violent protesters, who are bound to lack coordination and discipline. It is high time our law enforcement agencies were tutored in those civilized ways.

BJP's Agastya Yatra... Cyber city turns saffron

2008-05-28T18:40:00.012-04:00

As the results piled in on May 25, the Congress did not show even a hint of defiance. Instead they made a few familiar noises about "communal forces" and gave away with a whimper. It's the symptom of a party that has been beaten to pulp.

The events of the last few weeks have resulted in a paradigm shift in Indian politics. After twenty eight years of existence, the BJP has made it across the Vindhyas into the south, thereby finally becoming a true national party. What is most laudable is that this success was achieved the hard, honest way; through building an organization over decades, leading farmers' agitations, building and facilitating communities and in the final knockout punch, bringing forth a charismatic leader for popular opinion to coalesce around. The BJP had a good wind in its sails. No wonder the millionaires, the mining barons of Karnataka, jumped aboard. The BJP ate into JD(S) support in South Karnataka and translated its groundswell of urban support into a majority of seats from Bangalore. The party kept local anti-incumbency down to a minimum in coastal Karnataka and made the most of the Mumbai Karnataka region. Under BSY's leadership, the party had a lock on the Lingayat vote, but throughout the campaign, it remained watchful so as to not seriously alienate the powerful Vokkaligas, projecting BSY as a transformational rather than a caste leader.

As opposed to the BJP that had needed a final boost to make it across the finish line in Karnataka, the JD(S), or more precisely, Gowda & Sons, had needed one final act of treachery so dark so as to be marred forever. Throughout the course of the campaign, Gowda and his ken had shamelessly peddled the idea that they would win enough seats to hold the next government hostage as well. The fair minded people of the state had better judgment than to let the scum have their way. Running for election with a well proclaimed desire to act as spoiler (or "vote katwa", as the derogatory term goes in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh) does not go down well with the electorate. The same desire doomed Paswan in Bihar a few years ago. And in Karnataka, yet another regional satrap, who leads yet another splinter of the former Janata Dal, has walked into this trap. It usually so happens that the party which walks to a majority does so by absorbing the votes of smaller fringe parties, independents and "others" and not so much from its big rival(s). Instead, in this case, the BJP and in some places, even the Congress, took votes right out of the JD(S)' basket.

What is worse for the JD(S) is that there is now some stigma attached to them. Although the Congress knows that it could have won the election had it had an alliance with JD(S), it steered clear of Gowda's post election offer to form a coalition government. And similarly, the Congress also does not want to extend the UPA to include JD(S) for the coming Lok Sabha elections. As one JD(S) leader candidly admitted; "No one wants to touch us after our rejection by the people".

Of course, there can be no untouchables in politics. Politics, after all, is the art of the possible. BSY obviously does not like the idea of a government supported by 4 independents and is open to obtaining a majority on his own. Given the sense of despair among JD(S) leaders, it would be relatively simple to get 19 of their 28 MLAs to join the winning side. But the BJP, which is basking in the freshness of their southern appeal, something that Kapil Sibal called "the novelty factor", does not want to sully its image by looking like a party of manipulators; at least not until the Lok Sabha elections are over. If the BJP were to split the JD(S) before that, the Congress would have an immediate excuse to ally with the remainder of the party and the electoral arithmetic is such that Congress + Gowda is well nigh enough to sweep the state.

There are several other factors that made the Karnataka election one of a kind. A peculiar feature was the absence of an incumbent government. In some places, the people did turn to local anti-incumbency; but, by and large, they were ready to let the BJP have a go at power. This also explains why the Congress held on to its vote share and even made inroads into some BJP territories in coastal Karnataka. Another factor that must have given all parties the jitters was the reallocation of seats across the state. The shake up of the political map had given a huge advantage to the Congress, which would have had some 86 seats in the new combination, were we to preserve the voting patterns of 2004, instead of the 69 they had in the outgoing assembly. The BJP worked its way out of this hole by expanding its support into Congress dominated Bangalore and helping itself to a vast majority of the reserved seats, where the absence of regional strongmen made the people vote with whoever carried the momentum of the election.

A lively debate can also ensue over whether the BJP could have scaled these heights had it not been betrayed by the JD(S). Had BSY completed a 20 month term in power, the BJP would have had the immediate burden of anti-incumbency. As such, the people would weigh in the BJP rule against Dharam Singh's administration. It is hard to tell whether a squabble ridden coalition government, with BSY pegged back by JD(S), would have found favour with the electorate.

The electoral festival moves up to Central and Northern India where the BJP has to defend. Although the party is placed comfortably in Chhattisgarh and Delhi, it has something to worry about in Rajasthan and much more in Madhya Pradesh. However, it would be all too simplistic to presuppose that anti-incumbency would unseat the BJP in both these states, "as a matter of course". It must be remembered that either of these states is what many would consider a "natural BJP state"; and that the BJP won them back in 2003 by projecting powerful figures who carried the party on their shoulders. In fact, Uma Bharati had finished touring every single one of Madhya Pradesh's 230 constituencies by this time in 2003. And Vasundhara Raje had done the same with her Parivartan Yatra in Rajasthan. In contrast, the Congress is still waiting for its campaign to begin. After two years of straight defeat, the Congress faces the stiff task of whipping its cadre into action in the heartland states.

The pollsters, of course, got it wrong again. But, imagine my surprise, when CNN-IBN, red in the face, claimed an exit poll success rate of above 80% on an average. Evidently, "the country's foremost poll expert", "Prof" Yadav has the unique privilege of being able to write his own performance review. Yet, the 80% figure mystified me, until I remembered how pollsters think. There was this time in Uttarakhand, in 2007, when the exit poll got it wrong in every single part of the state: Garhwal, Kumaon and Maidan, but was lucky enough to come up with the exact reverse of the actual voting pattern. As such, the BJP and Congress were projected as winning the same range of seats; while the BJP won the upper limit of the range, the Congress was pushed to the lower limit. Of course, "Prof" Yadav brazenly claimed victory! And Uttarakhand, a small state with a well established two party system and an obvious cycle of incumbency, is what statisticians would consider the "basic case". To the chagrin of pollsters, the errors in Karnataka got stacked in one direction. It seems that everyone had something to learn from this election.

Respond ... NOW!

2008-05-16T00:05:00.004-04:00

The demographic of India is such that terrorists are bound to have some success. That said, the all round impression is that terrorists are getting it all too easy. The latest round of blasts in Jaipur have further enhanced the worldwide reputation that India has so carefully built up over three decades; the reputation of being a "sucker state". When Jaipur was hit on May 13, the Central Government was slow to respond; when it did it told us to wipe up the blood and silently mourn the dead.

It is not that India was always like this. Neither has this been a Congress tradition. Under Indira Gandhi, our Army managed to shatter the Pakistani Defence forces in one swift manoeuvre in 1971. We acquired nuclear capabilities in 1974 and uprooted Khalistani extremists from the Golden Temple a decade later. But then, Narasimha Rao sat on India's nuclear weapons programme through five years of his rule, always too scared to mention this to the world. Manmohan Singh, who, only a decade ago, had courageously proclaimed a free economy for a confident India, has distinguished himself through inaction as Prime Minister. One is tempted to concede that Rahul's faux pas a year ago had a kernel of truth to it: It takes a Gandhi to energize the Congress, though not the nation.

We all understand how vital the Indo-Pak peace process is to our long term security interests. India needs to focus on the much greater challenge on the Northern Frontier, for which purpose the North West must be secured. And there are still many eggheads in Washington who swear by Pakistan. Unless India gives, at the very least, an impression of a willingness to work with Pakistan on terrorism, India's concerns will not find favour with the old guard, some of whom, among them the inexorable Henry Kissinger, have not moved ahead since the Cold War. However, in doing so, if India appears to be bending backwards, particularly at a moment when Pakistan is at its most vulnerable, it is quite likely that the world will just walk all over us.

In order to negotiate from a position of strength, India needs to build up, at the very least, a credible intelligence system. In order to call the bluff on terrorist camps in PoK and Bangladesh, India must present well documented evidence before the world. It is a pity that India refuses to overtly consider this possibility that is ours for the taking; it would be all too easy for Indian agencies to access Israeli assistance, which they would be all too happy to offer. And finally, courageous acts breed prestige and in a strange way, also generate credibility. For instance, on Sept 4, 2007, Israel insolently sent a small contingent of bombers to smash an innocuous looking compound in Syria. Given the credibility of Mossad and the IDF, most of the world concluded, without any visible evidence whatsoever, that the target had to be important... perhaps even a nuclear facility!

The Jaipur blasts also have several repercussions on the domestic front. We consider them one by one. Let us talk about POTA. It is not that a single law can make the Indian people safe from terrorism; much less one that prescribes drastic measures, for terrorism is, by its own description, a death cult. It is all about letting the terrorists know that the Indian State is eager and willing to take them on. The repeal of POTA sent out a wrong message, further bolstering the idea that Indians are "weaklings who believe in democracy".

Unfortunately, the moment for the execution of convicted terrorist Mohammad Afzal has passed. If the BJP were to come to power and order his execution, it would create a gruesome spectacle for the world, for it would appear that his hanging was a political act, rather than the outcome of a legal process that has unambiguously found him guilty of an act of war against the State. Afzal is not a dissenter but a terrorist, as such he deserves to perish as mere scum and not as a hero. His sentence is not due to the weight of public opinion, but due to the weight of evidence against him. Unless this government or the next is able to make this distinction clearly, hanging Afzal would add nothing to India's war on terrorism, if we are fighting it at all.

Vasundhara Raje might have hit the nail on the head when she put the spotlight on (illegal) immigrants from Bangladesh. Incidents such as these are impossible without local support. Immigrants from Bangladesh had come under the scanner after the Hyderabad blasts as well. Although it is possible to sympathize with hordes of poor people fleeing famine in a failed state, they have no excuse to transplant their anarchy to India. Deporting them en masse would be the best option, if only it were viable and humanitarian(not to mention the fact that Bangladesh would never accept them back). But it will not help for the Rani to take her frustration out on these immigrants, the large majority of whom are probably just trying to make a living for themselves. The government needs to act decisively to secure the Eastern Border and crack down on corrupt BSF personnel who have made illegal immigration into a thriving business.

Finally, the Oracle mentions that these blasts will have no impact on the Assembly elections due in November. Given the temperament of the Chief Minister, who naturally steers clear from communally sensitive issues, the terrorist attacks will have no place in the BJP's campaign later this year. In December of 2007, even as the BJP top brass heaped praise on "Moditva" (=vikas + hindutva) as the standard model for retaining power, there was a whimper of dissent from Vasundhara, who mentioned pointedly that Moditva was not necessarily the only model. Therefore, although the people of Rajasthan can expect a few visits from the Lion of Gujarat, he will not be setting the issues. For both BJP and Congress, it is back to the drawing board.

Forgetting Pokhran - II?

2008-05-14T00:35:00.008-04:00

It is impossible to think of a better beginning to this article than this excerpt from the India rising campaign, delivered by Amitabh Bachchan with all his incredible gravitas;

"For over half a century, our nation has sprung, stumbled, run, fallen, rolled over, got up and dusted herself; and cantered, sometimes lurched on. But now, in our sixtieth year as a free nation; the ride has brought us to the edge of time's great precipice. And one India, a tiny little voice at the back of the head, is looking down at the bottom of the ravine and hesitating. The other India is looking up at the sky and saying: It's time to fly".

Take a moment to think about

India

; for the world is thinking about us. Of all the lessons that we have learnt over the last decade, the greatest is that we need no longer apologize for being Indian. This is an incredible success story that began, both literally and figuratively, with a Big Bang in the deserts of Rajasthan on May 11, 1998.

Pokhran - II marks a major change in the life of India; a moment when the old nation was swept away and our history began anew. For an international community that had been used to dismissing India as the modest (and, more importantly, harmless) land of Gandhi, this was aggression from the most unlikely quarter. Threats and sanctions flew thick and fast as the world was misled into thinking they could browbeat India into surrender and disarmament. Reviled by all, India was pushed to the brink of the precipice; from that point onwards, it was either success or death. In the battle of wills that followed, India prevailed and this shall forever remain the last occasion in history that anyone supposed that India could be subdued by threats; or for that matter, shown any condescension. Pokhran was a new beginning marked by innovation, reason, enterprise and modern science. Some five decades ago, Pt. Nehru visualized India as an eternal third world nation and as long as the Gandhis ruled supreme, this remained a self fulfilling prophecy.

At midnight (IST) on August 15, 1947 (at which time, it was 2:30pm in New York), Nehru proclaimed “while the world sleeps, India shall awake to life and freedom”. In a rational world, this statement would have evoked nothing but laughter and ridicule. Instead, in the kangaroo universe of the Congress Party; there was clapping, there was applause and this “inspiring” line was recorded into history books so that succeeding generations could dwell upon it with pride and patriotism. Early last year, the Congress clapped again, this time when Rahul Gandhi ascribed all of India’s achievements, including the breakup of Pakistan, to the initiative of his family and rued the fact that the Gandhis had not been around to personally guide their party in the 90’s, leading to the lapse of guard that allowed the Babri Masjid to be demolished. Given this sycophancy, is it any surprise that the sacrifices of soldiers in Kargil and the nuclear tests at Pokhran have been ignored by the current government?

Despite the pace of economic growth, India faces several internal challenges. Terrorists pick and choose Indian cities at will and claim as many Indian lives as they want. Despite being the worst victim of terrorism in the democratic world, we do not have a single law that deals specifically with terrorism. As such, our people need to be reminded of our achievements as a nation in order to maintain our confidence. The tenth anniversary of the Pokhran tests was a perfect opportunity to do the same. We the people of India have a right to celebrate our national achievements without being restrained down by internal politics. By denying us this opportunity, the Congress Party has done our people, our scientists and our soldiers a grave injustice.

Ironically, the only people who seemed to officially remember the anniversary of India’s ascension to the nuclear club; were the terrorists. They made sure that on May 13, 2008, the capital of Rajasthan was stained red with blood. The Congress Party, which is always on its feet in Parliament each time December 6 comes around, never noticed when May 11 and 13 came and went. In fact, the Prime Minister delivered a speech to the DRDO on May 12, but to everyone’s horror, did not even mention the nuclear tests.

Further this week, Minister of State for Defence Pallam Raju cheekily told CNN-IBN that there was nothing to celebrate about Pokhran – II after all! The minister elaborated that the nuclear tests had only brought sanctions, widespread criticism and hindered every single one of India’s collaborative, international initiatives. To my knowledge, a more disgusting statement has not been recorded to this date. Perhaps, later this year, the minister will go so far as to say that we should not celebrate Independence Day either, because of the riots that came in the wake of Partition. Or maybe, the minister for defence would also like to surrender the Siachen Glacier as well as the Kashmir Valley; because manning the cold northern frontier causes physical hardship to soldiers and is a drain on the nation’s finances! Apparently, national security and national pride are not significant rewards at all. With a government like this, who needs a “foreign hand”?