Desicritics Author: Cynical Nerd

The Ramayana, the Sethusamudram and Indian Archaeology

Cynical Nerd — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:50:56 EDT

I do not support the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)'s agitation against the Sethusamudram project. The dredging of the Sethu canal would reduce sea travel time from Mumbai to Chennai by 400 miles (650 kilometers). It would facilitate the projection of Indian naval power at a time when China and the United States expand their military presence in the Indian Ocean. It would counter the real threat of Sri Lanka becoming a US client state with strategic implications to India.

Having said this, the Sonia Maino-led administration's efforts to challenge the Ramayana and the historicity of Rama to counter the VHP-led agitation needs to be condemned. The Archeological Survey of India (ASI), under instruction from the political leadership in New Delhi, filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court yesterday claiming that there was no historical evidence that Rama or other individuals in the Ramayana ever existed. The debate is no longer about the Sethusamudram but is now about the civilizational contours of India.

No secular Government has the prerogative to pontificate on religion unless the public good is adversely impacted. Rama and the Ramayana transcend history. They belong to the realm of religion and assume an importance independent of historical empiricism. While the ASI had the undeniable right to challenge the VHP's position on the Sethusamudram canal, it had no authority to question the historicity of Rama.

No historian would dare query the virgin birth of Jesus, his alleged crucifixion and his reported resurrection on the premise that supporting archeological evidence was lacking. The myths of the Old Testament can not be corroborated from a historical perspective either. The same applies to Islamic mythology as recorded in the Hadith. One Islamic text describes a 'winged horse with the face of a woman and the tail of a peacock' named Buraq that transported Mohammed to paradise one night from Jerusalem. The Christian claims to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, not to mention the Muslim claims to Jerusalem can not be belittled on the mere affidavit of an archaeologist. These come within the purview of belief, not archaeology.

I level a broader critique of the Congress administration. It would not have dared question the historicity of the Bible or Quran. But it sure feels empowered to dismiss Hindu literature through a Supreme Court affidavit. It would have been one thing to challenge the VHP's position on the Sethusamudram, quite another to conveniently extend the attack on the Ramayana itself.

The ASI added that the Sethu Bridge was "merely a sand and coral formation" devoid of "historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance." But the literary evidence suggests otherwise! I was struck that the ASI repeatedly referred to the place as the "Adams Bridge" in contrast to the contemporary nomenclature of Sethu indicating a colonial-era and Christian mindset!

The Ramayana was a classical text that helped define the literary, aesthetic and court traditions of not just India but of Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaya (even if the contemporary Malay were to deny his pre-Islamic past), Nepal and Thailand. The murals in the Temple of the Emerald Buddha in Bangkok depict scenes from the Ramayana. So do the stone carvings of the 8th century Prambanan monument in central Java and the early 12th century Angkor Wat in Cambodia. Khmer classical dance and traditional Burmese theater are indebted to the Ramayana. The Thai kings in the 14th century established their capital in Ayuthaya named after Ayodhya while they styled themselves Rama.

Sinhalese inscriptions dated to the 12th century indicate that King Nissanka Malla of Sri Lanka expanded the temple at Rameshwaram to commemorate Rama's penance. The Tamil Kings of Jaffna between the 13th and 16th centuries called themselves "Sethu Kavalar" or the protectors of Rameshwaram and the surrounding seas. The Vijayanagara kings continued the lavish patronage of Rameshwaram. The Ramayana is a key narrative that helped shape the Indic world view down the centuries, inspiring millions with its verses and anecdotes. It was perhaps the most translated Indic text in the pre-modern era.

To suggest therefore that the environs had no historic significance whatsoever and to ridicule the rich literary inheritance upon which such import is based, is itself a rash attempt on the part of the ASI. The affidavit was uncalled for. It represented a highly devious and selective attempt on the part of a pro-American and deracinated administration to undermine Hinduism while repeatedly conceding the political claims of other religions for electoral advantage. The affidavit was an attempt to belittle a defining feature of the Hindu tradition and needs to be condemned for that.

Authored by Jaffna

Shedding Crocodile Tears for Pakistani Democracy

Cynical Nerd — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:10:12 EDT

Much has been said about the pro-democracy protests in Pakistan after General Musharraf bungled the Iftikar Chaudry issue. Predictions by commentators have ranged from a coup d'etat to restoration of democracy. The recent high-profile visits to Pakistan by three senior American officials - Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State, John Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State and Admiral William J. Fallon, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command have fueled further speculation on the state of democratic elections and General Musharraf's future.

The Bush administration is sending out contradicting signals and its actions since 9/11 are a far cry from its motto of putting democracy "back on the global agenda". This is especially true with respect to Pakistan. U.S. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice publicly chided the Venezuelan government for its alleged takeover of a private television channel. In contrast, there was not a whimper of protest against the media crackdown in Pakistan.

Defying his own promise to the nation, General Musharraf wants to retain his uniform and wants the present parliament to 're-elect' him before new parliamentary elections are called later this year. But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack in a briefing last week said that the US would like to have the parliamentary elections first and expects Musharraf to step down as Army chief before contesting for re-election.

This was initially confirmed by Mr Boucher when he told Pakistani opposition leaders in Islamabad that the US was "pressuring" military ruler President Musharraf to "fulfill the promises" he made regarding his re-election. But the same Mr. Boucher at the end of his visit did a complete inversion and declared that holding of free and transparent elections in Pakistan was a bigger problem than the issue of President General Musharraf's uniform.

Despite its call for free and fair elections in public, the U.S. has done everything in its power to prop up the military dictatorship. According to Col. David O Smith, former military attaché at the US embassy in Islamabad, direct American aid to Pakistani government during 2002-2007 amounts to a whopping $9 billion. Of this, fully $6.39 billion of this amount is directly or indirectly related to Pakistani military programs. This is an astonishing figure considering that between 1954 and 2002, the US provided Pakistan a total of 'only' $12.6 billion in economic and military assistance.

Col. Smith further adds,

"The US has made available to Pakistan a wide variety of top-of-the-line military equipment hitherto considered politically sensitive. Air force systems delivered or in the pipeline include 36 F-16 C/D block 50/52 fighter aircraft, the most modern version currently flown by the US Air Force; a program to modernize all 34 of Pakistan's existing F-16 fleet to the same standard; 500 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) - the largest single international AMRAAM purchase in the history of the program; 200 AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles; and six C-130E transport aircraft.

"Navy systems delivered or in the pipeline include eight P-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft; a program to modernize Pakistan's existing P-3 fleet; Harpoon block 2 missiles, and three additional P-3 aircraft that will be configured with the E-2C HAWKEYE airborne early warning electronics suite.

"Army equipment delivered or in the pipeline includes 26 Bell 412 helicopters; 20 AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters and modernization of Pakistan's existing Cobra fleet, Harris high frequency radios, TOW-2A anti-tank missiles, and 115 M-109A5 howitzers. To manage these programs the embassy security assistance office, the Office of the Defense Representative, Pakistan (ODRP) has expanded to a complex organization of approximately 40 military personnel headed by a major general."

Needless to say all these weapons are solely for the purpose of fighting 'Al-Qaeda' and not against India! Disregarding the calls for military aid review by the U.S. Congress with the resurgence of the Pakistan-backed neo-Taliban, the Bush administration has promised a further $750 million in military aid. Armed with the most deadly American conventional weapons and Chinese strategic missiles covering all of India, one can expect more terrorist attacks against India from a rejuvenated Pakistani army.

The United States supposedly needs the Pakistani army for its co-operation in the war against terrorism, to check Iran and to keep a close watch on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal from 'falling into the hands of jihadis'. And reciprocally the Pakistani army needs American money and weapons to keep itself in power and feel confident to take on India in case of a military confrontation.

The Pakistani establishment, both civilian and military will never allow the Islamist radicals to take over. But they will use the threat of Islamist takeover to scare America to support them with more weapons and money. This was evident during the Lal Masjid episode where a small band of Islamists were 'allowed' to challenge the Pakistani government in the heart of Islamabad. They will soon be forgotten with more American aid and support forthcoming. In this game, niceties like the 'pro-democratic protests' and the call for 'free and fair elections' need to be taken with the bag of salt.

On the Kashmir Resolution Adopted in the EU Parliament

Cynical Nerd — Mon, 28 May 2007 00:10:22 EDT

The European Parliament has recently approved a report on Kashmir authored by Baroness Emma Nicholson. The resolution just expresses the opinion of the Parliament and does not have any influence on the foreign policy of EU member states. Despite that, Pakistani diplomatic missions in Europe and Pakistani-backed groups like the Kashmir Centre in Brussels have spent considerable energy to tone down the criticism of Pakistan ever since the draft report went on circulation. A cursory look at the final report shows why Pakistan is nervous.

The report states that the conditions for a plebiscite mandated by early UNSC resolutions had not been met by Pakistan and there could be no plebiscite in Kashmir. Baroness Nicholson also acknowledges the presence of terrorist training camps in Pakistani-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The report draws attention to the democratic deficit in PoK where Pakistan has 'consistently failed to fulfill its obligations to introduce meaningful and representative democratic structures'. In addition, the report notes that the situation in Gilgit and Baltistan is 'infinitely worse' than in PoK. It is neither a province of Pakistan nor a part of PoK. The Northern Areas Council set up some time ago, with the boast that it is functioning like a 'Provincial Assembly', screens, in reality, a total absence of constitutional identity or civil rights.

Overall, the report contrasts the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir and the vibrancy of the recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir with a high turnout. Pakistan fears that this report may set precedence for other international groups to come out with similar conclusions.

As far as India, this only vindicates our long-held position. In the past, India has learned to ignore the moral sermons from haughty Europeans. One recalls the previous India-EU summit where Danish Prime Minster Anders Rasmussen attempted to embarrass Prime Minister Vajpayee by introducing resolutions on alleged human rights violation in Indian Kashmir. The same Rasmussen had to face the wrath of Muslims worldwide in the wake of the Mohammed cartoons initially published in a Danish newspaper! The recent report may signal a change in attitude of EU countries that are under Al-Queda's scanner with an increasingly restive Islamic minority population.

Further reading

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, "Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects", EU Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Final Report, April 2007

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, "Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects", EU Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Draft Report, Nov. 2006

International Crisis Group, "Discord in Pakistan's Northern Areas", April 2007

Deconstructing Martha Nussbaum: The Hindu Right Revisited

Cynical Nerd — Thu, 24 May 2007 02:47:08 EDT

Martha Nussbaum, Professor of Law, Religion and Philosophy at the University of Chicago launches her book this week titled The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence and India's Future. The Harvard University Press published this. She had a preview published at The Chronicle for Higher Education on May 18, 2007. Here are my preliminary impressions on the latter.

I give her the benefit of the doubt. Nussbaum appears to be a genuine liberal, a well wisher and broad minded. Her criticisms of the Hindu right are not without reason and she makes some valid points. The 2002 Gujarat riots deserved criticism. This said, she makes huge leaps of argument without substantiating them, provides zero context and stands accused of several factual inaccuracies. This makes me query her credentials as a lawyer-academic. Nussbaum lacks the rigor one would have expected of a senior academic. Let me illustrate.

Hers is a foreign policy prescription directed at a liberal democrat audience. She argues that democratic institutions are vulnerable to the challenge posed by religious nationalism. In India, this is epitomized by the Hindu right as witnessed in the Gujarat riots. The phenomenon was largely unnoticed in the United States preoccupied with Islamic fundamentalism. She iterates that such threats need to be confronted.

Nussbaum is not entirely incorrect. The RSS represents an insular atavistic world view that is often coarse. The rhetoric of the Bajrang Dal exemplifies this. But Hinduism and the BJP-led National Development Alliance (NDA) can not be equated with the RSS. The NDA when in power included Dalit activists such as Ram Vilas Paswan, the Kashmir-based National Conference, anti-Brahmanic "Dravidian" parties and veteran socialists like George Fernandez! It cut across regions and the social divide. She needs to temper her strident critique with a more nuanced and accurate view.

History

Nussbaum distorts history with her slipshod analysis and facile methodology. At one point she describes "traditional Hinduism" as "decentralized, plural and highly tolerant". She contrasts that with the Hindu right and proceeds to outline what she thinks to be their version of history. She concludes that "Hindus are no more indigenous [to India] than Muslims" in light of the Aryan invasion. Her history needs to be corrected.

The colonial-era hypothesis of "a people who spoke Sanskrit migrating into the Indian subcontinent finding indigenous, probably Dravidian peoples there" needs to be revised in its chronology and sequence . The Indo-European speaking peoples purportedly migrated at a much earlier time period, were far fewer in number and certainly did not speak Sanskrit which evolved later. I refer to archeologists such as Colin Renfrew, J.N. Kenoyer and Marija Gimbutas and to the geneticist Cavalli-Sforza. Whether the purported indigenes were "Dravidian" is uncertain as well. It is more likely that the introduction of iron and improved technology facilitated the spread of civilizational ideas associated with those speaking Indo-European dialects. Hinduism had evolved over the centuries in the Indian subcontinent drawing from multiple sources be they Aryan or Dravidian by the time the earlier verses of the Rig Veda were first uttered in the Punjab circa 1,500 BCE. Hinduism had its origins in the region!

Political Context

Nussbaum views events in isolation. She repeatedly fails to provide political context. She relies on V.D. Savarkar and M.S. Golwalkar to illustrate the Hindu right emphasizing their alleged Nazi German ideological antecedents. I do not intend to defend either except to add that the German and Japanese defiance of the West during World War II found resonance not just in India but in Latin America, the Middle East and South East Asia. Mohammed Iqbal, the intellectual forerunner of Pakistan, found inspiration in Germany. Subhas Chandra Bose of the Indian left was another example. Many were attracted by the discipline, defiance and success on the battlefront. This fascination across continents had little to do with the Nazi treatment of European Jewry though Nussbaum would understandably be aghast given her adopted Jewish heritage.

It is indeed correct that Golwalkar extolled Germany in 1939. The Muslim League had upped the campaign for partition the previous year by accusing the Congress under Mohandas K. Gandhi and Nehru of sidelining Muslim interests. Religious riots had assumed a new ferocity, the seeds for partition had been sowed and a program of religious polarization initiated. This was exemplified in the Muslim League's Pirpur report of 1938. Nussbaum is unaware of context. She should therefore not arrogate the right to comment on issues that she knows little about.

She asks "how did fascism take such a hold in India?" Context is key once again. India is surrounded by neighbors that epitomize raw aggression and violence. The recent history of Afghanistan hardly needs reiteration. Bangladesh, the erstwhile East Bengal, had a Hindu population of 29% in 1947. This fell to 10% in 2001 due to the eviction, intimidation and land grab over the decades. Bhutan expelled 1/7th of its population because they spoke Nepalese. 30 million people might have died in the great Chinese famine in the late 1950s. China's treatment of Tibet in the late 1960s had elements of genocide. Hindus and Sikhs comprised 19% of what is today Pakistan in 1947. This declined to 1% where the rest were subject to sectarian ethnic cleansing. Pakistan unleashed terror in East Bengal in 1970 that led to the death of 1.5 million Bengalis. India stands out by its commitment to pluralism and democracy despite setbacks.

The RSS became influential in a political vortex fueled by multiple actors. A credible analysis needs to factor this in and not view things in isolation. India's only Muslim majority state i.e . Kashmir expelled its centuries old Hindu minority from the valley in 1989. Nussbaum fails to cover the rise of fundamentalism in Kashmir while she zeroes in on it in Gujarat! Rather than condemn the Hindu right alone, one needs to contextualize the competing religious fundamentalisms, each of which fed upon the other to cause mayhem. Islamic fundamentalism has had a vigorous presence in India as witnessed in efforts to stall the reform of Muslim Personal Law, the rights of Muslim women, bomb attacks and riots triggered by reported attacks on Islam in the West etc. The international campaign against Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses had its origins in India.

Social Service

Nussbaum draws inspiration from Rabindranath Tagore and Mohandas K. Gandhi. She fails to mention that both were profoundly influenced by the Hindu ethos of inclusivism, tolerance and restraint. M.K. Gandhi, a devout Hindu, turned to the Bhagavad Gita each day to seek spiritual strength to fight injustice. He termed this Satyagraha or the power of truth. Rabindranath Tagore was leader of the Hindu reformist Brahmo Samaj having established Vishwa Bharati as a center of learning and culture. If one were to meaningfully counter the Hindu right, one has to incorporate the wellsprings of the 20th century Hindu enlightenment rather than rely on a flawed Nehruvian secularism.

This said, the Gandhian movement to alleviate poverty known as Sarvodaya (the awakening of all) and Bhudan (land to the landless), and the Brahmo Samaj failed to sustain the empowerment of the marginalized. The Brahmo Samaj and Sarvodaya are no longer active. The RSS affiliates conversely strengthened their grass roots presence. The Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram provides service to the scheduled tribes. The Seva Bharati works with the largely scheduled caste urban poor. Vidya Bharati works on education in remote rural India.

While the intelligentsia may condemn the rhetoric of the Hindu right, they lack a similar calling to serve the poor and downtrodden. So rather than decry political Hinduism, Nussbaum should perhaps assess why the tolerant Hindu ethos as represented by Tagore and Gandhi failed to retain a social service ethos. The two movements lost their civilizational moorings and relevance in their embrace of "Nehruvian secularism". The decline was therefore inevitable despite the real needs on the ground.

Conclusion

Nussbaum makes sweeping statements , each of which can be critiqued. Her hypothesis of the "wounded masculinity" of India partakes of an unsubstantiated pop psychology. She refers to the "rote learning" and the "lack of critical thinking" reportedly pervasive in Indian public schools. I would stay free of such facile generalizations. I am not sure how nuanced the average American student is or whether "rote learning" is a phenomenon confined to India. Her narrative of events be it with regards to the Gujarat riots, the Indian general elections or the fractured poll verdict is wrong. More importantly, she fails to illustrate the threats to Indian liberalism in a meaningful, nuanced and factually accurate manner.

Nussbaum is not alone in her critique of the Hindu right in American circles. The American conservative has sought to cultivate good ties with a resurgent India only to stymie it. This is witnessed in the provisions of the proposed Indo-American nuclear deal. This is a barely disguised attempt to coerce India to throw open its nuclear reactors to international inspections, halt fissile material production and commit to a nuclear test ban, all under the garb of a purported energy deal!

The American Atlanticist on the other hand flaunts his commitment to liberalism and uses that to urge greater scrutiny of China, India, Iran and Russia. The pro-Israel lobby, of which I count Nussbaum as one, is alarmed by the Islamic resurgence that threatens Israel's existence. It attempts to divert Islamist attention away from Israel to other instances of alleged persecution of Muslims be it in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Indian subcontinent. Nussbaum is not all that kosher after all given the wider effort to "deconstruct" potential geo-strategic competitors. In this, she has the powerful backing of academics like Frykenburg and Witzel, of newspapers like the New York Times with its former editor Rosenthal and one time correspondent Barbara Crossett, not to mention Indian journalists of the ilk of Pankaj Mishra who writes to the Atlantic Magazine!

Authored by Jaffna

The India-US Nuclear Deal - The Nuclear Letdown

Cynical Nerd — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:05:47 EDT

The proposed Indo-U.S. nuclear deal had been cited as the UPA administration's most significant foreign policy success. It is a threat to Indian national security in its present form. The terms of the bilateral "123" agreement contravene Indian geo-strategic interest. The Congress-led administration would concede India's defense should it sign the deal.

What began as an agreement to open civilian nuclear trade to supply India's growing energy needs, now turns out to be an insidious attempt to cap, roll back and undo India's nuclear weapon program. Despite constant warnings on American tactics by former Indian diplomats, scientists and commentators, the Sonia Gandhi led administration chooses to walk into the American trap. One wonders whether it has national interest in mind as it jettisons the cornerstone of Indian foreign policy as enunciated by Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi!

Even as K. Subrahmanyam who heads the Prime Minster's global strategy task force is dismissive about the bleak state of the negotiations, evidence reveals that the proposed agreement is increasingly biased against India thanks to behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Americans. Indian negotiators have been caught on the wrong foot and have belatedly expressed their frustration at the U.S. going back on its earlier assurances. Several rounds of negotiations have been completed, the most recent one in Cape Town, South Africa on the sidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting. And yet, it is clear that they have stumbled due to fundamental differences in key areas of concern.

The U.S. is not willing to concede India's rights to reprocess spent fuel and procure equipment for reprocessing, enrichment and heavy water production. This falls short of its earlier commitment to "full nuclear co-operation". By contrast, other countries with advanced nuclear technology like France and Russia do not have any qualms about this. The Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposes that India be relegated to a humiliating "recipient country" status and not engage in reprocessing or enrichment activity. This is a slap in the face for India which has long mastered the technology. Reprocessing is a key aspect of India's fast breeder program.

The United States failed to remove the contentious portions of its Atomic Energy Act that would automatically terminate co-operation in case of India testing a nuclear device. While India now has a self-imposed and informal unilateral moratorium, it should never sign a more formal "no test" clause that translates such commitment into a principle of international law. It should always retain the option to test at a future date.

In the event of a test, U.S. proposes to take back its material and nuclear fuel stockpile. Since this would put American companies at a disadvantage vis-�-vis the French or the Russians, the U.S. now attempts to introduce a similar clause in the NSG guidelines that would govern India's relations with other member states. This would cripple nuclear commerce with them as well! This is a complete reversion of the March 2006 agreement where the Americans agreed to work with other fuel suppliers to ensure that the imported reactors would have a life-time's supply in return for perpetual safeguards.

The Americans citing their domestic legislation, wants India to commit to a safeguards agreement all the way up to a formal approval by the IAEA board before it presents the final "123" agreement to the U.S. Congress and the draft proposal to the NSG. To rub salt into the wound, the U.S. side insists on additional "fall-back" safeguards by U.S. inspectors in case they determine that the standard IAEA safeguard is not "satisfactory".

The U.S. has long sought to dismantle Indian nuclear weapons program. After India's nuclear test in 1974, they enforced a tough sanction regime and stopped fuel supplies to the American-made Tarapur nuclear reactor. Despite hardships, successive Indian governments refused to concede India's strategic program. The U.S. now attempts to do so under the garb of so-called strategic partnership. The Sonia Gandhi-led administration opts to concede on national defense under the illusion of civilian nuclear cooperation. It appears to want India disrobed into perpetual nuclear nudity.

The Indian Left and History

Cynical Nerd — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:54:45 EDT

The Left dominated the field of Indian history for thirty five years. It included historians such as Romila Thapar, D.D. Kosambi, R.S. Sharma, K.N. Pannikar, Sarvapali Gopal, Harbans Mukhia and Irfan Habib. It introduced an ideological slant in the study of history.

Let us take three examples, i.e. the portrayal of the Gupta era, the characterization of the immediate post-Gupta period and the reliance on the Pali Buddhist canon as historical source material. The Marxist school dismissed the Gupta period as a considerable part of its territory was ruled indirectly through chieftains who owed tribute, it lacked a centralized bureaucracy and it was based upon an incipient feudalism.

One could disagree. The importance of the Gupta period did not lie in its political hold over the Indo-Gangetic plain from the Hindu Kush to Assam and its links with the Vakatakas that controlled the Deccan. Its significance instead lay in the crystallization of Indic classicism that entailed the incorporation of regional, tribal and folk motifs in a broader civilizational rubric. It shaped the intellectual life in succeeding eras as no other dynasty had. Indian empiricism, science, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, architecture, theater, music and literature flourished as never before. The Gupta kingdom might not have been as centralized as the Mauryas was but it sure defined Hindu classicism.

The Indo-Marxist school likewise dismissed the immediate post-Gupta period as one characterized by a decline in trade and commodity production, deurbanization, military decentralization and the concentration of wealth in a multitude of petty local courts. The post-Gupta period was depicted as one of political fragmentation, low levels of technology, limited production for the household and the village, the absence of production for the wider market and isolated village communities and feudal land ownership.

This take is flawed. The post-Gupta Solanki dynasty in Gujarat was based on a vigorous overseas mercantilism. The affluent Rashtrakutas ruled over the Deccan. The Pallavas and Cholas in the Tamil land sponsored maritime and mercantile intercourse with South East Asia, an interaction that helped redefine both regions. These expansionist kingdoms invested in agriculture, sponsored trade and strengthened the military in the post-Gupta era! Each featured urban life and commodity production. South India in fact witnessed a rise in powerful guilds that sponsored Hindu temple cities based on an agriculture surplus - reflecting a strategic alliance of the monarchy, the priesthood, the mercantile castes, the peasant castes and the artisan. Temples became veritable bankers that financed overseas trade. Ronald Inden infact used the Rashtrakuta as evidence to demolish Marxist theory.

The Palas forged an empire that included Bengal, Bihar and Avadh. Kashmir under Avantivarman and Lalitaditya pioneered links with central Asia.

The Marxist school is an effort, inadvertent or otherwise, to demolish the grand narrative in Indian history linked to Hinduism, to selectively deconstruct the past and to localize all Indian history in caste and region. India is reduced to a mere collection of castes, linguistic groups, religions and geographic regions. No underlying unity at the ideological plane is recognized except for the Buddhist interlude or Islam under the Sultanate!

The central thesis of the Marxist Indologists that no Hindu civilizational superstructure existed - as captured by Amartya Sen's statement that "there is no Hindu civilization" - can be refuted by even a cursory study of the history of Cambodia, by which I include what is today South Vietnam and the early dynasties therein, or of Java and its neighbouring regions. The study of the literature of Khmer and Javanese, not to mention the archaeological finds in both places reveal the motifs of Hindu classicism first pieced together in a systematic manner in the Gupta period.

One could allude to another feature of the Marxist school i.e. a reliance on the Pali Buddhist canon. While this indeed presents a more balanced picture of India in the middle of the first millennium BC, one that might be lacking if one were to rely on Sanskrit literature alone, one needs to deconstruct the Pali canon. The Marxist indologists had relied on the Pali canon as a tool to de-emphasize the Brahmanic inheritance.

But yet, the Pali canon itself was put down in writing not in India but in Sri Lanka for the very first time in the first century BC - i.e. 450 years after the death of the Buddha. It was orally transmitted until then. This exercise continued in the succeeding centuries with a series of textual commentaries. The Pali language was systematized and schematized in the monasteries of Sri Lanka. The Buddha preached in Magadhi Prakrit much as did Mahavira. The Sinhalese monk reworked and transformed the early Prakrit medium into a rigorous classicism called Pali to facilitate the redaction of the Buddhist texts in a fitting and elegant literary medium. To overly rely on the Pali canon to explain the society and history of the 6th century BC Gangetic plain has its limitations!

The moment has arrived to deconstruct the Marxist school. Those who had the education and rigor to do so are few. There is a paucity of intellectual capital. I can only think of Arun Shourie, the late Sita Ram Goel - he unfortunately did not publish a seminal work on history preferring to critique the individual Marxist historians instead, Meenakshi Jain, B. Lal and Koenraad Elst. It is time to build on this legacy. The concept of civilizational Hinduism is indeed relevant, the Marxist deconstruction notwithstanding.

Authored by Jaffna

Extending India's Maritime Reach

Cynical Nerd — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:52:14 EDT

The Indian Navy is increasing its engagement with the premier navies of the world. The recent joint exercises with the navies of China, U.S. and Japan and the forthcoming exercise with the Russian navy bear testimony to this fact. It has been deployed in peaceful missions in faraway Guam and Beirut. Following its "look east" foreign policy, the Far Eastern Naval Command in the Andaman and Nicobar islands has been developed into a strategic naval base increasing its eastward reach.

However, India's maritime interests span over a much larger Indian Ocean Region (IOR) from the Swahili coast to the Straits of Malacca. In this post, we would like to explore the possibility of expanding India's naval reach in southwestern IOR in the strategic sea-lanes around the Horn of Africa.

As per recent reports in the Times of India, the Mauritius government has offered long-term lease of the Agalgela Islands to India towards infrastructure and tourism development. The islands with a 27 square mile area are located about 425 nautical miles northeast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean and 1,700 nautical miles southwest of the Indian naval base at Kochi on the southwestern coast of the Indian peninsula. They are also approximately 960 nautical miles to the west and south of Diego Garcia, which has a significant U.S. military presence

The deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius Xavier-Luc Duval has subsequently denied the lease offer and has clarified that the offer was to seek Indian help to develop infrastructure like airfields. Given the delicate ethnic balance between the Francophone Creoles and the Indo-Mauritians, it is evident that the government is wary of opening up these islands currently habited by Creole fishing communities. The Indian government is yet to respond to this offer and any talk of staging even a token Indian military presence is too early. Nevertheless the geo-strategic importance of this real estate has stirred the imagination of strategic thinkers*.

The sea-lanes around the Horn of Africa serve as a vital route for supertankers too large for passage through the Suez Canal. Similarly, large amounts of commerce shipping between Europe and the east coast of the Americas travel to Asia by way of Cape Horn. The route is thus of great importance to India's two chief regional rivals, Pakistan and China, and the ability to interdict traffic there is of great potential value. It is important for any aspiring naval power to possess good intelligence gathering capability in the zone of interest against pirating, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

India has already signed a defense co-operation deal with the nearby Mozambique and has offered joint patrolling of its coast. It has friendly relations with Seychelles and Madagascar. In this context, the Agalega islands could serve as a refueling post for Indian maritime aircrafts and unmanned aerial vehicles to help identifying trouble-making ships while naval ships do the specific interdiction should there be a need. The presence of a second remote naval presence might prove to be critical if enemy combat aircraft takes down the Far Eastern Command during a potential future regional conflict.

India however has to be careful in taking into account of the sensitivities of Mauritius in her attempt to expand her westward reach. By developing the airfields into a full-fledged airport and augmenting the port infrastructure, India can help build a viable tourism industry, which will help the local economy. Indian naval presence will also make the waters safer for international maritime commerce. Like Singapore, which supports Indian patrolling in the strategic Malacca Straits, it is also in Mauritius' security interest to have a trouble free oceanic neighborhood.

___
* Steven J Forsberg. United States Naval Institute. Proceedings. Annapolis: Mar 2007. Vol.133, Iss. 3; pg. 38.

India Tests Agni III Successfully

Cynical Nerd — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:50:18 EDT

With a "No First Use" nuclear doctrine, India's successful testing of the indigenous Agni III ballistic missile is a landmark event towards achieving minimum credible deterrence. The fire-and-forget missile can be launched from a fixed or mobile platform with an estimated range of more than 3000 km. It is capable of carrying up to 3-ton of load including thermonuclear warheads. This two-stage solid-fuelled brings large parts of China including Beijing and Shanghai and West Asia within India's reach.

Most P-5 nations have three-stage ICBMs such as the American Minuteman, Russian Topol-M or the Chinese DF-31A with a much longer 8,000+ km range. While yesterday's maiden test carried a 1.5 ton dummy warhead, India's current 200 kT yield thermonuclear warhead is much lighter at around 400 kg. Hence, some experts* have speculated that Agni III can very well venture into the ICBM range (5000+ km) with a sub-ton warhead.

India's missile program has come a long way since its inception in 1983. The program overcame several technological challenges and external pressure to stop its development. The precursor to this missile Agni II was formally suspended in 1995 owing to American pressure only to be restarted in 1998. Amazingly, the entire Integrated Guided Missile Program cost the taxpayer $400 million so far in contrast to several billions India spends on imported weaponry. It is a tribute to our scientist's diligence and brilliances that we have achieved this feat.

The missile has to be validated with more tests and the program needs to be adequately financed for quick induction into our Armed Forces. This brings us one-step closer towards the development of longer-range intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. This alone will guarantee a devastating "second-strike" capability acting as a deterrent against present and future threats.

____
*Arun Vishwakarma, Agni-III Long Range Missile - Indian Defense Review, Vol. 21(2), Apr-Jun 2006.

India's Geo-Strategic Policy - India Adrift?

Cynical Nerd — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:53:00 EDT

Sixty years ago, India won its independence after centuries of turmoil, fragmentation and foreign rule. Its independence was the outcome of a freedom struggle rooted in our civilizational ethos that involved ordinary men and women from different regions, castes and linguistic backgrounds united in a nationalist vision of a resurgent India. Today, one sees the reverse. The seeds of division sown by the colonial rulers and Christian missionaries have resurfaced. If left unchecked, we fear that India would suffer the fate of a Yugoslavia or Soviet Union given prevailing trends that have implicit and an unstated American hand.

There is much to be analyzed about the inept handling of terrorism, national security and geo-strategic issues by the current UPA administration led by Sonia Antonia Maino "Gandhi" - the de facto ruler today. The mainstream Indian media be it the Indian Express, The Times of India, The Hindu, CNN-IBN and NDTV sidestep pressing national issues and focus on non-issues. We would like to present a different perspective as food for thought. In the interests of brevity, we would limit ourselves to a few issues this time. However, there would be follow-up posts that would address the remainder.

The Maoist Belt:

The Prime Minister himself reported that the Naxalites/Maoists are the single most dangerous threat to India's internal security now spread over 180 districts across 16 states. It was the Marxist allies of the current administration that forced the UPA to support a firm Maoist hold in Kathmandu through a coalition arrangement. One can now anticipate a Maoist corridor that stretches from Nepal, to Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh - a pincer directed at the heart of the Indian Union! The NDA had clamped down heavily on the Maoists as witnessed in Andhra Pradesh. The current UPA however was soft on the Naxalites with sorry consequences.

Following the brutal assassination of Jharkand MP Sunil Mahato on March 4, the daring attack in Chattisgarh on March 15 killing more than fifty policemen indicates that the threat has worsened. Yet, very little has been done to counter the Maoists ideologically and militarily. The March 15th attack was well planned in the wee hours of morning and included the use of grenades and rocket launchers. The police under fire were caught unaware and sent SOS messages to nearby Central Reserve Police Force outfits. It failed to yield a quick response, indicating a lack of coordination between Center and the Naxal-hit states.

Even as the government's response is in disarray, the Maoists have increased their precision of their attacks and are rapidly evolving into a highly organized military force. Per Ajai Sahni of the Institute of Conflict Management, "Maoist ambitions in India now extend to the farthest reaches of the country, and this is not just a fantasy or an aspiration, but a strategy, a projection, a plan and a programme under implementation. A multiplicity of Maoist documents testify to the meticulous detail in which the contours of the current and protracted conflict have been envisaged, in order to "Intensify the peoples' war throughout the country". The Maoists have now vowed to attack every Special Export Zone (SEZ) and take the fight to urban areas.

The ideological sympathizers of the Maoists in the "civil society" such as the People's Union for Civil Liberties, while silent against the Maoist atrocities turn up with their human rights "excess" by the State only when the heat turns against the Naxalites. There is no critical analysis in the Indian media about the foreign-financed NGOs who serve as virtual fronts for the Naxalites.

Assam and the North-East:

Mizoram and Nagaland only became Christian majority regions under Jawaharlal Nehru who allowed unfettered missionary activity. Under the Congress, Assam is now poised to become a Muslim majority region due to a policy of drift with regards to the unfettered influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh since 1974!

There has been a resurgence of terrorism in the North East since the UPA came to power. The earlier NDA had the ULFP on the run. But no longer.

In Assam, the recent success of the ULFA-sponsored "bandh" which brought life to a standstill has yet again demonstrated the power of the secessionists under the current regime. It is now clear that they used the time during ceasefire to recoup and rejuvenate and hit back in the form of multiple terrorist attacks. The gruesome killing of more than 60 people on January 5th and the increased focus on soft targets including children reveals the ruthlessness of the organization.

Several NGOs such as the People's Consultative Group, People's Committee for Peace Initiatives in Asom, Manan Adhikar Surakha Samiti and 'intellectuals' of the like of Indira Goswami organize protests and condemn the security forces but never raise their voice against ULFA's violence. These organizations that often act as mediators with the terrorists oppose the migrant workers from Bihar and Nepal but never condemn illegal Bangladeshi migration. They pretty much follow the line of ULFA, which no longer considers the numerically more significant Bangladeshis as "illegal immigrant", for their wrath is selectively directed against Hindi-speaking peoples.

Succeeding Congress administrations had clearly turned a blind eye towards illegal immigration only to appease the Muslim vote bank and return to power. 32% of Assamese population is now Bengali Muslim. The state would soon be a Muslim-majority one. Pakistan, Bangladesh and China want a destabilized North-East. B. Raman retired RAW chief asserts that the ULFA had obtained help from ISI since 2004 sending their cadres for training in Pakistan via Dhaka.

Bangladesh, keen on a Muslim-majority state in India's north-east, shelters top ULFA leaders such as Paresh Barua. Several Islamist organizations like the Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Muslim United Liberation Front of Assam and Muslim Liberation Army, have heightened their anti-India rhetoric with calls for the formation of an Islamist state that includes Assam, Bangladesh and parts of Bihar and West Bengal with the active support of ISI and DGFI (the Bangladeshi external intelligence organization).

Sri Lanka:

India under Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Vajpayee had Sri Lanka firmly within it's sphere of influence. But not so under Manmohan Singh!

Sri Lanka has slowly but steadily moved out of India's control under the UPA. Our hands off approach has created space for the United States to enter. The U.S. is keen to invest in Trincomalee as a strategic port to dominate the Bay of Bengal and contain India. It has signed a de facto ten-year defense treaty with the Sri Lankan government, a step that would never have happened under Indira Gandhi, Rajiv or Vajpayee. The American ambassador in Colombo is popularly known as the Viceroy! Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence is an American citizen. The head of the Sri Lankan army is an American resident. The President's other brother and influential policy wonk in Sri Lanka today is an American resident as well. Sri Lanka is now a client state of the United States and its recent successes in the battlefield against the LTTE owes much to American intelligence support. The UPA administration has no Sri Lanka policy leaving India's southern flank exposed to foreign domination.

The UPA furthermore has turned a blind eye towards the gross human violations by the Sri Lankan forces. This includes an unprecedented aerial bombardment of Tamil villages and farmland, not to mention the 300,000 Tamil displaced in recent months. The Sri Lankan navy continues to fire at Indian fishermen with gay abandon!

China competes with the United States to establish its influence in Sri Lanka. They would soon build a US$ 1 billion deep-water port in Humbantota and a US$ 500 million coal-fired power plant in Puttalam. They have obtained oil and gas exploration rights in the Gulf of Mannar - a mere 15 miles from the Indian coast.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency has promised to fund the development of a Sri Lankan oil and gas regulatory mechanism. More Western petroleum companies are expected to bid for exploration rights in that strategic area off India's southern coast.

Such a marginalization of Indian interest in the island nation would have never happened under Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi or Vajpayee. But Sonia Maino represents different priorities i.e. the cynical use of caste and religion-based vote bank politics regardless of long-term national interest.

United States:

The NDA tested nuclear devices in 1998 and earned the belated recognition of the United States. The UPA government is now in the process of conceding on national interest through a flawed nuclear deal. It has put all of its strategic crown jewels into the American basket with no reciprocity in sight. The final version of the "123″ bilateral treaty delivered by the Americans flies in the face of the July 18th agreement. Despite the warnings given with the enactment of the Hyde Act, the Prime Minister had assured that the deal depends only the 123 agreement and not the Hyde Act. But as expected, the U.S. negotiator Nicholas Burns emphasized that any final agreement signed by the President cannot violate the provisions of the Hyde Act. The Americans are upping the pressure and are "impatient" at the pace of negotiations to paraphrase the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher. They are keen on signing an agreement in its present form by the end of this year before the campaign for '08 U.S. elections kicks in.

The recent arrest and indictment of four Indian-Americans for allegedly selling electronics components to Indian defense organizations in violation of "non-proliferation, export-control laws" clearly shows the signs of things to come. The United States apparently has no qualms over selling the same components to Chinese companies. It appears that an electronic component that can be sold to China cannot be transferred to India despite it being an alleged "strategic partner" and a "natural ally" of the United States!

All kinds of dishonest maneuvers are being used to put India on the defensive and surreptiously introduce clauses on future weapons testing and reprocessing of spent fuel. This nuclear deal, which was an offshoot of the "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership", that aimed at increased collaboration in high-tech, defense and space collaboration between the two countries has being used to browbeat India into submission.

Conclusion:

What we have covered in this post is just the tip of the iceberg. The legitimate issues we have raised here merits to be discussed and debated inside and outside the Parliament. This administration has to made accountable for its shortcomings and address them on a war footing before it becomes too late to undo the damage. And yet, the principal Opposition party has lost its chances in exploiting them. They have instead chosen to follow the beaten path concentrating on parochial issues. The media too shares the responsibility for not asking the tough questions expected of it in a functioning democracy. The public needs to be informed on the perils being faced by the nation, which will soon endanger everyone's livelihoods in a dramatic way.

Over to our readers hoping for a lively and enlightened debate!

Indian Geo-Politics: India At The Crossroads

Cynical Nerd — Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:15:39 EDT

We apologize for our extended absence due to a hectic non-stop work schedule. We thank all the readers who wrote to us. We do keep an eye on the ever evolving situation with regards to Indian national interests. Here are some of our thoughts:

Geo-politics: The withdrawal of Shri Shashi Tharoor as a candidate of U.N. Secretary General is a slap on India’s face. The nomination itself was done by the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) without consulting South Block and India’s permanent mission to the U.N. Further it was done without gaining the confidence of a single UNSC permanent member. It could not even muster the support of non-adversarial South Asian nations such as Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Finally, the sole veto came from none other than India’s “new-found friend” the United States.This indicates a lack of clarity in the foreign policy administration of the Manmohan Singh regime. It has been a saga of one failure after the other since 2004. Contrast that with India’s earlier successes where it gained membership of the East Asia Summit, its participation at G-8 Summits and the establishment of the Brazil-India-South Africa Strategic Triangle.

Sri Lanka: India is woefully absent in the deteriorating situation there. India’s aloof posture has provided space for the intelligence and military personnel of Pakistan to come in and aid the Sri Lankan army with weapons and training. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Pakistan had offered uranium tipped missiles and daisy-cutter bombs to the Sri Lankan military but such reports are hard to confirm. Pakistan is reportedly keen to use Sri Lanka as a launching pad to destabilize India’s southern flank. Several commentators including the ex-chief of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) Shri J.K. Sinha have expressed deep concerns about India’s lack of involvement in the fast unraveling situation there.

The efforts made by the previous NDA administration in de-internationalizing the peace process under the able stewardship of then High Commissioner Shri Nirupam Sen is now completely inversed by a singularly incompetent Nirupama Rao whose sole qualification was her links to the powers that be in New Delhi. India appears increasingly irrelevant to the resolution of the Sri Lankan crisis as it did in the events that unfolded a few months back in Nepal with dire strategic consequences to its long term security. Once again, this is an indictment on the lack of strategic foresight of the Manmohan Singh administration.

China: India’s China policy is increasingly being handled by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The Left has been crying themselves hoarse about Chinese companies not being allowed to invest in strategic areas such as Indian telecom and shipping ports. Apparently they are not worried that the same companies have strong links with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The Indian Marxists had likewise defined India’s policy on Nepal a few months back. The Maoists are poised to capture a monopoly of power in Kathmandu shortly in part due to the inept handling of that crisis by the PMO in New Delhi.

The Chinese through their North Korean lackeys have successfully put the United States and its allies in North East Asia (South Korea and Japan) in a fix. Today’s nuclear weapons test by North Korea will have several consequences for the present world order. First Japan might invest in a nuclear arsenal. Then the NPT regime will unravel slowly. Beijing is expected to take advantage of the situation as a stick to derive more concessions in a world where the Bush doctrine is clearly unravelling - be it Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq or North Korea. Does India have a policy here?

Indo-US relations: The sorry administration in New Delhi has put all it's global eggs in one basket i.e. the United States. The UPA was not able to convince the U.S. Senate and Congress in removing questionable clauses to the amendment to the proposed Indo-American nuclear deal. Now with the Senate in a lame duck session, this deal in its present form has little chance of passing. This is clearly a blessing in disguise.

The question is how does India improve its bargaining power when a new Congress and Senate (possibly more hostile given the likelihood of the Atlanticist Democrats gaining a majority)? The Indo-American nuclear deal was a flawed one to begin with, in that it envisioned the opening of several Indian nuclear plants to IAEA inspections. Manmohan was once again about to barter away long term strategic interest for a short term gain of dubious value.

Pakistan: Prime Minster Manmohan Singh made an astonishing statement that Pakistan too is a victim of terrorism and went ahead with the joint anti-terror mechanism in the sidelines of the Non Aligned Summit in Havana. Soon, Pakistan made it clear that there is no question of handing over any terrorist to Indian custody. Much to the PMO’s embarrassment, the Mumbai police went ahead with publicly naming Pakistan’s ISI as the masterminds behind the 7/11 terrorist attack.

Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Ryan Crocker, had advised India from disclosing such information publicly. He would rather want the evidence to be discussed privately with Pakistan. Let us recall that the Naramsimha Rao government gave the timer used in ‘93 Mumbai attacks to the United States as evidence of Pakistani hand behind it. The U.S. authorities promptly destroyed it under the garb of ‘testing’. It appears that Indian policy towards Pakistan is increasingly defined in Washington rather in New Delhi. This is seen in efforts to negotiate a mutual pull back from the line of control in Siachen, a move that would benefit Pakistan, not India. India lacks a policy with regards to the incipient revolt in Balochistan where accounts for 40% of Pakistan’s territory. It appears that New Delhi is unable or unwilling to exploit the weaknesses within Pakistan to due effect.

We attribute this to the short sighted policies of the likes of newly appointed Foreign Secretary Shiv Shanker Menon who are eager to please the Yankee bankrollers. India to this day lacks a full time Minister of External Affairs, a subject that continues to be handled by a 'lame duck' Prime Minister.

Afghanistan: The Taliban are clearly making a comeback. NATO forces are increasingly under hostile fire with highly trained milita coming across from Pakistan. Musharraf has the West in a bind. Since the Waziristan peace deal between the Pakistani Taliban and Islamabad, Taliban attacks against NATO forces have tripled. There has been an alarming surge in suicide bomb attacks in Kabul. There is already talk of negotiating with the Taliban from the likes of Bill Frist, the U.S. Senate majority leader. The United States plans to cut and run in Afghanistan.

The Taliban (or whatever new name they are likely to be called) will serve as Pakistan’s fifth column in Afghanistan. Pakistan will direct them to pursue their jihad in Jammu & Kashmir just like in the nineties. This will be disastrous. India has to raise the cost for Pakistan from trying such misadventures. Balochistan offers India an opening in this regard. Once again, the Prime Minister's office has no credible strategy to deal with an incipient crisis with huge consequences to the security of India’s northern flank.

Internal Security: The latest series of engineered protests by ‘lefty-liberal intellectuals’ and ‘foreign-financed human rights’ groups demanding the clemency for the convicted terrorist Mohammed Afzal in the December 2001 Parliament case represents one symptoms of the malaise that exists in India. The fact that the perpetrators of the attack have been brought to justice in a short-period of six years (by Indian standards) shows the relative seriousness with which they were pursued earlier. Compare that with the ‘93 Bombay blasts whose perpetrators are just being convicted. Of course, we do not know the status of the attacks which happened earlier (Delhi, Varanasi, Bangalore, Malegoan to mention a few).

Something is just not right when so-called western-financed intellectuals (read Arundhati Roy and Medha Patkar) plead for one terrorist who masterminded the attack on the citadel of Indian democracy and killed several others while another terrorist who masterminded the Coimbatore bomb blasts gets therapeutic massages in his luxury prison cell in Kerala. Has India lost its moorings under the current UPA administration?

Stiffling of Dissent: Under this prime minister, the PMO has become all-powerful, managed by an unelected clique. We are yet to get a full time External Affairs Minister. Earlier while negotiating the terms of the nuclear deal with the United States, those former and present nuclear scientists expressing concerns were routinely pooh-poohed by selectively leaking information to a pliant media. We saw several cases where the Indian Express and its shamelessly pro-American “strategic affairs” editor C. Raja Mohan regularly cast aspersions not just on India’s foreign policy experts of yesteryear but also on their caste and regional backgrounds.

The same happened later with the “peace process” against the advice of distinguished ex-diplomats like Shri G. Parathasarathy, security experts like Shri B. Raman. There again the PMO’s pro-American media advisor Sanjaya Baru launched an all-out media offensive by terming those opposing it as “BJP supporters”. In the latest episode the Air Force Chief S.P. Tyagi was forced to publicly go out that the sale of F-16 to Pakistan is a serious problem for the Indian Air Force. The PMO was not too happy that this goes against the spirit of the new “strategic ally” of the U.S. and “peace with neighbor” at all cost.

Over to you readers for your reflections and observations!

Co-authored by Cynical Nerd and Jaffna.