The China Debate ...

There seems to be a tectonic shift in Indian foreign policy. Or at least, the way the establishment in India looks at the geo-political situation in our neighbourhood. I am not an expert in foreign policy, but still, felt there are a few points which are probably not being adequately highlighted in the debate which is going on these days.

It seems that it started with recent Chinese incursions into Indian territory. And with the Chinese display of military might on the occasion of their national day, there is a lot of attention that China has got in the media. The question which a lot of people seem to be asking is whether China is India's enemy number one. Why i call this tectonic is because with this, the mindshare of Pakistan seems to have fallen quite a bit, and Pakistan's loss is China's gain, if they would like to call it that.

So what is the question? In simple terms, should we read anything significant into Chinese incursions, or into their show of military might. Are we repeating the mistake of 1962? The question that this question raises is whether the India of 2009 is the same as the India of 1962, and whether internal geo-politics is the same, or even similar to 1962. But then, is the China of today the same as the China of 1962. The answer to both questions seems to be no. Which means that we need to learn the mistakes of 1962, but place them in the context of today.

First of all, we in India face a psychological threat from China, probably more than a real one. Ask normal people, and you will get a reply that India can anyday beat Pakistan militarily. Ask the question about China, and the same confidence seems to be missing. Let us keep this in mind when trying to answer this question lest we allow this prejudice to influence the line of thought with respect to this question.

Let's understand something clearly. Whether China intends to attack India or not, or whether China is simply trying to browbeat us, or whether this display of military might is meant for global consumption, rather than for Indian consumption, is one dimension of the problem. Another dimension which we need to keep in mind is that it is not very pertinent to think that China sees India as a threat. However, that, to my mind is a short-term point of view, as a lot of economists believe, that the Indian economic and political model is much more enduring if you look at the long term. Another dimension is that it is one thing to put up a show of strength, and quite another to sustain it over time, as we have seen from the Soviet experience.

Looking at this, it is difficult to determine the Chinese intentions. Even so,common sense says that its better to be safe than sorry. This would mean that one would need to be on the guard. To make sure we are prepared for eventualities. But take it too far, and military preparedness could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Having said that, though, we also need to understand that military tensions are something neither China nor India can afford, given the march towards prosperity we are both engaged in, while competition can only bring out the best in both.

Some Kind Of Logic ...

In this world, there is logic, and then ... well, let me write about some things i was watching on the net, to complete this! On a group on facebook, i came across links to recording of a show discussing the recent Mumbai attacks, and the larger canvas of India-Pakistan relations. This was a program aired on Kal-Tak! Talk about being one step behind ... nevertheless, i must say Javed Chaudhary seems to have conducted this discussion quite well. And this is saying a lot ... given the current state of tension in India-Pakistan relations in the backdrop of the Mumbai terror attacks, and the kind of public anger there seems to be out there for each other in the public mind (one just has to read some of the comments to these videos, or on facebook, or on any other platform). I must commend Mr. Chaudhary for conducting this extremely well, except for one question which he raised, and which i am pointing to.

This has been uploaded on youtube in three parts ... click here for part 3. You will also find parts 1 and 2 here. Because i am not privileged enough to discuss "defence analysis", i must here speak purely out of common sense ... something which, at times, seemed to be in short supply, at least from one of the two participants.

I would just like to put in a few points here ...

1. Javed Chaudhary says the Jamat-ud-Daawa is a welfare trust. Might be ... or then, might not be. When he says that no investigation has been done into the background of these trusts, how can he make a claim that they are purely welfare trusts, and have no linkage to any terrorist organizations?

There ... thats the only question i have of Mr. Chaudhary. Now, to Mr. Hamid ...

1. Mr. Hamid says that India is suffering from an inferiority complex vis vis Pakistan, given that "Pakistani" Muslims have ruled over India for a 1000 years. How then does Mr. Hamid explain the fact that since Independance, why is it that India has always been considered the more matured, and more powerful country in this part of the world? To the extent that this part of the world is the Indian sub-continent!

2. Mr. Hamid says that if India had the guts, India would have overrun Pakistan in 1947 only. To begin with, it must be said thatthe equating of non-violence and peaceful coexistence to cowardice is something which can happen only in a fanatical mind. Of course, the fact that Pakistan had more than its required share of blessings of the British Empire helped their cause, but having said that, if it was a question of guts, why is it that the ultimate Pakistan was a whittled down version of what was originally envisaged? Why did, for example, Assam, or Hyderabad, or Junagadh accede to India, or for that matter, why is it that Calcutta eluded them?

3. Mr. Hamid says that "Khalistan aur Sikh inse alag hone ko taiyyaar baithe hain" ... that Sikhs are ready to secede from India. Maybe Mr. Hamid might want to realize that we are in a millenium which is more than a decade removed from the era of militancy in Punjab. Suffice it to say that this reminded me, sort of, of Rip Van Winkle.

4. Naxalites in Tamil Nadu? wow ... if Mr. Hamid has met any, its interesting that none in the Indian media have. or, for that matter, how come Tamil Nadu has not reported Naxalite violence? Even in Orissa, and in Andhra Pradesh, Naxalites are a marginal presence, but Mr. Hamid is convinced that they hold centrestage in all parts of India, from Naxalbari to Tamil Nadu! Not many people in Naxalbari would agree with that, i guess!

5. There has been lot of speculation that the terrorists spoke Marathi. But does Mr. Hamid believe that it is impossible for someone from Pakistan to learn Marathi? One blog, in fact, mentions that a number of Jews come from Maharashtra, and hence speak fluent Marathi, and then goes on to suggest that these Marathi Jews have been recruited in large numbers by Mossad, and hence the Israeli hand behind the Mumbai terror attacks. This is the same genre of creative-writing which also claims that the Americans did 9/11 to themselves. Maybe someday they might actually go on to claim that the PLO is a creation of the Mossad?

6. Mr. hameed goes on to talk about agents being caught in FATA carrying Indian ID cards ... quick question ... why would an undercover agent be carrying ID cards? On the one hand the claim seems to be that R&AW is capable of fomenting all the trouble Pakistan is facing today, from FATA to Balochistan, to Karachi, and on the other hand, the same R&AW is incapable of hiding its complicity in these activities? Come on ... it has to be one way or the other.

7. Mukti Bahini ke gunde or dehshatgard ... the goons and terrorists of Mukti Bahini ... well ... how come nobody apart from Pakistan believe that they were terrorists?

8. Mr. Hameed goes on to say that India doesnt have either the guts, or the power to hit out at Pakistan. Interestingly, in the same breath he goes on to blame India for breaking up Pakistan. So, is it the former, or the latter?

9. Mr. Hameed goes on to say that when India can send the Army across international border, Kashmir is not even an international border. There are two implications that follow from here ... especially when the talk is about "agar hum is karz ko aaj chukaayen" ... if we repay the debt of 1971 today ... first, if India just wanted a reason to break Pakistan into two parts, as Capt. Verma implies, probably this could have been done from any time from 1947, buit it didnt happen, and second, if, as Mr. Hameed implies, any country can cross and change the Line of Control, and that the day is not far, the fact remains that any country also includes India. On the question of sending Muhajideens ... on the one hand, Mr. Hameed says it was the India Army which crossed the international border, on the other hand, he says that "agar hum Fauj ya Muhajideen bhejen to royaa na karen aap ..." ... "if we send the Army or Muhajideen then you shouldnt be crying" ... where do Muhajideen come into the equation, Mr. Hameed failed to mention. And if the Muhajideen are non-state actors, then where does the question of "hum bhejen", or " if we (Pakistan) send" ... where does the question of Pakistan sending Muhajideen come into the picture? Or, is this a tacit acceptance of the fact that the Muhajideen are not necessarily non-state players? And that, at one level, the term Muhajideen, according to Mr. Hameed's statement, is analogous to Army?

10. Mr. Hameed believes that it wont take them any time to reduce India to the size ofSri Lanka, if they want. And, he wants the world to believe that they dont want it ... he himself, in the same breath, said that the day when Pakistan will repay the debt of 1971 is not far. This means they believe they have to repay the debt of 1971 ... now, either they are already trying to repay the debt (which means they havent been successful for more than three decades), or they are not repaying the debt ... which would obviously be because they are unable to ... after all, what other reason could be there for not repaying, when the urge seems to be there.

11. Mr. Hameed says that if they want they will do a hundred more Kargils ... two things emerge from there ... first, this seems to be a tacit admission that Pakistan did do Kargil, and second, that people like Mr. Hameed dont seem to have learnt their lessons from the Kargil drubbing. In the same breath, Mr. Hamid goes on to say that a LOC can be changed anytime one wants to ... while this is true in terms of international politics, this possibility is open to all countries which have access to a line of control ... that India has every bit of possibility to change the LOC as Pakistan might want to ... just that India has no inclination to use military force ... while, as Mr. Hamid himself admits that they have already done a Kargil ... a futile exercise in trying to change the LOC.

12. Mr. Hameed believes that India runs to America and Israel because we dont have the power to hit out at Pakistan ... this doesnt seem to go well with known facts ... that during the cold-war era, NAM notwithstanding, India did lean towards the USSR, while Pakistan was the American ally in the Indian sub-continent ... and also the fact that India, for a long time, did not have diplomatic ties with Israel.

Finally, i would agree with Capt. Verma ... that somewhere, Pakistan must introspect. That its a little difficult to believe that the entire international community is in the wrong, and that either India wields so much clout at the UN that at India's insistence, some organizations have been banned, or that the international community is so gullible that they dont really need proof to do this? Also, if the international community wants to disintegrate the ISI, why would they want to do that? Why is it that the international community doesnt want to disintegrate the R&AW, or Mossad, for that matter? Taking this one step further, i would say that both Pakistan and India must look at ways to live together in peace, and not in this atmosphere of mutual hatred ... for this is the only sure way to mutual destruction.

Don't Go Overboard ...

I havent written my opinion about the terror attack on Mumbai. I dont think i could have written anything even remotely erudite compared to what folks far more intelligent and well-informed than me have written. Yes, i have shared the agony of the attacks ... yes, i have shared the general mood of anger, yes i have been upset with the media coverage ... yes i have blamed the media for going overboard because of its elitist leanings ... yes i have blamed the media for giving far more importance to this than to the local train blasts, or the blasts at Sarojini Nagar, because of the profile of the people killed ... and a number of other things.

And yet, i would like to say this ... dont go overboard. Dont go overboard projecting the romance of The Taj Mahal Hotel, or Cafe Leopold ... Dont go overboard, claiming Mumbai is the only international city we have. Dont go overboard trying to brand the recent legislature elections as the semi-finals ... after all, state and national elections are contested on different issues, and even if that sounds utopian, nothing can be the semi-final without huge states like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu (see here) having had their say. Dont go overboard ...

Of course, the Jamat-ud-Dawa should be banned ... we have been able to get the UN to ban it. But please let this lead to something. We all remember the time when the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba was banned. Has that helped? Not really. This actually reminds me of a Tom and Jerry episode ... the balloon coming out of one cavity ... you try to push it back in, it comes out of another cavity. Also, i believe, lets not blame Pakistan. Lets face it ... if someone is coming to hit you, it is your foolishness if you let him, and then blame him. It is up to us to protect ourselves. But, the question is, are we serious?

A lot of us have blamed politicans. A lot of us have said enough is enough. Maybe we should stand in front of the mirror and say that? Let me explain what i mean ... how many of us actually think about what the other person may go through when we do something? Lets take an example ... you will see on the roads in any city, people who will cut you off, who will drive rash, on the wrong side of the road, etc. etc. ... for their own convenience (driving on the wrong side of the road is an awesome way to beat having to drive a longer distance and take a u-turn). By doing this, are we ever thinking of what other drivers on the road may go through?

Now, one could argue that theres no relation between driving and national security. But i am not even talking about that. I am talking about the attitude of people. As individuals, how many of us actually care about others? How many of us actually are concerned whether the other person lives or dies? Yes, there are folks who are, but then ... Lets ask a hypothetical question ... would we have reacted the same way if, for instance, these attacks were the work of, say, the Irish, or Spanish terrorists? If yes, then we would have evolved as a society, and as a nation. If no, then this outcry is not arising from serious concern.

Coming to the point of Pakistan ... lets understand one thing ... Pakistan was formed on an anti-India platform. Now, if a nation is formed on such a premise, then wouldnt it be folly to actually expect anything drastically different? Pakistan is in a state of denial, they say ... maybe they are a state of denial ... starting 1948?

Coming to the whole idea of Muslim bashing ... Yasin Merchant wrote a wonderful piece in the TOI yesterday ... but i am looking at something more basic ... When Pakistan was created, the idea was that of "Islam in danger". On this platform was mooted the idea of creation of Pakistan, comprising the Muslim-majority areas of the sub-continent. However, there is a fallacy here. In these areas, like in Punjab, or Bengal, the platform of "Islam in danger" didnt cut much ice, because the Muslim population wielded enormous political power within the existing system, while in the areas where the Muslims were in a minority, and the platform could actually have cut some ice, those areas were excluded from Pakistan. So let us understand one thing ... this is a political, and only a political issue ... this cannot be a religious issue. As Shah Rukh Khan said in an interview ... there is the Islam of Allah, and there is the Islam of the Mullahs.

Staying on the topic of Pakistan ... while this might sound like toeing the Pakistan line, the fact is, and analysts have been saying this, a weak Pakistan is not in our best interests, whether we like it or not. Pushing the government too far will only give more power to the "fundos" as they are called, and probably bring the Taliban closer to our borders, and i dont think any of us would believe that that would be a nice thing. The idea needs to be to eliminate them, and we must think surgically in that direction.

Obama On Outsourcing ...

Mr. Barack Obama, a few days ago, came out harshly against out-sourcing. Mr. Obama is against encouraging out-sourcing of jobs out of America. Thats a fine sentiment ... after all, a politician has to play to the galleries ... say what the people want to hear.

Only thing, this entire objection to out-sourcing must be looked at in the context of a new, global economic order, where economies are dependant on each other ... where the markets are far more open than they have ever been ... at least in theory. How does high-cost manufacturing gel in with this new economic order is a question which would need an urgent answer.

On another aspect, it would also need to be seen, whether Mr. Obama is talking about only services outsourcing to, say, India, or is he also referring to discouraging out-sourcing of manufacturing activities, too, to, China, for instance?

NSG And The Art Of Proliferation

If the Nuclear Suppliers Group is the central body which governs all commerce related to nuclear material, and all nuclear technology, then it certainly stands to reason that all proliferation till date has been courtesy of this same organization which is supposedly meant to check it. If this be the cartel of nations which are the sole suppliers of all nuclear material in the world, then logically, unless someone is importing nuclear material from another planet, that must be coming from one of the countries which make up this cartel.

Physics Today carried a report by Mr. Thomas C. Reed, titled The Chinese Nuclear Tests, 1964-1996 ... this report brings out the nuclear cooperation between China and Pakistan ... a collaboration which, over the years, has also resulted in the nuclear Wal-Mart of Dr. A. Q. Khan. Interestingly, the Pakistani and Chinese embassies in Washington, D.C., have not replied to requests for comments. One wonders why ... One also wonders how the NSG is able to justify its existence, while denying the right to nuclear technology to 1/6th of humanity. First, i think the NSG should have a lot of answering to do on this aspect. Unless they believe that you have the right to proliferate if you can bully them enough?

Having said this, maybe the Government of India should take a stand here, which is more harsh than the stand we are taking as of now. It must be made clear that in today's world, India carries much more clout than an Austria or an Ireland do, and India should maybe flex her muscles, and send stronger signals to the naysayers at the NSG. For starters, we might make it clear to the dissenters at the NSG that this episode may not be seen in isolation of other interactions with those countries. That maybe, out technical collaboration with Ireland may be developed based on a broader definition of technology than simply civilian hi-tech.

A Nation's Attitude ...

I have a dilemma. Whenever the media in India talks about, say, Bobby Jindal, they never fail to mention that he is "Indian-American", or Indian-origin, or some other term which stresses the fact that Mr. Jindal's ancestors come from some part of India. Sample this, for instance ...This, though, is not just true of Mr. Jindal, but also of a lot of the successful people, who happen to be able to trace their lineage to India. Nothing at all wrong with this. However, this is restricted only to the western hemisphere. Why, for example, does the media fail to recognize India-born Pervez Musharraf, the now ex-President of Pakistan? They even missed this when they were writing about General Zia, once the President of Pakistan, or for that matter, Dr. Khan, of Nuclear Wal-Mart fame. I wonder why ... Just a fascination with all things Amreekkan?

On a serious note ... much serious, actually ... I am listening to the latest album by Rabbi, titled Aavengi ja Nahin ... some nice songs. On the whole, Rabbi has not disappointed. But, thats not what i am writing about. There is a song titled "Jinhein naaz hai Hind par wo kahaan hain ..." ... this song talks about some of the modern heroes of India ... he talks about Satyendra Dubey, and about S. Manjunath ... heroes to a nation which is too busy fighting about the looks, rather than the achievements of another hero ... the Shaheed ... Bhagat Singh!

Pakistan, ISI, and the US ...

Interesting topic, eh? Well ... read on! There was an interesting article in the ToI today, about Bush ticks off Pak PM ... ... Interesting reading. What this brings out is the fact that there is much more than catches the eye. Or, for that matter, much more than what comes out.

This article represents ample admission from the United States that Pakistan is, willingly or otherwise, backing, in some form or other, terrorism in South Asia. The humorous part about this is that it took Mr. Bush so long to figure this out. When this is something which is common knowledge in this part of the world.

While there might be a lot of truth in that the ISI is an institution unto itself, without much control that can be exercised by the civillian authorities in the nation, this does bring up the question that there must be someone in Pakistan, otherwise outside the country, who should be in a position to tame the institution of terror. After all, it cant be that this hydra monster is totally untamable! And as for Mr. Gilani's statement that they "would not allow that" sounds totally hollow, because, with all due respect, Mr. Gilani should remember that he needs to be able to exercise control in order to decide whether to allow or not.

Animal Sacrifice ...

There are interesting articles in the ToI today ... In the View-Counterview section ... about animal sacrifice. This is a topic which is quite controversial, so let me just write my two bits on this.

Actually, on second thoughts, maybe i dont want to write about animal sacrifice, because i dont have an opinion about it. I believe that if someone doesnt like the idea, they are welcome to abstain from doing it, while on the other hand, anyone does believe in it, they are free to do as they choose. Either way, when something is sanctioned by religion, it becomes a part of personal belief and hence, must be looked at, as such. For, if this was a universal reality, we should all have been Vegetarian. Of course, my personal view on this is not material to this blog, so i am not mentioning it.

What i wanted to write about, instead, is the way certain journalists treat the idea. We are a secular country, and one would expect journalists, who are responsible for forming public opinion, to be secular too. But when animal sacrifice at Kamakhya makes them write about the barbarity of the act, and this is the only occasion when they feel that it is a barbaric act, this brings into question their standing as being truly secular. Though i would like to applaud the newspaper in bringing this out in the form of a debate, the concern is the occasion, or the reason behind the debate, which seems to be restricted to only one dimension of our society.

Global Warming

I had posted an idea over at idopia ... About Global Warming. Well, the idea didnt generate too many responses (in fact, only 1 ...). But, the response it did generate is quite interesting ... The cynicism is apparent in the comment itself.

The basic idea is that whoever is bothered about global warming, and about the possible future of our world, are already trying to do something about it. This is the nice part. The shocking part is, the large majority of the population couldnt be bothered less. And, they wouldnt even be bothered, unless the problem reaches a crisis proportion. And, this is a thought that is disturbing.

Question is, what can we do about it? Not much, i am afraid. Plenty of awareness generated ... Nobel prize ... the works! And, where does that lead us? To a point, where our future is decided based on highly short-sighted considerations by people who either dont understand implications, or couldnt be bothered less about them.

And this collective myopia, to my mind, is a large part of the problem ...

Lest We Forget ...

There is a conflagration up in Jammu and Kashmir ... there was a news piece about the commemoration of the first anniversary of the siege of Lal Masjid. The siege had resulted in armed clashes between security forces, and gunmen operating from the Mosque.

Raises a question ... a disturbing one. Is this the direction humanity is condemned to walk in? Is this what we shall have as our future? As the world and life we give to our children? It is true ... public memory is short ... Its been 60 years ... more than lifetimes in public memory? True ... in large part, we see the event through the mists of time. But, something we need to remember ... It was worth millions of human lives ... worth uncountable drops of blood, and tears.

They called it Partition. And, maybe no other generation can feel the pain of the partition, as much as the children of midnight, the people who lived through it, losing their all ... that was perhaps a political necessity ... and losing scores of their loved ones. The scariest part ... it was not some distant armed force which caused this ... that it was ones own people, their friends, neighbours, people they met on a daily basis, the flower vendor, the ice-candy man, who wreaked this havoc. Maybe this is a lesson we should never forget. So we are, at least, not condemned to repeat some of the greatest follies of humanity. Please see these pictures! They tell the entire story of Partition ... in a way no words can.

So Who Is It?

There is a front page piece in the ToI today ... Blame $146 oil on speculators, US House told ... Interesting reading. Apparently, the expert has told the US House that the surge in oil prices is due to speculative activity. Interesting ... On the other hand, there was an article in the Financial Express, which says, Majors say high oil pricess not due to speculators. Even more interesting ... CNBC says ...

Crude prices have surged seven-fold since the start of 2002 as supply struggles to keep up with demand from emerging nations like China. The price spike has caused fuel protests worldwide and hurt demand in consuming nations like the United States.

Interesting ... China and India (though the article doesnt explicitly mention India), are to blame, according to this statement. On the other hand, the United States is seen as a consuming nation. Is China, or India, not a consuming nation? This gives the impression that according to CNBC, China should be "sacrificing" for the "consuming nation", the United States. If anything, this should be a clarion call for the "developed" world to look inwards, and understand why they are consuming hydrocarbons (or anything else for that matter), in disproportionate measure. And, shoulder the responsibility of the implications of relentless consumption. Queer ... Very queer!

Runaway Prices, and Sound-Bites ...

They are kicking up a political storm. And, everyone is left wondering what hit them. I am reading so much about fuel prices, and combine this with the uncertainty around the 123 Agreement, that it seems almost as though the foundations of modern democracy are being shaken. Of course, one of the things anyone would be Hoping for would be restoration of the normal way the world goes round.

However, not many of the soundbites are pointing to this direction, as more and more of the high and mighty folks are busy pointing fingers and allocating blame for this situation, rather than trying to sit together and find a solution which is beneficial to the entire world. Sound bites which are coming through dont sound too encouraging, either ...

There is an article in the Times of India titled OPEC Chief Rules Out Return of Price Band. Interesting reading. According to this, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell believes its hard to prove that the financial markets have anything to do with the price rise. While that may be, common sense ... There hasnt been any drastic change in either demand or supply side, so why such drastic changes in prices? Basic economics would suggest no such reason should exist. More interesting is the CEO of BP saying ...

Speculators believe in the fundamentals... the era of cheap oil is over as expanding economies like China and India are boosting demand.

Interesting ... I just did some back of the envelope calculations ... based on information presented in two sites ... Consumption data from NationMaster and indexmundi, and population data from wikipedia paints a picture quite different. Of course, these are all back of the envelope calculations, and dont represent exact figures, but the point is, that the per capita consumption of India and China is 10% of the American figure. Also, if we look at total consumption numbers, there is a difference of a magnitude of 10 between the two numbers. About time someone looked at the entire picture rationally?

Whither Ethics?

There is a news piece i read in the Times of India ... titled Muslim backlash remark: CPM eats its words after SP criticism ... Not only is this an interesting article, it also brings out the levels to which politics has gone to. Criticism from the Muslims for the N-deal? Why? Because of the Israeli conflict with Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon, and American relations with Israel? Sounds too simplistic, dont you think? One would credit the Muslim population in India for a lot more acumen than this.

But, thats not even the point. The point which one wonders about is more the parameters which seem to be governing political decision-making, and the dimensions which seem to be deciding the direction the political debate is taking. Maybe time for us to pause and think, as a nation? What are the things we should allow in the politics of the country, and what are the things which should be a no-no for all political parties? Maybe a debate on this?

While on the topic, there has to be far more effort in the direction of renewable resources than there is today. The beauty of renewable resources is that no country is unduly rich in them, for the sun shines equally on all. While the government is batting for the N-deal, there must also be a relook at the extent we are utilizing some of the renewable sources of energy Nature has so abundantly provided us? Solar, wind, hydel, tide ... you name it, the technology is available to harness it. Whats missing are the projects for doing this. And, the will.

Also, Honda launched its hybrid car in India. At a price at which nobody will buy it. Lots of coverage about the import duty making the car prohibitively expensive (104%, if i am not mistaken?). And, a lot of words being written about how the government should abolish this. Longer term, maybe this may not be the best option. Maybe the government should look more at promoting manufacture of these cars in India? The idea, more than promoting the technology, is to develop the eco-friendly mindset, which is so lacking in a lot of people of the country.

Nuclear (Un)Deal ... (No) Power to the People

The nuclear deal is one of the topics which is of high importance to the nation, and, if opinions in the newspaper columns are to be believed, to the comman man. This is the common man represented by the Left parties ... Wonder how? Interestingly, Jug Suraiya wrote a piece a few days ago ... Do N-Deal With China ... Interesting piece ...

What is even more interesting is the episode with the Governor of West Bengal, Mr. Gopal Krishna Gandhi, employing some of the ways of his illustrious grandfather to illustrate to the powers that be that if the comman man, whome the powers that be purport to support, has to live without electricity for a large part of the day, then maybe the high and mighty ought to share in this deprivation? Read about it ... Wonder why this upset the powers that be? Though, of course, the powers that be ... seem to be more intertested in depriving people of power than in getting much needed nuclear fuel, so the country can actually produce more power. Power that is actually needed much more than political posturing?

More unnerving ... We today have a political system where a set of political parties whose strength in the Lok Sabha is (no, i googled it, but couldnt come up with the number) is quite less can actually hold the entire nation to ransom. Cant give numbers, because i couldnt find them. But, they are definitely not in the majority. Forgive me my ignorance, but this reminds me of a quote ... Wag the dog! Shouldnt we look at some ways where this sort of arrangement can be avoided?

The Indus Saga ... Cont'd.

As i have written earlier ... i am reading The Indus Saga. Now, the book is written about a topic which is bound to raise emotions about everything written in the book ... Some for, and some against. But, i think thats what Mr. Ahsan would like to see ... the book sparking a healthy debate about the reality of things in the subcontinent.

Well, i have been reading this book for around a month now (thanks to IPL). I am reading the part where he is talking about the Hindu-Muslim divide. Mr. Ahsan has written masterfully about this. And, come up with a few arguments which its very difficult to disagree with. But then, i am writing about the things i disagree with (why waste my time trying to agree with something which is masterfully done, so if you wanna know more, read the book, not my blog ...).

The first important thing ... Religion definitely was an aspect of the Partition. We would be fooling ourselves if we were to say religion wasnt at the forefront. However, religion itself shouldnt be seen as the reason. Because, if it were, then Pakistan would probably have been far closer in terms of geo-politics to Afghanistan than they actually are. Also, this wouldnt explain the second largest population of Muslims in the world ... in India. It also wouldnt explain the centrifugal force which drew Bangladesh away from Pakistan.

Taking all of these together, i would think that the raison d'etre for the Partition would be religion, associated with a regional identity. I think the regional aspect must not be overlooked, which is something which Mr. Ahsan has written throughout the book.

Another aspect i wanted to comment upon ... "Honour" killings, to my mind, are by no means the preserve of the Muslims. I see them more as an Indus phenomenon, rather than as a phenomenon associated with Muslims in the subcontinent. Might be that these are present certian parts of the subcontinent because of a greater central Asian (or Arab?) influence than in other parts of the subcontinent. For example, i am not aware of "honour" killings in Bengal or the southern parts of the country.

Green India ...

Today is World Environemtn Day. Interesting, this ... A lot of people are exhorting India to a greener future. To my mind, though, this is no longer a luxury. Its not just about a better quality of life for people, its about economics.

Coming a day after the Govt. hiked fuel prices, causing huge uproar across the country, green energy is an alternative which is more beneficial than conventional fuels. Wind energy, solar energy, hydel energy ... There is ample of each available in different parts of the country. Seen in light of the fuel price hike, and non-availability of greater sources of neclear energy, thanks to the Left, green energy is the alternative for the future, from the economic perspective, too.

Khuda Kay Liye ...

The movie has become popular ... And, it should have. Khuda Kay Liye is a movie about human frailty. A frailty which is to be seen whereever one might go ... In every part of the world, among followers of every religion. Importantly, it brings out the fact that goodness is neither the preserve of a particular religion, or a particular belief system.

More than anything else, the movie brings out the fact that inherently, any religion cannot be narrow minded. Inherently, any religion is not about building hatred, or imposing one belief system on another. Nor is any belief system, any society homogenous, and should not be branded as such. Whether it is the so-called "Islamic terrorism", or whether it is the so-called "hegemonic west".

But i am getting ahead of the story, i guess. The story revolves around the lives of two brothers ... One who is convinced, though half-heartedly, into becoming a Jihadi, and the other, who is forced into proclaiming he is a terrorist. I guess i shouldnt be writing much more ... much rather you watch the movie. It should be treated as one of those rare movies which can shake the foundations of the thought processes of a society. Because, it can ... It would be very nice if the movie brought about a thought process that religious belief is not necessarily reflected in one's dress, or that Faith is not hostage to a beard. A jeans clad, cap wearing boy can still recite the Aazaan, and that would probably be more valuable than an insincere one. This very point reminds me of a movie of a totally different genre, a hilarious movie titled Gol-Maal. You must be wondering whats the connection. The connection is in one line. Utpal Dutta believes that a young man who doesnt have a moustache is not a decent man. Thats when he is told ...

Sharaafat koi chidiya hai jo moonchh mein ghonslaa banaati hai?

The thought process of the movie is exemplary. I was reading a report recently where it said that the Darul Uloom have issued a Fatwa against terrorism. One would praise the Darul Uloom for this, though i believe all the seminary has done is uphold the grand tradition of Islam.

Basis for a State

I am reading The Indus Sage (i am sure you would know this by now, but for those of us who dont ...) these days. So, for the next few days, you can expect more on the subject. One issue the book raises is that Indus (modern day Pakistan, the geography around the Indus river, and its tributaries), and India have always been two distinct civilizations. By and large, i agree with the hypothesis, but there are areas of the argument which Mr. Ahsan raises, which i cant get myself to agree with.

First of all, i am not too comfortable with the idea of defining a civilization based on geographical characteristics alone. While historically, we have talked about the Indus Valley civilization, and most ancient civilizations flourished around sources of water, the scenario today doesnt necessarily seem to be the same. The importance of having big cities close to rivers is not as much of importance today as it was in ancient ages. This is not to undermine the importance of water sources, but this is taking into consideration the way human civilization has evolved over the last few millenia.

As such, i am more comfortable with defining a civilization culturally rather than based on proximity to geographical characteristics by themselves. This, to my mind, is a definition which tends to be far more robust. This doesnt really tend to go down well with the modern definition of Pakistan, but then a lot of other things dont either.

1. I get the feeling that the entire idea of the Indus civilization is related to Islam. Historically, it may not have been, since the region was primarily Hindu and Buddhist over a period of time, but since the advent of Islam, the identity seems to be more and derived, and even more so since the creation of Pakistan, the identity of Pakistan seems to be have been defined even more based on Islam if Mohajirs are people who reverted to their Indus heritage, even if they find their home and roots in the Gangetic plains. Having said that, i do agree with Mr. Ahsan that Islam is not the defining characteristic of the Indus civilization. More about this in point 3.

2. If the civilization is going to be defined based on geographical characteristics, then the logic holds true, but if it is not, then the entire argument of declaring Kashmir an inseparable part of the Indus civilization loses its entire foundation. For, culturally, Kashimir can in no way found to be congruous to the Punjabi or Sindhi. Besides, if we are to define a civilization based purely on geographical characteristics, then maybe Tibet should also be a part of Indus, since the Indus river originates there. This doesnt stand to reason.

3. None of these considerations (except religion), can define the true nature of Indus, considering East Pakistan being a part of Pakistan. But, this by itself proves that religion is not the founding stone of the Indus of today, given that if it were, the centrifugal force which created Bangladesh would not have existed.

In a nutshell, i agree with Mr. Ahsan that the culture and civilization of Indus is distinct from an Indian civilization. I just dont agree with too many of the conclusions he seems to draw from this fact.

Something I Am Reading

These days i am reading a book ... The Indus Saga ... From Patliputra to Partition, by Aitzaz Ahsan. The book is a well written, well thought out story about the civilization of what today is Pakistan. Nice book ... Though, there are a few things i wanted to write about ...

Firstly, the Gurdaspur Kathiawad line ... Mr. Ahsan makes the argument that this is the line which divides two different civilizations. While i do agree that culturally, the Gangetic plain is quite distinct from the Indus civilization, i think the line that Mr. Ahsan has drawn comes more from a sense of current political geography rather than anything more concrete. For instance, this line traces quite well the Radcliffe Award. Is this just a coincidence? Probably not. Which would suggest that the positioning of this divide is more than scholarly debate.

Another thing that stands out ... the creation of Pakistan. While the civilization of the Indus region is distinct from the larger Indian civilization, the fact remains ... the creation of Pakistan was not a civilizational consequence. Nor was it a religious consequence of the deep divide between the Hindu and Muslim populations of the subcontinent. If it was a religious consequence, Mohammad Ali Jinnah wouldnt have declared Pakistan as being a secular state, where the religion a person professes to would not come in the way of how the nation treats him. Which leaves one aspect ... the political aspect. This goes to suggest that the creation of Pakistan was purely a political move, and shouldnt be seen as anything else. That this is backed by civilizational differences probably doesnt bear on the debate.

Another thing which i dont quite agree with ... that the Mohajir is an Indus person reverting to his roots. How does a Mohajir, who may come from Lucknow become an Indus person? How does he lay a claim to the history of Indus, that is larger than that of a Punjabi Hindu, or Sikh, who hails from the Punjab, whose Father might have called Lahore or Rawalpindi home? This argument suggests an Islamic connection to the civilization of Pakistan, which is definitely not the thesis of the book.

Taslima in Kolkata

THere are parts of the city which suddenly seem to have gone up in arms ... while the rest of the city looks on ... in horror. Is this the Kolkata of yore? Is this the Kolkata that we love? I wouldnt like to believe that, but does one have an option except to believe? That maybe theres a method to the madness ... that somewhere, some kind of human expression will arise. But, we wait, and we wait ... in vain. Not for long, Hopefully?

Add to this the statement of Mr. Biman Bose ... simply put, he says ... if peace in the city is endangered, then Taslima Nasrin should leave. Does this mean the Left Front believes that anyone who is not liked by someone else should leave? Or, is this simply because there is a certain vote bank, and that vote bank needs to be pampered? Either way ... does this mean the Government shall abdicate its duty to maintain law and order? Or, shall the Government be dictated to by one section of society? Not to say that the section may not even be civil society.