Desicritics Category: Politics: Empire

Poem: The Dance of Solitude

Kashkin — Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:17:50 EST

The solitude and its silence
Stands there, the grand empires
Built from dreams of the past
The old chaos of times
From distant corners,
Come they to examine
To see, how this life, spent
Through opium years to its magic
Hear they not, the deafening soul

The rapturous routines
The old peaceful moments
Built for the dreams of future
From distant corners
Come they to examine
Their own past and the colours
Through the years of violence
Hear they not, the drowning heart

The perpetual existence
In time and its space
In this grand scheme of life
From distant corners,
Travel they far, to examine
Themselves and the light
Through years of creation
To the end of time, hear they not
The Dance of Solitude!

The 1818 Battle of Koregaon - The Beginning of a Casteist War?

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:26:58 EST

I received the following email on new year’s day:

ON 1ST JANUARY 1818, MERE 500 BAHUJAN SOLDIERS COURAGEOUSLY FOUGHT AGAINST 50,000 TYRANNICAL FORCES OF MANUWADI PESHWAS AND GAVE THEIR LIVES TO END THE OPPRESSIVE MANUWADI REGIME

EMPIRICAL RULE OF BRITISHERS IN RECOGNITION OF THE GREAT BRAVERY OF BAHUJAN SOLDIERS UNDER THE CAPTAINCY OF SIDNAK MAHAR, ERECTED A MONUMENT AT KOREGAON-BHIMA, PUNE ON THE BANK OF RIVER BHIMA.

DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR, THE BODHISATTVA WHO FOUGHT THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE AGAINST THE AGE OLD MANUWADI OPERATIONS, INVARIABLY USED TO VISIT AND SALUTE THE "VIJAY STAMBHA"- MEMORIAL OF BAHUJAN WARRIORS

LET BAHUJANS NOT FORGET THEIR MARTYRDOM AND OFFER THEIR SALUTATIONS TO THE GREAT MEMORIES OF THOSE GREAT BAHUHAN SOLDIERS WHO RELENTLESSLY FOUGHT TO BREAK THE SHACKLES OF OUR AGE OLD SLAVERY.

LET'S NARRATE THE HISTORY TO FUTURE GENERATIONS SO AS TO MAKE THEM STRONG ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND MANUWAD.

Very impressive. I had never heard of this before, so went looking for more information. Here’s another site where there is more background. Hmmm, fascinating stuff. So if I understood the essence, it was a group of 500 Dalit soldiers who fought approximately 25000 Brahmins. And why is this important? I quote:

First, the British army fought this battle with a minuscule army expecting the worst, especially after their experience of the Pune Regency. Secondly, the battle of Koregaon was one of the most important events which helped tear down the Peshwa Empire and subsequently the Peshwa had to abdicate. Thirdly and most importantly, it was an attempt by the untouchables of Maharashtra to break the shackles of the age-old caste order.

That sort of didnt really jibe with what I had read about the Maratha Wars. So I went to do a bit of poking around.

1. The Maratha Wars:

While I can understand the desire of Dalits to home into that skirmish and claim that to be the be all and end all of all, skirmishes like this have to be grounded in the greater framework. The Maratha Empire brought to life by Shivaji attained its greatest strength by 1760 as shown in the image below.

And I should point out that Shivaji was not a Brahmin. While they claimed Kshyatriya status later on, there are some arguments that he was originally a Dalit, a Shudra to be precise. See here for an overview of this argument. Finally, Shivaji’s army was largely composed of people like him, so it was a Dalit Army anyway which got promoted, so to say. Then comes the first Anglo Maratha War 1777-1783 where first the Maratha’s won and then the British won. In both cases, native soldiers were far too frequently Dalits. Anyway, more land was captured by the Brits and the power of the Maratha’s was further reduced. Peshwa Baji Rao II and his father basically got up to no good. In 1802, BajiRao went and sucked up to the British after being defeated by Holkars in the Battle of Poona. This pissed off the other Maratha warlords and they got into a bit of a fight with the British which ended with more loss of territory for the Marathas. Then comes the crucial 3rd War which our Dalit friends might now appreciate.

This relates to the 3rd Anglo Maratha War 1817-1818 or the Pindari War. The Pindari’s were highly mobile cavalry units which were not on the payroll of any ruler but associated with rulers in return for protection and permission to plunder. Guess what? These Pindari’s were low caste, Ladul and also had quite a lot of Muslims (mainly Afghans and Pusthun). Anyway, all this plundering was not good for the British and a really very big army of 120,000 men and 300 artillery pieces was put into gear by Lord Hastings to exterminate these Pindari’s. The attacks happened from the east in Bengal, from the South in the Deccan and from the west from Gujarat and Bombay. Look at the map above and see who is the nut in this 3-way nutcracker? The Marathas.

2. The immediate predecessor to the 1st Jan 1818 Battle of Koregaon.

Once the British invaded Maratha territory to go after the Pindari’s, there were skirmishes between the Peshwa’s forces and the British forces such as the sack of the British Residency in Pune, and then the British routed another Peshwa force at Khirki. Then the main battle was fought in the Battle of Khadki on November 5, 1817 where the Peshwa Baji Rao was routed pretty much comprehensively and then the British took over the Peshwa’s seat at Shaniwarwada by November 17, 1817. The Peshwa, by this time, was running ragged. There was another battle between the Nagpur forces and the British at Sitabalsi on November 27 1817. The next battle to be fought was the Battle of Mahidpur on 20th December where the Holkar’s fought and lost to the British, after being betrayed by one of the Pindari (who killed Tulsibai).

3. The Battle of Koregaon:

A good description of the battle can be found here. This is a book by WC Taylor, A Popular History of British India published in 1847. See page 268-269 for details of the battle. Sounds like a pretty good bash. Taylor says that the Peshwa’s forces numbered about 25,000 although it should be noted that counting was pretty vague at that time. Still, it wasnt 50,000. But here’s the crucial thing, the Peshwa’s forces then retreated not because they were defeated by Captain Francis Staunton’s forces, but because they got to hear that British reinforcements were coming over. The British forces lost 200 soldiers out of 500, and 6 out of 7 British officers. Good defensive battle without food or water at this village. You can see the layout of the land here although there are no records extant of how the battle actually went, the defences and the lay of the land.

4. The soldiers.

The soldiers who did most of the dying were Mahars. And again ironically, they got their start in being soldiers by no other than Shivaji to become scouts and fortress guards. They were highly mobile light infantry, which is the reason why they were in the 2nd Battalion, 1st regiment of ‘Bombay Native Light Infantry’ as part of the Maratha Light Infantry. The Peshwa’s soldiers were also by and large lower caste soldiers including Mahars, in any case, not Brahmins. So the fighting basically was between lower castes, only the people who were ordering them around were the British and the Peshwas. This Mahar Regiment still exists and has provided two of the most brilliant Indian Army Chiefs: Gen (Retd) K V Krishna Rao and Gen (Retd) K Sunderji. Also, there is no caste element to the regiment from 1963 onwards and it is now a fully mixed regiment.

5. The aftermath of the Battle of Koregaon:

There was another fight between the fleeing Peshwa’s forces and the British at Ashti on February 20th 1818 and he remained under pressure till he surrendered to Sir John Malcolm on June 3, 1818 and was given the pension of an annual payment of 8 lakhs rupees. The Battle of Koregaon was celebrated by raising of an Obelix which commemorated this.

So all in all, I am afraid what my research threw up was in sharp variance with the mythology is being provided. It was frankly a small battle / skirmish in a much bigger war, the Peshwa’s forces were not defeated in this skirmish, the British Army did not fight this battle expecting the worst because they had been winning every battle in this war, this battle of Koregaon was not really that important as fighting kept on happening for months after this battle and I am afraid there is absolutely no evidence that any kind of caste based ideology was involved in the fight.

So all in all, good myth but a rather more calm reading of the historical record tells differently. I can also see why the Dalit hotheads want to use this battle to burnish their credentials. After all, all revolutions need their battles. Google for “Battle of Koregaon” to see how this myth is being built up, but I am afraid the reading is slightly different. If they do want to celebrate the success of lower caste soldiers, they should celebrate Shivaji, the Indian Soldier, the bravery that these soldiers showed to whoever paid them. See here for the campaigns that the Maratha Light Infantry got involved in. But to bring this casteism into the Indian Army? Not really cricket, old chaps. But I am very happy to be corrected if I have not referred to any other source or documentation. Happy to learn more.

Justice Radhabinod Pal and Hiroshima

commonsense — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:03:50 EDT

"Mechanized civilization has just reached the ultimate stage of barbarism. In a near future, we will have to choose between mass suicide and intelligent use of scientific conquests[...] This can no longer be simply a prayer; it must become an order which goes upward from the peoples to the governments, an order to make a definitive choice between hell and reason." Albert Camus, 1945

"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible." Federal Council of Churches, USA 1946

Last week was the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The “little boy” that incinerated Hiroshima on 6th of August, 1945 and the “fat man” that did the same for Nagasaki three days later have ignited a lot of heated discussion about the future of nuclear weapons. The dominant view – that the two atomic bombs ended the war and brought peace – has been questioned by a number of historians. Using declassified documents not available earlier, Gar Alperovitz of UC-Berkeley in his Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965) argued that the decision to drop the bombs on Japan was geopolitical and actually triggered off the cold war. The decision to According to him and others such William Blum, an ex-State Department official, Japan had already decided to surrender prior to Hiroshima. According to him, the bombs were used to put the Soviet Union on notice and perhaps to test the bombs that had never been used in the battlefield. Both interpretations however, are hotly debated and contested, and as is the case with all ideologically charged social controversies, it is impossible that a final consensus will ever emerge.

As is well known, after the war, the International Military Tribunal for Far East Asia was was set up. Also known as the Tokyo Trials of 1946, of the “judges” who presided over it and pronounced the Japanese army officers on trial guilty of war crimes, only one person was a career judge – the ex-professor of Law at Calcutta University, Justice Radhabinod Pal. The rest, mostly British, American and Australian were either ex-army officers or diplomats.

Except for Judge Radhabinod Pal, no one had any legal training, formal or informal. Justice Pal made history by dissenting with his colleagues on the Military Tribunals and penned a document that was over 1500 pages long. While clearly acknowledging the fact that the Japanese were indeed guilty of horrendous war crimes, he argued that the Allies who were judging them were also guilty of the same. Indeed he questioned the very legitimacy of the Military Tribunal, and argued that it was driven solely by the spirit of retribution rather than international law. His note of dissent which has now become a legal landmark in international law was:

"I would hold that every one of the accused must be found not guilty of every one of the charges in the indictment and should be acquitted on all those charges."

His very detailed document of dissent was promptly banned from publication in the well known bastions of free-speech such as the UK and USA. His argument that the Allies were also guilty of war crimes was not palatable then or now. The document is still not available in print in either of those countries, even though the Internet makes it possible to obtain the text online.

On the use of the atomic bombs, a point that seems to have been lost on the current cheerleaders of a nuclear India and Pakistan, Justice Pal famously observed:

"This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision...If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War."

Not surprisingly, Justice Radhabinod Pal has the status of a national hero in Japan and not just among the nationalists. Non-nationalist anti-nuclear activists derive inspiration from his take on the use of atomic weapons. A memorial in his honor is prominent in the Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo. When the former Japanese PM, Abe Shinzo visited India in August 2007, a highlight of his visit was to meet Justice Pal's octogenarian son who lives in Kolkata. After his landmark and courageous stand against group think, a stand that actually did influence the members of the Tribunal from France and the Netherlands, Justice Pal was appointed to the United Nations Internationa Law Commission where he worked until 1966, just a year before his death in 1967.

Justice Pal’s comments on the horrors of nuclear weapons are obviously quite lost on a new generation of middle-class Indians who have bought into carefully orchestrated delusions of superpower status. Their counterparts in Pakistan follow suit. The hypocritcal double-speak of those that have belonged to the pre-exising nuclear club, whether acknowledged or unacknowledged, as in the case of Israel, does not help.

Those who are familiar with Justice Pal's views and real actions on this issue will no doubt see him as a bleeding heart idealist from another generation, unhinged from reality. Others no doubt will point out to his consistent anti-colonial stance as the ideological, therefore presumably tainted and not objective motive behind his dissenting landmark judgment.

Whether President Obama’s recent comments on the desirability of nuclear disarmament were sincere or not, and one suspects it's the latter, one can only hope against hope that it will generate some momentum towards a semblance of reason and sanity. To those who will no doubt peddle the “there is no other alternative” line, there seems to be no other alternative to throwing the same line back at them. Beats throwing nuclear bombs, that every fool with an iota of commonsense knows, can ruin one's entire day and sometimes even a whole weekend.

After Cairo, Will Obama Back Up His Words With Actions?

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:30:13 EDT

There has never been any doubt that Obama is a good speaker and Obama’s Cairo Speech has only reaffirmed what everyone knew, that Obama is a master of rhetoric and linguistic finesse. With the exception of Churchill’s Blood, Sweat, Toil and Tears speech, I can’t think of any other address by any politician in the last hundred years that was so eagerly anticipated and which lived up to its promise. Yes, Kennedy’s Ich Bin Ein Berliner is equally important and memorable, but that was a one-liner and it is always easy to get a one-liner right, though Armstrong did goof up with his.Obama’s speech confirms a clean break with past US policy on the Middle East, especially in light of his predecessor George Bush’s track record. Obama has made it clear that he does not think all Muslims are terrorists or that Islamic culture is not something to be despised or treated with contempt. It is only a small minority of Muslims who are extremists and Obama is very happy to do business with the rest, provided they are willing to meet with him halfway. To do all this, Obama did not hesitate to refer to his own Islamic background or to praise past Islamic contributions to art, architecture etc. Obama also promised to fight crude stereotypes of Islam and demanded that Muslim reciprocate in equal measure. Can it be said that Obama spoke for all Americans? Can it be assumed that a majority of Americans are as appreciative of Islam as Obama is? I am not too sure of that, though it is clear than most Americans do want to make a fresh start.

A few times, Obama went a bit overboard in his speech, but I don’t think many people have noticed, though a few obviously did. For example, he said that the first nation to recognize the US was Morocco by signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796. What Obama failed to say what that Morocco was not an independent state and that the treaty was signed with the Pasha of Morocco who owed allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. Along with the other two Barbary nations Tunisia and Algeria, Morocco was officially in the business of piracy.Ships sailing in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic would be attacked by Barbary corsairs unless they were protected by a strong navy or had paid protection money to the Moroccans. After the US became independent in 1783, it no longer had the protection of the British navy and signed the treaty of Morocco under which it paid a large sum of money to the Pasha so that ships flying the American flag would not be attacked. A few years later, the Pasha wanted more money and there was a brief war between the United States and Morocco, following which a second treaty was signed. Whichever one of Obama’s speech writers thought this one up ought to be shot! In my opinion, the first nation to recognise the United States was Great Britain which, at the end of the War of Independence, signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 under which the right to independence of the thirteen states that initially formed the United States of America was recognised.

Obama also said that America was founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. As far as I know, the founding fathers of America believed that all rich white land owning men are equal.

Obama said that he wanted to create a nuclear weapons free world where no nation would have nuclear weapons and all nations, even Iran, would be able to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Splendid thoughts, but I just don’t see the US or any other nuclear power giving up its weapons. I though the best bit of Obama’s speech came when he talked of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the worst bit, for me at least, was when he talked about Israel and Palestine. Obama rightly acknowledged US ties to Israel and the sheer horror and brutality of the holocaust. However he had me confused when he said,

‘On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighbouring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.’

For me the way Obama used the phrase ‘pursuit of a homeland’ is worrying. You see, the Palestinians had a homeland before the Jews returned and it was the Jewish pursuit of a homeland (in my opinion, perfectly justified in principle, but executed with so many blemishes) that has caused so much misery to the Palestinians.

Further some of the Palestinian suffering is the Palestinians’ own fault. But I just couldn’t figure out where Obama stood on all this. To me, it sounded as if he was trying to make a set of very safe statements without offending anybody. Obama wants a Palestinian state and wants the building Israeli settlements to stop. Hurray! Very few people (like Libyan President Gaddafi) still believe in a one-state solution and I didn’t really expect Obama to do so. Obama doesn’t like violence (which he says is wrong) and he reminds Palestinians that all over the world, deprived and downtrodden people have won their rights through non-violence. Does the US have the moral right to make this statement when it is involved in so much fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don’t think so.

Mind you, I am not saying the US shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, only that Obama shouldn’t be sanctimonious and preach about non-violence. From the time Israel won the six-day war in 1967, during which time Lyndon B. Johnson was the US President, the US had taken the stand that Israel should stop building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Except during George W. Bush’s time, when the US was silent on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, US policy in this regard has not changed since 1967. The US has also always supported the idea of a Palestinian state. Bill Clinton (when he was President) actually went further than Obama did in Cairo and demanded that the Arab parts of Jerusalem (the Eastern bits) be under Palestinian control.

Obama on the other hand was silent on the fate of Jerusalem, , except to say that he wanted Jerusalem to be a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, which doesn’t convey much. I would like to know if Obama believes Israel is entitled to the whole of Jerusalem. Or would Obama like to see East Jerusalem as a part of the independent Palestinian State?If Obama were a doer and not just a talker, this is what he would do to force Israel to give up the occupied territories. Military and financial aid to Israel would be sharply reduced.

No, I would not advocate a total cut since Israel does face many serious security threats and yes, it is in a very hostile neighbourhood. Hamas and Hizbollah would be recognised as legitimate political entities and treated with some degree of respect. Political parties in Israel which support the cause of an independent Palestinian state – I mean a fully-functioning state with its own armed forces and the right and ability to defend itself, not what Benyamin Netanyahu has in mind – will be patted on the back whilst the fundamentalists like Lieberman will be given short shrift. And all along, the US will keep reiterating the demand for an independent Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Yes, East Jerusalem should be part of the independent Palestinian state.I am not too sure if Obama will do all or, even a part of, what I have mentioned above. The reason I don’t have much confidence in Obama is that I see him as a man unwilling to offend any one. And the Palestinian dispute cannot be solved unless the United States is willing to step on many a toe and twist many an arm. Why do I say that Obama is unwilling to offend anybody?

Look at Obama’s response to a totally different, but equally serious issue facing the United States. Yes, I am referring to the healthcare crisis. Unlike Canada and all countries in Western Europe, America does not have nationalised healthcare. In the US, healthcare is provided by private institutions and it is very expensive. Buying health insurance cover is a very common practice and most employers provide their employees with insurance cover. However, almost fifteen percent or forty seven million Americans do not have health insurance. Addressing this issue was a cornerstone of Obama’s election-time pledge to reform and change America. And how does Obama address this issue? Does he want to create a country-wide, healthcare system akin to the British NHS funded by the taxpayer? No. Is Obama going to introduce legislation that will cap the total compensation payable in medical negligence cases? No, even though such a move would drastically reduce the cost of health care insurance. Does Obama have any plans to reform tort litigation in the US? No. The US is the world’s most litigious society.

Unlike in the UK, plaintiffs in the US have an easy ride. Contingency fee arrangements are very common and attorneys will take on a case for no fees on the understanding that a big chunk of any compensation awarded will go to them. Contingency fee arrangements are totally illegal in India and are permitted only in certain limited circumstances in the UK. Further, even if a plaintiff loses a case which was proved to be frivolous, US courts rarely order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs. In the UK, it is not only common for a losing party to pay a substantial part of the winner costs, on filing a suit, a plaintiff is usually asked to provide security for the defendant’s costs that would be payable if the plaintiff were to lose.

So, how does Obama propose to reform healthcare in the US? By introducing a government-run health care insurance plan that will apparently compete with private insurance plans. There is no guarantee that a government run plan will lower costs. “A Rasmussen Reports poll found that only 32 percent of Americans believed a government-run insurance plan would, lower costs.” There is actually a very good chance that such a plan might turn out to be as expensive as private ones. It is very rare for any government in the world to successfully compete with private operators, even if it doesn’t intend to make a profit. In other words Obama does not want to seriously offend insurance companies or doctors or tort litigation attorneys who make a killing out of the present system.

If Obama is unwilling to say ‘Boo’ in the face of powerful insurance companies, will he say ‘Boo’ to Israel? Very, very, unlikely.

Is The Demand For Eelam Valid? A Response to Tamilnet's Question

Vinod Joseph — Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:18:51 EDT

Tamilnet, the LTTE’s unofficial website has posed a question to the world at large. According to this Tamilnet editorial “the world has an obligation now to tell the Tamils whether its opposition is to what it has perceived as 'terrorism' or to Tamil nationalism.” In my view, this question assumes critical importance in light of the statement released by Selvarasa Pathmanathan, Head of LTTE’s International Relations Department since January 2009, after the LTTE Chief Velupillai Prabhakaran’s demise.

Selvarasa Pathmanathan, who is now the senior most among surviving LTTE leaders, has said that despite Prabhakaran’s death, “it is our undivided duty to keep the flame burning until the freedom for the Tamils are achieved.” Subsequently, Pathmanathan stated that “the Tigers would now use "non-violent" methods to fight for the rights of Tamils.”

If the LTTE and sections of Sri Lankan Tamils are to commence a non-violent movement for an independent Eelam, would they be justified? In other words, is there a case for an independent Eelam?

Just as the ends don’t justify the means, the means also don’t justify the ends. Merely because the LTTE has decided to (or has been forced to) give up violence, its struggle for an independent Tamil Eelam in northern and north eastern Sri Lanka will not automatically be justified. It is imperative at this stage to objectively examine whether there is a case for such an independent Eelam. If a legitimate case for Eelam can be made out, the late and much lamented LTTE and the various atrocities which came in its wake (forcible recruitment of children, ethnic cleansing of Muslims etc.) should not be an excuse to prevent Sri Lankan Tamils from pursuing independence.

If it can be shown that an independent Eelam is justified, the world may even tolerate the use of force by Sri Lankan Tamils against military targets. There are numerous examples of insurgent groups which have enjoyed global support despite resorting to force. The East Timorese insurgents who fought a successful campaign against Indonesian forces come to mind. The LTTE itself used to enjoy a certain degree of support and respectability until they started to stoop too low. If a valid case is made for Eelam, the fact that India will find it difficult to accept an independent Tamil state to its south will be irrelevant.

On the other hand, if it is shown that Eelam is not justified, even a peaceful movement for independence should not enjoy any support or sympathy, though it may not be legally possible (or even correct) to stop or restrict such a movement.

Before I proceed any further, let me say that what I say henceforth are my very personal and very subjective views. A different person may, after examining the same facts, come to a very different conclusion.

It is a matter of dispute as to how long the Tamil and Sinhalese have lived in Sri Lanka and who arrived first. The Sinhalese are said to be migrants from eastern India who arrived over 2500 years ago. Tamil Kings led frequent incursions into Sri Lanka. At one point (during the 10th and 11th centuries), the Tamil speaking Cholas from South India had the whole island under their control. A large scale invasion of Sri Lanka by a King from eastern India in the early 13th century forced the Sinhalese to move to the west and south of Sri Lanka. There were independent Tamil kingdoms in the north of Sri Lanka when the Portuguese arrived in the early 16th century. The rest of the island was under the control of various Sinhalese Kings. The Dutch followed the Portuguese and the British arrived after that. The British followed a policy of divide and rule and favoured the Tamils over the Sinhalese. Tamils dominated the bureaucracy and business.

In 1948 when Sri Lanka got independence without a freedom movement, there was no demand from Sri Lankan Tamils for an independent state of their own. Nor did Sri Lankan Tamils identify with Indian Tamils, many of whom had been taken to the highlands in central Sri Lanka by the British to work in its tea plantations. From anecdotal evidence, I understand that Sri Lankan Tamils only had contempt for Indian Tamils, who were referred to as Indian ‘coolies.’ The movement for Tamil rights gathered steam slowly as the Sri Lankan government instituted various affirmative action measures meant to put the Sinhalese on par with the dominant Tamils. Sinhala was made the only official language of the country under the Sinhala Only Act of 1956. This legislation was partially reversed in 1958, just two years later.

The first call for Tamil independence and a separate Tamil state was raised only in 1973 by the great Sri Lankan Tamil leader Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam. Though this movement was peaceful, armed groups supported by India soon took over. One of the youths who took to violence was a shy young man named Thiruvenkadam Velupillai Prabhakaran who formed the Tamil National Tigers or TNT. The rest they say is history. You can read Prabhakaran’s life story in this excellent article by the inimitable DBS Jeyaraj.

The traditional view of a nation is one where a people are unified by a common language, customs, culture and territory to the exclusion of others. This principle was developed as various nation states in Europe come into their own at various stages starting from the Renaissance. If this theory is applied, Tamils can be said to be a nation, one of many in the Indian subcontinent. However, it is difficult to use this traditional theory in the case of Sri Lankan Tamils for various reasons. The main difficulty in applying this theory is that only around 5% of global Tamils live in Sri Lanka. With 60 million Tamils in India and around 3 million in Sri Lanka, it is not easy to say that Sri Lankan Tamils form a nation on their own.

What makes it even more difficult to apply this traditional test of a nation to Sri Lankan Tamils is that a large section of Sri Lanka’s Tamil speaking population do not consider themselves Tamil and do not form part of the ‘Sri Lankan Tamil nation’ that is seeking independence. Yes, I am referring to the Muslims of Sri Lanka who form 8% of Sri Lanka’s population. Of this, around 92% are Tamil speakers. Muslims form around 28% of Sri Lanka’s Tamil speaking community. You can find detailed statistics on Sri Lankan Muslims here.

Muslim Tamils in Sri Lanka prefer to be considered as Muslims rather than as Tamils, even though non-Tamil Muslims form only 8% of Sri Lanka’s Muslims. Not only are Tamil Muslims estranged from the other Tamils, in October 1990 the LTTE evicted over a hundred thousand Muslims from areas controlled by them in northern Sri Lanka. The Muslims forced out of their homes by the LTTE had only 48 hours to pack up and leave and they could only take with them three hundred Rupees each and some clothes. In 1972 when the infamous Idi Amin expelled the South Asian community from Uganda, he gave them more time (72 hours) to leave his fiefdom!

Even before resorting to ethnic cleansing of Muslims, the LTTE had massacred many hundreds of Muslims. Currently one finds many Tamil Muslims serving in the Sri Lankan army and intelligence services where their knowledge of Tamil is put to good use against the LTTE. This state of affairs further eats into the claim that Sri Lankan Tamils form a nation which is entitled to have a state of its own.

I found it interesting that a few renowned (now late) LTTE commanders appear to be Muslims because of their Islamic names. Names like Gaddafi and Lt. Col. Akbar come to mind. One of the most reputed LTTE fighting units was the Imran-Pandiyan Regiment, named after two of Prabhakaran’s bodyguards, namely Imran and Pandiyan. However, my research shows that Gaddafi’s real name was Amuthan and Akbar was the nom de guerre adopted by one Veerapathirar Pernibarasa. Like all other LTTE fighters, these two men had adopted different names after joining the LTTE. I do not know if Imran was a Muslim or just an alias. I’d be grateful if someone could enlighten me on this.

In my view, for reasons explained above, it is not possible to justify an independent Eelam by applying traditional notions of nationhood and statehood. The fact that at the time of independence from Britain, Sri Lankan Tamils did not demand a separate state of their own, only buttresses my view. If at all an independent Eelam can be justified, it can be only on the ground that Sri Lankan Tamils have been victimised by the majority Sinhalese and the Sri Lankan state and that the type and degree of discrimination and harassment faced by Tamils are at an unacceptable level and are unlikely to abate in the near future.

It cannot be denied that Sri Lankan Tamils have been discriminated against and subjected to state sponsored violence. As mentioned above, when the British vacated Sri Lanka, the Tamils dominated Sri Lanka’s economy and bureaucracy. Discrimination against Tamils stemmed from the apparent need for affirmative action that would propel the Sinhalese majority forward and place them on par with the relatively better educated and economically prosperous Tamils. Sri Lanka is not the only country to initiate affirmative action programmes. India has a number of such programmes at the central level and the state level. Interestingly, the Indian State of Tamil Nadu is one of those states which have aggressively implemented affirmative action programmes that have yielded good results with a certain degree of collateral damage. In fact, if one were to compare the affirmative action programme in Tamil Nadu with that in Sri Lanka, one finds many parallels.

At the time of India’s independence, the Tamil Brahmin community dominated Tamil Nadu. Most university posts, government jobs and other white collar positions were held by members of this community. A limited affirmative action programme had already been initiated prior to independence. However, in the 1960s, Dravidian parties like the DMK and AIADMK came to power and increased the tempo of affirmative action programmes. Total reservations soon went up to 69% and they still remain at this absurdly high level, the highest for any state in India. As a result of such an affirmative action policy, a large section of society belonging to lower castes and classes benefitted. I would say that social mobility in Tamil Nadu has been among the highest in India, on account of such policies.

Along with such an aggressive affirmative action policy, Tamil Nadu also took steps to promote the Tamil language. Not only did Tamils in Tamil Nadu successfully prevent the imposition of Hindi, they also elevated the Tamil language to the level of a deity and practically worshipped it. A Pure Tamil Movement was launched to purge words that had roots in Sanskrit from the Tamil language.

However, the impact of Tamil Nadu’s affirmative action policies on the Tamil Brahmin community was catastrophic. Many Brahmins were forced to migrate to other parts of India. Of the ones left behind, many were reduced to penury. On balance, I feel that the affirmative action programmes implemented in Tamil Nadu served their purpose, though the collateral damage was immense. What happened in Sri Lanka after its independence was not much different from the developments in Tamil Nadu. The minority Tamils were the Brahmins of Sri Lanka. The affirmative action policies promoted by the Sri Lankan government marginalised the Tamils and empowered the majority Sinhalese. I do wish that in both cases, the governments in power had paid some more attention to those at the receiving end. However, I cannot say that affirmative action is a bad idea in general.

Other than the collateral damage caused on account of affirmative action and the Sinhala only policy, the other major hurt inflicted on the Sri Lankan Tamil community was during the 1983 riots when around 3000 (the numbers are of course disputed) innocent Tamil civilians were killed. The riots followed an LTTE ambush of a military convoy in Jaffna which killed 13 soldiers. By all accounts, the pogrom was sponsored and supported by the Sri Lankan government and was in a sense very similar to the anti-Sikh riots that place in India after Indira Gandhi’s assassination.

What are the chances of the 1983 riots repeating themselves? The answer to this question can be found in a letter written by one Mohan Sekaram and published by DBS Jeyaraj on his website.

“In 1996 a raid on a Military camp in Mullaitivu by the Tigers, 1,500 soldiers were killed, yet there was no repeat of 1983, or for that matter since 1983 several thousand soldiers have lost their lives and we did not see a repeat of 1983.”

It must be remembered that Sri Lanka has seen a number of riots and insurgencies over the past 100 years, some of which didn’t involve the Tamils at all. Let me mention a few which I think are relevant.

In 1915, there were large scale riots by nationalist Sinhalese who targeted Sri Lankan Muslims who lived in coastal areas. In 1971, the Marxist outfit Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna led by a Soviet trained youngster Rohana Wijeweera started an insurgency that sought to take over the Island. The government forces were caught napping. The Sri Lankan government was forced to seek India’s help. I quote from Wikipedia which says,

“Indian frigates patrolled the coast and Indian troops guarded Bandaranaike International Airport at Katunayaka while Indian Air Force helicopters assisted the counteroffensive. Sri Lanka's all-volunteer army had no combat experience since World War II and no training in counterinsurgency warfare. Although the police were able to defend some areas unassisted, in many places the government deployed personnel from all three services in a ground force capacity. Royal Ceylon Air Force helicopters delivered relief supplies to beleaguered police stations while combined service patrols drove the insurgents out of urban areas and into the countryside. After two weeks of fighting, the government regained control of all but a few remote areas. In both human and political terms, the cost of the victory was high: an estimated 15,000 insurgents, many of them in their teens, died in the conflict, and the army was widely perceived to have used excessive force. In order to win over an alienated population and to prevent a prolonged conflict, Bandaranaike offered amnesties in May and June 1971, and only the top leaders were actually imprisoned. Wijeweera, who was already in detention at the time of the uprising, was given a twenty-year sentence and the JVP was proscribed.”

Between 1987 and 1989, the JVP repeated its previous attempt and launched another insurgency in the south of Sri Lanka. This was at a time when Indian peace keepers where fighting the LTTE in the north. The Sri Lankan government crushed the JVP by using extra-judicial methods, which included killing suspects with ‘necklaces’. It was at this time that a young human rights lawyer named Mahinda Rajapaksa started his political career in southern Sri Lanka by working with the Mother’s Front and fighting for the rights of poor Sinhalese who were arbitrarily arrested by the security forces, only to disappear forever. The point I am making is that it is not only the Tamils who have led insurgencies in the Sri Lanka or been victims of state sponsored violence.

According to the 2001 census, Sri Lankan Tamils form 11.9% of Sri Lanka’s population and 11% of Colombo’s population.

If a Tamil Eelam were to be formed in the north of Sri Lanka, there would still be many hundred of thousands of Tamils living in other parts of Sri Lanka who would become an even smaller minority in Sri Lanka. Unless those Tamil civilians are willing to give up all their properties and move to the north, they will be stranded amongst a hostile Sinhalese population and will continue to face the same problems, on a larger scale.

It is clear to a neutral observer that Sri Lankan Tamils do face even now some element of discrimination and harassment at the hands of the Sinhalese majority. On the other hand, South Asian standards for human rights, non-discrimination and equality are not particularly high and Sri Lanka does not appear to be below the South Asian median. In any event, I don’t think the discrimination faced by the Sri Lankan Tamil community is widespread or acute enough to justify an independence movement (peaceful or otherwise).

The LTTE, in the last few months before its extinction, was responsible for the death of thousands of Tamil civilians it held hostage as it battled the Sri Lankan army. Around 20,000 Tamils may have died in the final battles as the Sri Lankan army juggernaut rolled over the LTTE. This figure has been disputed by B. Raman, who says the numbers are likely to be much lower. In any event, the LTTE is, in my opinion, much more responsible for these deaths than the Sri Lankan army. To put matters in perspective, do remember that 18,000 French civilians were killed during the Battle for Normandy after the D-Day Landings (the 65th anniversary of which is coming up shortly), even though they were not being held hostage by the Germans! The Tamils living in Sri Lanka are unlikely to have a rosy picture of the LTTE any more, after what they have suffered on account of the LTTE. If only the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora in the West can be persuaded to not rekindle the dying embers of the insurgency, the Tamils living in Sri Lanka might be able to get on with their lives!

Should the Nepalese Government honour Joanna Lumley?

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:49:11 EDT

Actress Joanna Lumley was the main and most visible force behind the Gurkha Justice Campaign which successfully fought for all ex-Gurkhas who served in the British army to have the right to settle in the UK. Until very recently, only Gurkhas who had served in the army after 1997 (when the Gurkhas began to be stationed in the UK rather than in Hong Kong) could apply for settlement in the UK.

Those Gurkhas who retired prior to this date could not settle in the UK, since they were deemed to have no ‘ties to the UK. I have explained this in greater detail in my earlier post here.

After British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced in the House of commons that all ex-Gurkhas who have served more than 4 years in the British Army will have the right to settle in the UK, Rajan Zed, president of Universal Society of Hinduism, made a statement to the effect that the Nepalese government ought to honour Joanna Lumley with the highest civilian award for winning the ex-Gurkhas their residency rights. You can find full details of Zed’s demand in this report.

Zed’s statement has me flummoxed. Let’s take another look at the Gurkha Justice Campaign and Lumley’s achievement. The Gurkhas are Nepalese nationals who opt to serve (and even die for) the armed forces of a foreign country. Notwithstanding the historic ties between Gurkhas and UK, it must be admitted that the Gurkhas choose to join the British army mainly because of the lack of opportunities in Nepal. On retirement, many of them would like to settle in the country they have served, for reasons which can only be described as a mix of sentiment and convenience.

It cannot be denied that the UK offers ex-Gurkhas a better standard of living and social welfare benefits than Nepal. Lumley has performed yeoman service for the Gurkhas cause by embarrassing the British government into changing its original stance and giving settlement rights to all ex-Gurkhas. However, it must be admitted that the ex-Gurkhas are not doing Nepal any service by settling in the UK after their retirement from the British armed forces.

If the ex-Gurkhas were to spend their retirement in Nepal, they will draw their British army pensions in Nepal and contribute to the Nepalese economy. Why then should the Nepalese government honour Lumley? If it were to do so, it would in effect be admitting that it is unable to provide adequate opportunities to its citizens, and that due to the lack of infrastructure and social welfare benefits in Nepal, Nepalese citizens prefer to settle in the UK. All of which are true, but no sovereign government can be or should be asked to admit the same.

Zed’s demand brings to my mind the Indian government’s behaviour when trying to obtain compensation for the victims of the Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal.

Instead of moving the courts in India for compensation, the Indian government filed a claim in the courts of New York. In order to justify the filing of the claim in New York, the Indian government got an affidavit from renowned academic Marc Gallanter to the effect that Indian courts are inefficient and slow and that only the courts of New York could provide an adequate and fair remedy to the gas leak victims.

Union Carbide in turn got affidavits from two eminent Supreme Court lawyers who said that though Indian courts are normally slow and inefficient, they are capable of speedy action in special cases. The New York court decided in favour of Union Carbide and (rightly in my opinion) threw out the Indian government’s claim saying that the claims ought to be decided by Indian courts.

North Korea Claims to Conduct Another Nuclear Test

temporal — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:42:05 EDT

(KCNA via KNS/AFP)

North Korea claims it "had successfully conducted a nuclear test on Monday, raising the explosive power and level of control of its nuclear device to a new level, its state media said," according to Reuters. It had conducted a test earlier in October 9, 2006.

The timing of the test is interesting as the special US envoy on North Korea, Stephen W. Bosworth, was due to arrive in Seoul. So far there is no response from him.

President Obama has spoken of reduction in nuclear arsenal worldwide. Predictably, he would seek further sanctions over an already impoverished North Korea.

Following the April 5, 2009 "missile" test, President Obama also sought sanctions but China and Russia watered it down in the Security Council. Following this,"North Korea on April 14, 2009, declared that the six-party talks "have turned into a platform for infringing upon the sovereignty of the [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]," and they plan to strengthen their nuclear capabilities." link.

While the North American markets are closed, the Asian stocks have declined according to Bloomberg. South Korean Markets have lost 4% over the news.

It has been confirmed by the Chosun Central News Agency (KCNA) that North Korea has carried out its threat to conduct a second nuclear test this morning, May 25th.

Lee Dong Gwan, a Blue House spokesperson stated in a press briefing that an "artificial earthquake” measuring 4.5 on the Richter scale was felt in South Korea at 9:54am, strongly suggesting the presence of a test at Poongkye-ri in Kilju, North Hamkyung Province, where the first test was also carried out.

CNN reported that the U.S. Geological Survey has announced the existence of a “4.7-magnitude earthquake” in North Korea, but did not initially comment on the source of it.

Eventually, around midday, the KCNA confirmed the reports, calling the test part of "measures to strengthen its nuclear power in self-defense." Chris Green

Fresh out of the 100 day honeymoon, this will further test the foreign policy of President Obama. He is already doing course correction on his domestic policies.

And while the Economy is still his top priority, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the mid East has demanded his attention and now the maverick North Korea.

US-Pakistan-Afghanistan Summit: To Disrupt, Dismantle, and Defeat Al Qaeda

temporal — Thu, 7 May 2009 20:38:38 EDT

Presidents Obama, Karzai and Zardari met in Washington. They talked, they dispersed.

Mr. Obama said simply that “we meet today as three sovereign nations joined by a common goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their ability to operate in either country in the future.” Link

The common goal outlined by Obama is not commonly shared by the three leaders and their constituents.

Firstly: Al Qaeda is not an entity, a wholesome, unitary organisation, based on Pennsylvania Avenue or the Avenue of Americas that can be obliterated.

It is an idea without headquarters.

Ideas cannot be fought with guns, bombs and drones. Doing so will only force the Goliaths to select their weapons to find David. They can and should be fought with better ideas.

This is the universal dilemma faced by those who attempt to fight al Qaeda.

Secondly: Neither of these three leaders have the full support of their constituents.

Karzai is widely seen as the Mayor of Kabul. His influence in the rest of Afghanistan is marginal. The only thing that works in Afghanistan is sackfuls of greenback. And that too only with the warlords who have carved Afghanistan into niches.

Zardari has been parachuted because the US wanted Musharraf to share powers with civilians. The original plan backfired with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Zardari has largeely wasted the opportunity and is mostly confiend to the President House in Islamabad, when not abroad attending to his personal as well state business.

Obama, despite his personal popularity, has to face the neoconzix remnants in the US who still hold a considerable influence in the Congress and the media.

The Talibans are impervious to all this. Their sole demand is simple: that all colonial powers leave Afghanistan and let them settle their differences by themselves.

Osama, of course would disagree with all this.

Thirdly: The three musketeers lack the will while their opponent has it in abundance.

The US has more sophisticated armaments in stock, and its forces are better equipped to engage the enemy combatants then it did in Vietnam, but lacks the will to really fight it out.

Iraq has been a fiasco from the beginning.

Now, they are hell bent on getting their noses bloodied in that wasteland. Despite claims to the contrary, their is no viable exit strategy.

Karzai's edicts run little beyond the Presidential palace in Kabul. Elsewhere, drug money, ransom money, and US cash reigns supreme. That would change if Talibans gain an upper hand. Time is on their side, as their opponents lack in belief and will.

Zardari, the allegedly corrupt, former polo playing corrupt politician is, to use Ardeshir Cowasjee's coinage, an accidental President. I call him the Co-chairman of the hand written will. He was fighting corruption cases against him in European courts from his refuge in NYC and in 2007 had submitted signed affidavits by NY physicians and psychiatrists that attested to his mental incapability, to wriggle out of the hearings. Musharraf's NRO (National Reconciliation Order) bailed out the Bhuttos under Bush's prodding. She was assassinated.

Zardari is untrained, uneducated, inexperienced. And the problems he inherited would daunt an experienced politician. The hangover from Army excesses, the infighting between political parties, absence of law and order (a prime beef of the neo Talibans), corruption both blatant and gratuitous, shortage of basic necessities, lack of most basic health and education coverage. And to top off above, the sinking world Economy. If this sounds I am even obliquely trying to defend Zardari, you are mistaken. Am just adding a perspective to the task he maneuvered himself into.

And the ills were exacerbated by his choice of aides and handlers. He rewarded his cronies with plum postings and together they led to the mess he finds himself in today.

The neo Talibans as well as the original Talibans, while lacking in sophistication, have a unshakable firm belief in the righteousness of their cause. They are simpletons. Couple this with an even greater belief in Allah and you have a fearless enemy you do not want to face.

Is there a way out of this seemingly confusing imbroglio? We have to look into history and see how the idea wars were fought in the past and learn from them.

Whoever has a better idea would win the battle.

Is Pakistan going the Iran Way?

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 2 May 2009 01:29:32 EDT

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the ruler of Iran was overthrown in 1979 by an Islamic revolution headed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Until a few months before his overthrow, the USA and other western powers were optimistic that the Shah would stay in power. They propped him up with weapons and never asked any question when his ruthless secret service, the SAVAK, let loose a reign of terror in order to suppress dissent. Religion was not the main reason why the common Iranian on the street supported Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini’s popularity was more because the Shah’s regime was extremely corrupt and Iran’s oil wealth was not being shared with the poor. Western powers never addressed this basic flaw in the Shah’s rule.

Pakistan has a very similar flaw. Ever since the formation of Pakistan, there has been no attempt to redistribute wealth. Every politician who has held power has been from the landed gentry. Just as Ayatollah Khomeini captured power with a promise of an egalitarian Islamic rule, the Taliban are winning hearts and minds in Pakistan with their appeal to the poor and downtrodden. Islam has always been a powerful force in Pakistan, just as it was in Iran. When Islam is mixed with socialism and the promise to redistribute wealth, you get a potent mix that can’t be matched by the traditional political parties.

Pakistan is similar to Iran in another respect as well. In both countries, Western powers have played the role of king maker in order to protect their interests, thereby propping up dictators and tyrants. In the case of Iran, it was initially the British who controlled the reins of power. In 1901, an English entrepreneur William Knox D’Arcy obtained a 60 year oil search concession from the Shah of Persia. When oil was finally discovered, Persia got only 16% of the profits from the Anglo–Persian Oil Company (APOC). During the First World War, the British government took over APOC, which became the chief source of oil for the British.

The Persians were unhappy with the state of affairs. Sensing the Persian dissatisfaction, the British supported a coup d’etat which brought Reza Shah Pahlavi to power. Unfortunately, Reza Shah Pahlavi turned out to be pro-German and signed an oil concession with Nazi Germany. He also increased Persia’s share of the profits from the APOC. Persia was renamed as Iran and the APOC became AIOC (Anglo–Iranian Oil Company). So, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union during the Second World War, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly invaded Iran and deposed the pro-German Reza Shah Pahlavi. His son twenty-two year old son Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was made the ruler.After the Second World War, the Iranians started clamouring for a greater share of oil profits. Iran’s pro-western Prime Minister, Ali Razmara was assasinated. The Iranian Parliament nationalised AIOC. An M.P named Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq was the guiding force behind the nationalisation and soon the Shah named him the Prime Minister. Britain suggested that Iran and Britain share the oil revenues equally. Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq did not agree. Britain imposed an oil embargo on Iran. Technical know-how was denied. The UK appealed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague against the nationalisation of AIOC by Iran. The ICJ ruled in favour of Iran. President Harry Truman refused to buy the ridiculous British argument that Iran was in danger of a takeover by the Tudeh, the Iranian communist party. However President Eisenhower did and Operation Ajax was initiated. A disinformation campaign was launched against Dr. Mosaddeq. The Shah was bribed, cajoled, threatened and forced to dismiss Dr. Mosaddeq and place him under house arrest. Pro-Western General Fazlollah Zahedi was made the new Prime Minister. Soon riots erupted in Tehran and a petrified Shah fled to Italy. Mobs paid for by the CIA clashed with Dr. Mosaddeq’s supporters. A column of tanks led by General Zahedi took control of the house where Dr. Mossadeq was kept under house arrest. The Shah flew back from Italy. Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq was given a show trial and put in jail. The Shah became the absolute ruler once again. AIOC came under the control of a consortium of British and American oil companies. Operation Ajax was considered a success and the Shah suppressed all dissent using SAVAK. Islamic organisations run by Shia clerics like Khomeini were largely left untouched, though Khomeini himself went to exile in France. This again has striking parallels with Musharaff’s Pakistan where religious clerics and their madrassahs were left unmolested while democratic dissent was suppressed. When anger against the Shah spilled over in 1979, the Islamic fundamentalists under Khomeini were in the best possible position to seize power.

However, Pakistan is different from Iran in many respects. The main difference is that it has a Sunni majority whilst Iran is predominantly Shia. Most Indian Muslims are Sunni, including the militants in Jammu & Kashmir. So far Pakistani assistance to Islamic militants in India has been unofficial and covert. If the Taliban were to take over Pakistan, such support will become official.

The other big difference between Pakistan and Iran is that Pakistan is a lot poorer. Even though the Iranian government is not very efficient and corruption is rampant, Iran manages to get by thanks to its enormous oil wealth. Pakistan does not have that luxury. Mullahs are usually very bad at managing an economy and mismanaging a poor country usually has disastrous results. If the Mullahs were to redistribute wealth in Pakistan without creating any, they will make it poorer than ever.

It may be possible (for the USA) to take away Pakistan’s nuclear weapons if there is an imminent danger of a Taliban takeover. Maybe they already are under some form of secret US supervision as part of the US deal with Asif Zardari. However, even if the nuclear weapons are taken away, the know-how for making nuclear weapons will remain in Pakistan in the forms of its trained scientists and technicians. As Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan proved a few years ago, many Pakistani scientists have fundamentalist sympathies. As soon as the Taliban take over Pakistan, such scientists can be put to work, making nuclear weapons, if necessary from scratch.

If the Taliban do not manage to win the hearts and minds of poor Pakistanis, the danger of a Taliban take-over outside the Pashtun heartland is not very high. Even though Pakistani paramilitaries have been reluctant to fight the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Agencies (FATAs) and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and have surrendered in their hundreds, the Pakistani army will put up a tough fight if there is a threat to other provinces. Crack Pakistani troops currently stationed on the Indian border are unlikely to sit by and watch if the fighting spreads beyond the FATAs and the NWFP. Unless, that is, the Taliban’s pro-poor message catches the imagination of the common Pakistani on the street as Khomeini’s message did a few decades ago in Iran. If it does, the situation will not be much different from that in the FATAs and NWFP. Pakistani soldiers will have to fight their own brothers and friends and as we all know, such a fight is morale sapping and can’t be won.

Highly respected Indian journalist Vir Sanghvi has argued in this article that a weakened Pakistan is often the best guarantor of peace. Sanghvi wants India should go out of its way to keep Pakistan weak. He says that the traditional argument that a strong and prosperous Pakistan is vital for India’s security and prosperity has been proved wrong. Most if not all Pakistanis are unwilling to speak out openly against Islamic fundamentalists. Sanghvi wants India to support resume clandestine operations in Pakistan and hit back every time India is attacked. Sanghvi says that Pakistan did not harm India for twenty years after the 1971 war which created Bangladesh and weakened Pakistan.

With great respect, I think that the approach suggested by Sanghvi is fraught with danger. For one, India will lose the moral high ground vis-à-vis Pakistan in the eyes of the global community. Even more importantly, if for some reason if India manages to weaken Pakistan by supplying weapons to separatists in Sindh and Balochistan, and Pakistan breaks up, it will be so much easy for the Taliban to gobble up such pieces one by one. Indian weapons will find their way to the hands of Islamic insurgents and will be trained on India without much delay. The American experience with the Afghan Mujahiddin and India’s experience with the LTTE show how easy it is for terrorist chickens to come home to roost.

Of course, India may succeed in keeping Pakistan weak without breaking up. However, a weak Pakistan will continue to harbour terrorists like those who attacked Mumbai in November 2008. Mind you, I can understand Sanghvi’s frustration and that of other Indians like him. Ever since Pakistan came into existence, there hasn’t ever been a period when Pakistan hasn’t wanted to harm India. To be very honest, I don’t see India and Pakistan becoming friends and existing side by side. It is possible that if both countries prosper economically, religion will take a backseat in the subcontinent and the levels of animosity will come down. If that happens, there will be no need for the Islamic nation of Pakistan and Hindu majority India to remain separate. This is a possibility in, may be, fifty years time. But friendly co-existence for India and Pakistan is in my opinion, impossible. Either they remain enemies or they will reunify.

Right now, it is important for the Americans to arm-twist the Pakistani government into carrying out some Soviet style redistribution of wealth, especially in the villages. If the Pakistanis don’t do it, the Taliban will do it for them and turn Pakistan into a Sunni version of Iran. Albeit a much poorer one, with nuclear weapons, and hence a much more dangerous one.

Delusions of Grandeur Can Lead To Trouble

Vinod Joseph — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:05:04 EDT

I have in the past written about Mr. B. Raman, who used to work for the Research and Analysis Wing (“RAW”), India’s external intelligence agency. B. Raman headed RAW’s counter-terrorism division for more than a decade till his retirement in 1994.

Presently Mr. B. Raman is the Director of the Institute For Topical Studies in Chennai. He frequently writes articles for various publications, many of which are available online. He also has a blog which is a repository of all his recent writings.

Generally I agree with what he has to say, since his articles contain detailed and accurate analyses of political situations in India’s neighbourhood. However, one of his recent articles titled “After The LTTE, What?” had me very disturbed.

Mr. Raman starts off by describing the current situation in Sri Lanka and the death throes of the LTTE. He examines Prabhakaran’s personality, his amazing ability to motivate his cadres and fight armies much larger than the LTTE as well as his irrational side which made him kill so many Tamil leaders, not to mention Rajiv Gandhi and Laxman Kadirgamar.

He goes on to say that

the irrational side of Prabhakaran’s personality erased his rational side. His shocking use of the Tamil civilians in order to delay the final end of the counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism campaign undertaken by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces is driven by this irrational streak in him, which now dominates his personality.

He concludes that the LTTE “has been defeated beyond recovery.” I have no quarrel with any of these statements. In fact I agree with them wholeheartedly. However, I have a huge problem with all that B. Raman states afterwards. He says

After the final death of the LTTE, which is expected any day, what is the future of the Sri Lankan Tamil cause? Would a Requiem for the LTTE also mean a Requiem for the Sri Lankan Tamil cause? Hopefully not.

What is this ‘Tamil cause’ that B. Raman talks about? According to B. Raman it is the “Tamil aspirations for greater political and economic rights in their traditional homeland and for greater human dignity.” This statement makes me slightly uncomfortable. Sri Lankan Tamils are entitled to be treated as equal partners to the Sinhalese. They are entitled to protect and safeguard their language and culture. However the words “greater political and economic rights” have an ominous ring to them. I don’t think Sri Lankan Tamils were ever denied economic rights.

What Mr. Raman says after this confirms my suspicions.

Let us not forget that ever since our independence in 1947, the Bengalis of the then East Pakistan, the Balochs and Sindhis of Pakistan and the Tamils of Sri Lanka have been India’s natural allies. It was this reality which persuaded Indira Gandhi to assist the Bengalis of the then East Pakistan to achieve their independence.

Were the Bengalis of East Pakistan Indian allies ever since 1947? I doubt it. They had just broken off from India in 1947 on religious grounds. They did their best to be good Pakistani citizens, without losing their Bengali identity. When faced with genocide of the worst order, they sought Indian help and broke free from West Pakistan. However, at no stage did the Bengalis of East Pakistan say that they made a mistake in breaking off from India in 1947. India assisted East Pakistan because it suited India to have Pakistan broken up. After Bangladesh was formed, there was no mention of reunification with West Bengal. There are still lots of Bangladeshis who don’t want Bangladesh to be friends with India. I have explained my views on Indo-Bangla relations in greater detail in one of my previous articles.

Mr. Raman says that

It was sympathy for the Sri Lankan Tamil cause at New Delhi when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister and in Tamil Nadu, which induced India to take up their cause in the 1980s.

Correct. There was a great deal of sympathy in India for the Sri Lankan Tamil struggle for greater rights. However, I’m not sure if sympathy alone was the reason why India supported the LTTE and other Tamil groups who were carrying out an armed struggle.

Mr. Raman provides a clue as to the real reason why India got involved in Sri Lanka.

There is no reason why India should not pride itself and seek to be the paramount power of the region. To emerge and remain as the paramount power, we need natural allies in the region around us. We should not let the legitimate aspirations of our natural allies---whether they be the Sindhis and Balochs of Pakistan or the Sri Lankan Tamils--- be crushed by a brutal regime--- whether in Islamabad or in Colombo.

I guess Indira Gandhi decided that India ought to be the paramount power in South Asia. She most probably had advisors like B. Raman who egged her on. Does he want India to get involved in the Baloch struggle for freedom? He says,

Since 1947, the Balochs rose twice in revolt in favour of independence for their homeland. On both occasions, they were defeated by the Pakistani Armed Forces as decisively as the LTTE by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces. The Pakistani leadership brutally used the Air Force against the Balochs to crush their freedom struggle. Undaunted by this, the Baloch people, under a new leadership, rose in revolt for a third time two years ago and their third war of independence is still going on.

I guess Mr. Raman wants to do another Bangladesh in Balochistan. I don’t claim to know much about Balochistan, but I do know that the creation of Bangladesh has not made India’s eastern flank secure. Lots of Indian insurgents have found sanctuary in Bangladesh and continue to do so.

No, I am not saying that India should not have helped create Bangladesh. There was a genocide going on in East Pakistan and India’s intervention was very correct, whatever may have been India’s real motive. I just wonder, if Pakistan were to break up into small pieces, won’t the Taliban find it easier to control and take over those small states? I don’t know. I am no intelligence expert, unlike B. Raman. Mr. Raman finds parallels between the Sri Lankan victory over the LTTE and the Pakistani victories over the Balochis. He says that

The remarkable victory of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces against the LTTE was partly due to their improved counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism capabilities made possible by Indian assistance in the form of training and sharing of intelligence and partly due to their emulating the Pakistani Armed forces in the brutal use of the Air Force against people whom they portray as their own. Just as the Balochs were defenceless against the brutal Pakistani air strikes, the Sri Lankan Tamils were defenceless against the Sri Lankan air strikes.

I am slightly confused here. Is B. Raman saying that the Sri Lankan Air Force should not have bombed LTTE targets? Is he saying that the Sri Lankan Air Force intentionally bombed civilian targets? I do believe that the Sri Lankan Air Force bombed LTTE’s assets without worrying too much about collateral damage to civilians. However, the Sri Lankans had lost control over northern and north eastern Sri Lanka. Did Mr. Raman expect them to not use the Sri Lankan Air Force against the LTTE, especially when the LTTE itself used its limited air power against the Lankans?

Mr. Raman goes on to make a totally incorrect statement, something very unlike him. He says that

The US has used air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan----but in foreign territory and against foreign nationals. Only three countries in the world have used air strikes in their own territory against their own people---- the Pakistanis against the Balochs, the Russians against the Chechens and the Sri Lankans against the Tamils.

Surely B. Raman remembers what happened in Mizoram on the 4th and 5th of March 1966? Those were the two days when the Indian Air Force bombed Mizoram’s capital city Aizawl. For those unaware of Mizoram’s history, in 1959, Mizoram was in the grip of a famine caused by the flowering of bamboo shoots, something which happens only once every fifty years or so. The famine gave rise to the Mizo National Famine Front, which later became the Mizo National Front under the Pu Laldenga’s leadership. The Mizo National Front started an insurgency for total freedom, after the famine was badly handled by New Delhi and resulted in lots of deaths. Well, to cut a long story short, when India lost all control over Aizawl, the Indian Air Force was sent into to bomb the town. Which it did on the afternoon of 4 March 1966 and more extensively on 5 March 1966.

I assume Mr. Raman is very much aware of this, considering his intelligence background. So, why would he make that very incorrect statement above? I just don’t know. He makes it very clear that he doesn’t trust the Sri Lankan authorities to give the Tamils a fair deal. He says (sic)

President Mahinda Rajapakse has repeatedly promised that once the LTTE is defeated, he would be generous in meeting the political aspirations of the Tamils. He gives the impression of being a sincere man, but will the Sinhalese Army with its head bloated by its success against the LTTE allow him to do so? The indicators till now are not encouraging. Many Sri Lankan officers might have been trained in India, but their mindset and their attitude towards the minorities have more in common with those of their Pakistani counterparts than with those of their Indian counterparts. Therein lies the danger that after winning the war against the LTTE, the Government, strongly influenced by a victorious army, might trey to impose a dictated peace on the Tamils.If the angry Tamils once again look up to India, there is no reason why we should not reciprocate provided a new leadership emerges in the Tamil community and it has drawn the right lessons from the brutalities of the LTTE. The LTTE is deservedly dying, but long live the Tamil cause.”

All of this raises the following questions. Let’s assume that the Sri Lankan Tamils are not given equal rights. Should India get involved in Sri Lanka once more? B. Raman himself has used the word ‘traditional homeland of Tamils.’ In other words, Tamils have lived in Northern and North-Eastern Sri Lanka since time immemorial. They are not Indian nationals or even persons of Indian origin. If that is the case, why should India get too bothered about Sri Lankan Tamil rights? The Sri Lankan Tamils have ties to India on account of shared language and culture, but then, so do the Sinhalese. The Sinhalese are immigrants from places like Kalinga and Magadha in India and they speak a language derived from Sanskrit. Their main religion is one espoused by one of the greatest Indians ever – Shri Gautama Buddha.

In any event, why should India care more about Sri Lankan Tamil rights than what India cares about the rights of say, Nepali minorities in Bhutan? Aren’t Nepalis friendly towards India? Let’s assume that India successfully arm-twists the Lankans into giving more rights to the Tamils, without breaking up Sri Lanka. What happens after that? Will the majority Sinhalese admire India for having done that? Will India be treated as a friend thereafter? What if the Sinhalese decide to get really close with the Chinese? What if the Tamils start another violent movement for independence? Will India continue to support the Tamil cause?

I think India should follow a strict policy of non-intervention in the affairs of its neighbouring countries. This should also mean not raising causes such as the Tamil cause or the Chakma cause or the Balochi cause in international fora, unless the issues involved are something on the lines of what took place in East Bengal (genocide, resulting in the deaths of over 2 million Bengalis). India may be the Big Brother in the South Asian neighbourhood. However, Big Brotherhood carries more responsibilities than rights. No country, however small, likes to be controlled by another. No country would even like to give the impression that it is controlled by another. India must tread softly in its neighbourhood.

A Big Brother who is admired and respected by his younger siblings, rather than feared, will be able to command (and not demand) loyalty. If Sri Lanka were to feel that India will not meddle in Sri Lankan affairs, it is unlikely to go out of its way to court China. Thankfully, India’s current official approach to the Sri Lankan issue is much more sensible than it used to be. India is officially staying out of the dispute and unofficially helping the Sri Lankan government with military assistance and training (as penance for the help India mistakenly gave the LTTE?).

I should also point out that there are many Indian commentators with an official or Indian army background who take a much more sensible view than the one expressed by B. Raman in this article. Please take a look at this article by Major General Ashok Mehta once the General Officer Commanding (South) of the Indian Peace Keeping Force or this one or this one by Col Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence officer of the Indian Army. Rather than say “long live the Tamil cause,” Indians ought to say “India will never again get involved in the Sri Lankan Tamil cause.”