Desicritics Category: Politics: World

Why Do Political Dynasties Flourish?

Sandeep Bansal — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:19:02 EDT

I came across a nice article on the Political Dynasties around the world. While in India, we may sulk about how our Politics has been captured by a few dynasties who continue to rule us, this isn't a unique phenomenon in India alone.

George W. Bush got elected as president eight years after his father left the White House. This is the second instance of American history of a father-son presidency. Kennedys remain as the most famous Western political dynasty.
Former U.S. vice president Al Gore’s father was a senator, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's son was a Cabinet official under Clinton and campaign manager for Gore. Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa's son is now filling his father's shoes in the same slot.
Makiko Tanaka inducted as Japan's foreign minister some 25 years after her father was premier.
In North Korea after the death of President Kim Il-Sung, his son Kim Jong-Il became his successor in 1994, thereby creating the communist world's first dynasty.
After the death of Syria's President Hafez al Assad, his son Bashar became his successor.
South Asia has proved the most fertile ground for political dynasties. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal all have a resilient tradition of electing dynasties to the top office. Take Nepal, for instance. After the recent massacre of the entire royal family, the king's brother took over. Prime Minister G.P. Koirala's two other brothers were prime ministers as well — the only instance of three brothers serving in such high elective office. Sri Lanka started its tradition in 1960 when Prime Minister Solomon Bandranaike's widow, Sirimavo Bandranaike, became prime minister. Now her daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, is president. Bangladesh will see the coming electoral contest between two iron-willed women, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of President Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia, widow of President Ziaur Rahman.
India's Nehru family is probably the world's oldest democratic dynasty, now spanning four generations, producing the only team of grandfather-daughter-grandson prime ministers, ruling for 37 of India's 53 years as an independent state.
In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was prime minister during 1971- 1977, and his daughter Benazir was elected for two stints as prime minister during the 1990s, the first woman from a Muslim state to head a government.
In the Philippines too, dynastic politics is quite widespread -- President Gloria Macapagal is daughter of a president, and political dynasties dominate local politics so much that there have been demands for laws against these dynasties.

Even in India, its not just the Congress that has been indulging in dynastic politics. Omar Abdullah is just 38 but he became the Chief Minister even though there are many senior leaders in the party. Similarly, elsewhere Karunanidhi has been grooming his younger son Stalin, the Patnnaiks in Orissa, Shiv Sena, Dev Gowda's JD(S), RJD in Bihar are no different. Even in BJP, son's and daughters of several leaders like Jaswant Singh, Vasundhra Raje Scindhia, Yedurappa and Pramod Mahajan are being promoted. In Congress, besides the Gandhi dynasty there is the Sandeep Dikshit, son of Shiela Dikshit; Ashok Chavan, son of late SB Chavan;Deepender Singh Hooda son of Bhupinder Singh Hooda. The list goes on.

The three reasons for this that were given in the article were:

Money
Political connections
Public recognition and thus easy Acceptability from the public

Access to the political system in most countries is costly in terms of money and only those who can afford the time, money, resources and have the requisite connections find an entry into what is often an exclusive if not closed club. Political lineage buttressed by money helps facilitate that entry.Bush, Gore, Tanaka, Macapagal-Arroyo fit the bill for what can be termed as politicians from Establishment families, with enough credentials due to a famous political surname to ensure a place on the political pedestal.

Then there are those who are respected for rendering services to their country during crucial periods, such as an independence struggle — hence, their legitimacy is unquestioned and widely accepted. The Nehru family in India, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Hafez al Assad in Syria, Kim Il-Sung are some examples from this genre. Finally, there are those whose leadership is etched in the popular imagination, and for people to identify with such a charismatic leader comes almost automatically.

Bhutto, Bandranaike, Peron of Argentina, Ziaur Rahman and Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh, the Kennedys in the United States all were populists with charisma, which is then sometimes "transferred" to their scions and close relatives.

By and large, these reasons are logical. Moreover, these reasons not only explain why such a large number of political dynasties exist, but also explains why such a large number film stars and sport stars have made it to political offices. They satisfy two of the three conditions - Money and Public recognition.

South India is famous for its film stars turning into politicians and Chiru is the latest one to join that list. In north India, we have Shatrughan Sinha, Vinod Khanna. Rajesh Khanna, Dhamendra, Amitabh Bachan, Govinda, Sidhu, etc. Even in the US, we have Arnold who is now the Governor of California.

But there is a major difference between India and US. US has a presidential form of Govt. and hence the president is directly elected by the people. Moreover, his term is restricted to two. Also, there is complete inner party democracy in US. In India, the leader is elected by the elected representatives and there is no limit on the number of terms. This ensures the hold of dynasties. And if someone tries to raise the issue of dynasties, he/she is instantly thrown out. For example, Sharad Pawar was shown the door in Congress. Maran was also recalled as a Union minister by the Karunanidhi.

So unlike popular belief, dynastic politics isn't the real issue. The real issue is lack of inner party democracy. Dynasty and Movie/Sports stars shall continue to play major part in democracy everywhere, whether we like it or not.

Book Review : Identity and Violence by Amartya Sen

Shantanu Dutta — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:04:51 EDT

Amartya Sen’s book, “Identity and Violence’ examines the unfortunate connection between violence and our tendency to identify with one key trait — our ethnicity, or religion, for example — to the exclusion of all others. Sen argues that we can combat this tendency by rejecting this narrowly defined, limited sense of identity, and embracing a broader, richer and more complex understanding of ourselves.

Speaking of his own identities, he says:

I can be, at the same time, an Asian, a British citizen, a Bengali with Bangladeshi ancestry, an American or British resident, an economist, a dabbler in philosophy, an author, a Sanskritist, a strong believer in secularism and democracy, a man, a feminist, a heterosexual, a defender of gay and lesbian rights, with a nonreligious lifestyle, from a Hindu background, a non-Brahmin...This is just a small sample of diverse categories to each of which I may simultaneously belong.

He bemoans our predisposition to separate human kind into many different boxes – he cites Samuel Huntington and his Clash of Civilizations stereo types. Huntington of course contrasts Western civilization with "Islamic civilization," "Hindu civilization," "Buddhist civilization," and so on. The supposed conflicts of religious differences are incorporated into a sharply fractured vision of hard-boiled divisiveness. In fact, of course, the people of the world can be pigeonholed according to many other subsets, each of which has some—often far-reaching— importance in our lives: nationalities, locations, classes, occupations, social status, languages, politics, and many others. While religious groupings have received much expression in recent years, they cannot be supposed to eliminate other characteristics. Amartya Sen contends that our society is driven as much by confusion as by hatred. Challenging the division of people by race, religion, and class, he presents an alternate understanding of a world that can be made to move toward peace as firmly as it has spiralled in recent years toward brutality and war.

Sen also notes the inclination to create a random -often historically inaccurate- identity of the self in order to distinguish it from the other. Here he criticizes the idea of the Western mind whereby certain ideas (e.g., democracy) are claimed to be the sole property of the Occident. Citing examples of Buddhist councils during the reign of Emperor Ashoka (3rd Century BC) and tracts on religious freedom during that of the Mughal Emperor Akbar (16th Century AD), Sen attempts to demonstrate how such an identity can be quickly disputed.

A lot of the book is preoccupied with the Muslim identity because much of the attention is directed towards the perception and understanding of this identity in the world. Moreover, much that is valuable in the Western civilisation is a legacy of Muslim as well of other, such as the ancient Hindu, civilisations. In other words, watertight compartments between civilisations are historically unsustainable. And, of course, people themselves are blends of several civilisations so that it is not correct to assume that there is such a thing as a uniform, homogenous, monolithic Muslim civilisation.

But is it really possible to fix the responsibility for all the violence that we witness today on the failure of people to recognize the various identities of others? Would that not be as naive an attitude to take towards the occurrence of violence as the perpetrators of aggression take towards identity? How are identities really shaped and very importantly how are they correlated to more concrete, real-life processes that go on in the world? Again, while it is true that everyone has multiple identities what compels one person to prioritize one of these many identities over all others? that is for us, the readers to figure.

This is Not Cricket

temporal — Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:19:19 EST

The Sri Lankan cricket team was attacked in Lahore yesterday by terrorists. SSS terms this a "shift". I think it is a "deterioration" or "escalation" of lawlessness. If Pakistan is to retain its independence this tide will not be curbed easily by a solitary act (like the restoration of the judiciary) nor by the efforts of one individual or one institution. Both Zardari led government and the Army under Kayani have appeared ineffective to stem this.

More pertinent is to view Tuesday's attack in the context of the peace deals in the Swat Valley and the tribal areas .. Prior to the signing of the deals, the matter of the release of militants who did not belong to the Swat area was raised, that is, non-Pashtun militants... However, after deciding on the level of compensation packages for the families of militants killed or injured by the security forces and other matters related to Swat and the tribal areas, the matter of non-Pashtun militants was deferred and the peace agreements were signed. In effect, non-Pashtun militants have been ignored and the attack in Lahore could be a bloody message to the government that the "Punjabi militants" have the capacity to cripple urban centers at any time and place of their choosing. Syed Saleem Shahzad

So what should the ordinary citizen do? Packing up and leaving is NOT an option. Burying their heads in the sand? More prayers to Allah? Joining the orthodox fringe? Or if not joining, then fighting them for their rights?

If the citizenry continues to be uninvolved, then by default the grounds will be left for a battle royale between forces of status quo and those of orthodoxy.

There is no dearth of external players who want to nudge and support these dark forces.

The Saudi Wahabi sponsorship of the fringe groups in Pakistan is hushed up or swept under the rug. Their role should be examined more closely. They have supported the orthodox fringe in the past (Afghanistan-Mujahideen nexus) and continue to do so to date.

Right now, collectively, (media, bloggers, political parties and government) all search for escape goats elsewhere - primarily the focus of their diatribes (not in any order) is the US Administration, the Talibans, the Indians (Raw...if you hear Hamid Gul croaking after the CID report was released) and the euphemistically termed Agencies.

But the blame game should be exposed for its fallacies.

If the ordinary citizen remains detached and uninvolved, then the march into disarray would continue unabated till it reaches the edge of the precipice - a rather uncomfortable and disturbing thought for all the players in the region.

And the world.

Hugo Chavez Removes Term Limits - The Right to Keep on Going

DeeptiA — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:26:26 EST

Hugo Chavez just keeps on going. He is the most important face of the anti-American resentment in South America, and has inspired many people to react against American policies. He allies with Iran and Cuba, both states that are an anathema to the US. Inside Venezuela, he is a strong figure, who inspires strong feelings both for and against. Ever since becoming President, Chaves has got strong support from the poor and the downtrodden (enough support that he gets re-elected easily, and has been able to push for the changes he wants). At the same time, because of him being a polarizing figure, he has been actively opposed by the richer and more affluent section of society who cannot stand his policies.

It is not that Chavez is a do-gooder who is opposed by richer sections because he is a true democrat; Chavez is for all practical purposes a strongman who will push for getting his policies in place, and will take actions when he deems them sufficient. However, term limits for the Presidential post were an important impediment for him being able to continue with his policies, and hence the push by him to change the policy so that he could continue to keep on standing for the post of President. He was rebuffed by the voters the last time he tried, but this time, he has managed enough support to get the change passed:

Without a constitutional change he would have had to stand down when his term expires in 2013; instead he had secured the right to stand again for office in the next elections due in 2012, and elections beyond. "I am ready!" He told them. "With today's victory we start the third historical cycle of the Bolivarian revolution, from 2009 to 2019." This has been a crucial victory for Venezuela's president. He had a lot riding on the outcome, both personally and politically.

While Venezuelans have shown with this vote that President Chavez still has more than enough support to win another presidential election, a lot can happen in four years and the road to the 2012 election may well be rocky.

A lot of what Chavez did earlier was due to the high price of oil for the past many years, providing him revenues that enabled him to dole out huge sums of money to his supporters (while kicking out foreign oil companies). However, with oil prices down to the $40 level from the $140 level of just some time back, it is difficult for Chavez to provide the same amount of largesse. It would be interesting to watch his policies for the next several years to see what he can achieve.

India's Obama Envy - Not!

Ashoka Chakra — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:43:11 EST

The International Herald Tribune (a New York Times company) had an interesting "letter from India" by Anand Giridharadas (published February 12, 2009). Labeled "India's case of Obama envy", the letter purported that India was suffering a political angst that could only be solved by an “Obama-like” person.

First - what is the author's, and indeed India's, understanding of Obama, and his election as the first black US president? Obama became President of the US because of a series of unfortunate events. To wit:

1. Bush fatigue, and revulsion towards all things Republican (deservedly so). Even if the Democrats had nominated a donkey (ironically their mascot), the ass would have won.

2. The Economy, and McCain's admitted lack of economic understanding. Till September, and after the Republican convention, McCain had reversed Obama's poll lead only to watch it wither with the stock market.

3. The liberal press that was so keen to see a black president that it neglected Obama's history of associations with unsavory characters (Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, etc) and absent tract record (remember all those "present" votes?) to hand him the Presidency.

4. Race - like it or not, Obama won because he is black. I know of so many whites who voted for him simply because they felt they needed to expunge the memory of slavery from their collective consciousness by voting for a black person.

5. Gifted, meaningless rhetoric that had Chris Mathews of MSNBC urinating in his pants, and wondering why his legs were tingling.

So, what part of the above would Mr Giridharadas like to see in an "Indian Obama"? Election to the PM's position simply because that person is Muslim or SC/ST, irrespective of qualifications? Or to elect a PM despite meaningless empty rhetoric by someone who has no track record and shady associations? Don't we already do that? Or are we to be enamored by Mr Obama's age? Let's look at this critically and retrospect some of the most remarkable changes that have happened in the world recently. Mr Gorbachev was no spring chicken when he launched Perestroika or Glasnost. Mr Deng was in his 70s when he turned China from a communist economic pygmy into today's giant. In contrast, take young turks in countries such as Georgia, where Mr Sakashvilli picked a ridiculous fight with Russia and lost a good portion of his country.

Or better still, take Mr Obama himself. His first three weeks as US President have been less than stellar, with appointees dropping like flies, with numerous ethical compromises that would make the Chicago political machine proud (such as hiring lobbyists after campainging against them), presenting half-baked economic plans which even Lalu Prasad Yadav could easily out-do (and this from the best of the best of the best, yes sir), and running away from campaign promises (so, are we going to drill off shore or not, and are guns going to be banned in DC or not?)

Mr Giridhardas writes

"The magazine fleshed out this thought with a survey of 1,600 young people spread across eight Indian cities. Two-thirds of India's 1.2 billion people are under 35, and the survey found them craving an Obamaesque new politics."

Remember, most Indians live in villages and have no idea of who Mr Obama is, nor do they care. To survey young folks in cities, who are bound to be connected to the internet and the world, and to extrapolate that to the country as a whole smacks of elitism at best and is disingenuous at worst.

The author also contradicts himself by saying that those surveyed wanted change (well, who doesn't?) and that the majority in India (again, careful with that word) wanted a authoritarian leader. Doesn't that contradict what Obama purportedly stands for? Despite my misgivings for him, I would not call Obama authoritarian by any stretch of the imagination.

India does not need Obama. India needs Sardar Patel and Bhagat Singh. India needs Tilak and Chandrasekhar Azad. We don't need to ape others - we can, and do, produce our own finest. But, as a culture, we only do so after we are pushed so far that even we cannot tolerate it anymore. That time is coming.

Military Spending - You Scratch My Back, I'll Scratch Yours

Ruchi — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:20:58 EST

India's military is forecast to spend at least USD $30B by 2012 (USD $100B by 2017). Of this, a sizable outlay is for 126 fighter jets, in what constitutes the world's largest military tender in recent years. Predictably, the IAF is fielding execs from Lockheed, Boeing, European Aeronautic Defence, MiG Corp etc. Lockheed actually set up office in Mumbai this month.

Military spending is ostensibly to ensure the safety of the country's citizens. Our army force consists of 1.3 M active troops, staffed overwhelmingly from the country's poorest citizens (but that is de-rigueur of most countries (excepting countries with military drafts like Israel, Lebanon, Singapore etc). Groundstaff in India is in some ways disposable: lax admission criteria; poor training; sucky work conditions; and on death a paltry compensation to surviving family members. I remember once tailing an infantry truck, its scrawny occupants lulled to stillness (perhaps a long journey), vacant expressions on face. The thought that these men will be armed and sent out to kill/die unsettled me - the power of a few over so many to compel extreme action without agreement or even understanding, something is clearly terribly awry. The other poorest die like flies anyway, but that's okay - our stock is abundant and replenished perpetually. So here we have, a country where the poorest die to protect the interests of the rich: internally as cheap, disposable labor, and externally, as cheap disposable military rank and file. The rich of course don't feel any compulsion to contribute to economic development of the poor. But we digress.

Going back to the original premise: military spending for citizen safety. So let's view the (external) threat to India. This investment in fighter jets etc is relevant only in combat with a formal army, not guerilla insurgency. So credibly, which countries pose a threat to India? Nepal, Burma, Bhutan and Bangladesh are largely harmless. Sri Lanka is dealing with LTTE but other than few skirmishes in the south, India remains uninvolved. Let's examine the remaining three: Afghanistan, Pakistan and China.

Sure, Afghanistan is a hot bed of islamic extremism but for the moment that is being combated by the American (and under coercion) by Pakistan. India's involvement is largely limited to development activity there, which seems to be good strategic thinking. Pakistan of course has repeatedly demonstrated a proclivity for under-the-table support to insurgency. Given the country's schitzophrenic government (civilian/military at odds with each other) and their recent pussyfutting in the aftermath of Mumbai attacks, it seems unlikely that the country will instigate a full-on war. Neither will we. Even after the Mumbai attacks, all the war talk and the amassing of artillery and soldiers on the border was just for show.

Th only real threat is China. We have disputed territory with China (and a war over it). China's 2008 military budget is $59 (US estimates put China's budget at $138B) and it has the largest active force (2.25M) in the world. China's government is clearly not keen on either transparency, civil dissent or human rights as evidenced by its investment in Sudan oil, censorship including online news, tamp-down on its own citizens demanding accountability after the school collapses. Plus there's always something in the news about tainted Chinese produce - poisonous toothpase, lead in toys, melamine in milk blah blah. Hence, China bad! Yet, what are the odds of a full throttle war between China and India (a more likely scenario is India supporting America in its war with China). While I can kind of see covert support (in alliance with Pakistan) for insurgency in India, I don't see China initiating a war with India over a little piece of Arunachal Pradesh (China is already going to have a hard time dealing with its billion plus population with the global economic downturn, and dwindling market for its manufacturing exports). China's GDP is export-centric, and in the trade agreements era, China is unlikely to want to divide its trading partners into supporters or non-supporters. Anyway, America/Europe is unlikely to side with China. Russia could swing either way, leaning towards China. Everyone else is inconsequential (Middle-East is good for oil, but they are unlikely to engage).

So this brings us to the question: what the hell are we doing floating the world's largest military tender at this time, with the global economy in recession, our budget with a disastrous (growing) fiscal deficit and enormous public debt?

Hmm, maybe it will be an interesting RTI exercise to see how AK Antony and Inc personal assets fare in the next year or so after the contracts have been awarded.

Movie Review: Ramchand Pakistani

Aditi Nadkarni — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 01:03:04 EST

The name caught my attention. It is not every day that we hear the title of a revered Hindu god and Pakistan in the same sentence. I almost wondered why there hadn't be news of effigies being burnt in India based on the name of the film alone. Has the economy stolen effigy-burners of their job or were they just busy with the upcoming anti-Valentine's Day projects, I wondered. As I began to watch the movie, I was surprised that I had not heard much about this beautifully crafted story based on true events.

Ramchand Pakistani encompasses in a relatively simple plot serious issues such as social reform and border security and yet manages to engage us at times in the complex maze of a woman's emotions and then in the mixed humor that always accompanies a boy's coming of age. This is the story of Ramchand, an eight year old Hindu-Dalit Pakistani boy who strays across the border and into India at a time when relations between the two nations are strained by an ongoing war. His father runs after him like any parent would and the duo is immediately suspected of being spies or terrorists from across the border. They land in a prison in India where they are interrogated and every day their hopes of ever returning to their country slowly dwindle. Amidst this tragic tale of separation are the little stories of triumph and Ramchand's adventures.

As Ramchand grows up in a less than ideal environment, the film introduces us to some grim realities. Caste relations in India have formed the basis of historical injustice as well as current politically-charged events that grow volatile every now and then. In the rural areas the poor treatment of Dalits and the issue of untouchability lives on even as our nation plants a flag on the moon. In the cities we hardly think of these issues because they don't affect us and then a film like Ramchand Pakistani reminds us that we can grimace and fume at the mentions of our dirty underbelly but we cannot do away with the precious lives that this underbelly houses. Ramchand's identity represents irony at several levels. He is a Hindu Pakistani Dalit imprisoned in India, a pluralistic nation where Hindus make up the majority, Pakistanis the perceived enemy and Dalits, the "untouchable" lower castes who have for long borne injustice. We have found superficial answers in terms of reserved seats and quotas assigned for these deprived and oppressed classes. However, the rift formed by discrimination at a social and cultural level may take years to bridge or even longer if we refuse to even acknowledge it.

Just as the hopelessness of little Ramchand's circumstances grips us towards the intermission, the film captivates us with the most basic of human emotions. The woman, a mother and a wife, who was left behind by these two pilgrims, struggles with being separated from her spouse and longs for love. The boy grows up in a prison surrounded by the most diverse group one can imagine. Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshi all live as one big dysfunctional family, their lives occasionally punctuated with hope and despair alike.

A child in the dangerous world of adults always makes for a plot that keeps viewers on their toes. Being in a prison, little Ramchand is surrounded by adults whom society has deemed criminal and unacceptable. Knowing that the film is based on true events, I watched the film with constant questions of what would eventually happen to Ramchand and his father. Would they return to Pakistan and reunite with the woman who waited for so long to see her loved ones? Has she waited or has she moved on? Knowing that the film is based on true events, I anticipated the worst and yet was suprised by the film's ending.

Watching a film directed by a woman has always been very interesting for me. Female directors deal differently with humor and emotion in a film. Good female directors, I have noticed, are like deft chefs who balance flavor. They carefully toy with each sentimental nuance of the film, not letting one get ahead of the other. The humor is subtle and even tragedy is somewhat muted under shifting curtains of periodic triumph. The end result for a viewer can be either detached neutrality or a perfectly satisfying adventure infused with a gamut of emotions. Mehreen Jabbar, the New York based Pakistani director treats us to the latter. Cinematographer Sofian Khan compliments Jabbar's directorial genius by capturing the stark contrast of the pale scorched desert region with the richly colorful couture of the women. There are scenes within the film that seem out of an oil painting.

I will never quite fathom the politics and bureaucracy that tempers the otherwise untamed flight of art and so it is beyond my understanding why this film would not be Pakistan's submission for an Oscar this year. I must add, that the lack of an Oscar nomination and presumably inadequate publicity does not stop Ramchand Pakistani from being a deeply moving film.

A Different World Part III : Statesmen or Pygmies

temporal — Wed, 4 Feb 2009 02:10:25 EST

(Continued from A Different World Part I : A Travelogue of Sorts)
and A Different World Part II: Zina ul Haq's Debauchery)

On March 23, 1940 at the Minto Park (now Iqbal Park) the Pakistan Resolution was presented before the annual session of All India Muslim League. (The emphasis added are mine).

No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign. That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities, with their consultation. Arrangements thus should be made for the security of Muslims where they were in a minority. I H Qureshi, (1992), A Short History of Pakistan. University of Karachi, Reprint of 1967 edition. ISBN 969-404-008-6

The Working Committee of the Muslim League in Lahore (1940)

This was a clear call for confederation or union. As a declaration of intent it was sufficiently clear and yet vague enough for the political leadership to negotiate with the Raj. After the failure of the Cabinet Mission, Lord Louis Mountbatten was sent to preside over the dissolution of the Raj. He was given enough time but Atlee also dangled the carrot of the First Lord of Admiralty. (The vacancy was to be created upon the retirement of the naval chief - but that is another story.)

In his haste to return, aided by Congress leadership's retreat from a stance of no division to an acceptance of division (first Sardar Vallabbhai Patel, next Jawahar Lal Nehru and finally Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi succumbed) Mountbatten called in the bluff and offered Jinnah a truncated Pakistan.

credit: Shahid Siddiqui

The sprawling Quaid e Azam Masoleum Complex in Karachi also houses a small museum. Inside there are his suits, sherwanis, shoes, cars , furniture, monocle and various other items displayed. One realises the larger than life figure was rather diminutive. In a display case we saw a personal diary. In the open pages one can read in Jinnah's handwriting notes he made on a certain day in 1940. This entry as I recall named a chowkidar who was going "home" on vacation. It mentioned the date he was hired and the vacations days due him. He wrote in a clear flowing writing the number of days his leave was "paid leave" and the extra weeks of "time off without pay".

A meticulous and organised barrister whose brilliance was admitted by his detractors also, could not have been so disorganised about Pakistan. You can read more about this in Ayesha Jalal's books and papers. Jinnah wanted to max the guarantees offered to his constituents in a confederated Indian Union. The "independence" was the calculated bluff called in by Mountbatten when he had Congress behind him.

Mountbatten saw another equal in aristocratic Jinnah. He knew how hard it would be for Jinnah to agree to a truncated Pakistan. He told Jinnah, "Tomorrow morning, with the Congress leaders present I will say that you have agreed to the partition, and I expect you to nod."

Movietone newsreels showed a grim Jinnah barely nod the next morning. Intrigue, intransigence, ego and miscalculation carried the day. Jinnah had his truncated Pakistan, Congress had its divided India, hoping the nascent state would soon fold, and Mountbatten had a fixed retreat to return and lobby for the Admiralship.

Nobody gave a thought to the looming holocaust in which 2 million would die, millions would be uprooted and millions upon millions would grow up on both sides of the divide in hate, distrust and intolerance.

On August 11, 1947, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, with permission from the Speaker off the Constituent Assembly, Shri Mandal said:

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

Zina had the temerity to have this expunged from all official transcripts. He tried to steer Pakistan towards an abyss from which it would be difficult to turn back.

Part I was written in 2002. The civilian government that took over after the February 18, 2008 elections is feebly trying to undo the damage inflicted on the country by the occupying army. There are too many hurdles in way of this nascent democracy. It does not have strong leaders. The dominant parties - PPP, Muslim League (Z), MQM are led by autocratic leaders the former two by billionaires with vast foreign assets.

Wily Asif Zardari has outwitted the veteran Nawaz Sharif a few times already. If ever there was a time to strengthen democratic roots in Pakistan it is fast disappearing. The Army under Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani is stretched and bogged down fighting the Pakistani Talebans and participating in the US proxy wars. This rare opportunity is being squandered away.

The army's role in politics cannot be counted out for long. The militants have become a power to reckon with. Generations have been brainwashed not to question. Generations are being raised on intolerance and hatred, not compassion and understanding. Each group hates the others - the totem pole includes Deobandis, Barelvis, Ahle Hadith, Sipah e Sahaba, Lashkar Jhangvi, Sunnis, Shias, Ahmedis, Christians, Hindus. The one group that flies below the radar is the influential and powerful Ismailis.

Like India, the electronic media in Pakistan is mostly passing through teething troubles. It is enamored of its own power. The sane voices there seldom rise above the cacophony of mediocrity and blandness.

If there were statesmen in Pakistan (and not wily politicians) in the aftermath of Mumbai Mayhem, they should have said to Manmohan Singh, "Let's join forces to fight this plague." Instead, media fed bellicosity and belligerency from both countries widened the gulf.

Media likes drama and there is no better developing story than war. They salivate at the thought of surgical strikes. It can only happen when the receiver is impotent...Gaza, West Bank, Iraq...or with the receiver's consent...as in the case of FATA and Nato/US drones.

The other Pervez...Ashfaq Pervez Kayani is the wild card here should Manmohan Singh succumbs to the war cry and order surgical strikes.

GoI has shown restraint and political acumen. Can Zardari be trusted to reciprocate it? The choice is stark - survival or conflagration and instability.

Instability will breed further instability in the region.

Iran Launches Indigenous Satellite

Aaman Lamba — Tue, 3 Feb 2009 07:37:15 EST

Iran joined the select group of spacefaring nations today when it announced the launch of a domestically-produced satellite, Omid ("Hope"), aboard its Safir-2 rocket and that it was "successfully set into orbit." This coincided with the 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah, and on the heels of President Obama's announcement of a new era of detente with Iran. This is Iran's second satellite, after Russia launched the Sina-1 in 2005.

In the recent book, The Inheritance by David Sanger, Washington Post correspondent, which deals with the legacy inherited by President Obama from the Bush administration, he opens with the Iran issue and how it was handled by the Bush team. Coming soon after their intelligence failures with Iraq, they were far more circumspect and cautious than they perhaps would have been otherwise. Far from harbouring active regime-change fantasies, the book reveals that the administration sat on compelling evidence that Iran was likely pursuing an active weaponization program (pp 64-69, "The Laptop of Death") that was broken by the New York Times in 2005, and was even shared with the IAEA earlier that year. Even so, the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 showed that the design program for an atom bomb had been suspended ("Project 111") even as the civilian enrichment program continued. The author also reveals how skilfully Iran exploited American concerns post-Iraq and undermined the new Bush strategy to involve the other powers like Russia, China, and the Europeans by playing one against the other.

Iran's new launch comes after last August's launch of a similar rocket capable of carrying a satellite to orbit. The Omid is positioned as a data processing and television transmission satellite, although concerns of dual-use technology and the potential for the combination rocket to be converted to carry a warhead will likely raise fears around the world.

President Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying, "Iran's presence in space with the aim of expanding monotheism, peace and justice has now been officially recorded in history."

Shalom, Salam and Hello

temporal — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:50:46 EST

"Why ... should I not dream and hope? For is not revolution the making real of dreams and hopes? So let us work together that my dream may be fulfilled, that I may return with my people out of exile to live in one democratic state where Christian, Jew and Muslim live in justice, equality, fraternity and progress...Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.” Nobel Peace Laureate Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, UN Address November 13, 1974.

Shalom

Last week rumors floated suggesting Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Foreign Minister might be arrested to face war crimes, if she attended the Summit of European Foreign Ministers in Brussels.

Mounting fear in Israel that the country's leaders face war crimes charges over their involvement in the recent Gaza offensive pushed officials into a frenzy of activity at the weekend to forestall legal actions abroad.

According to Menachem Mazuz, Israel will soon face "a wave of international lawsuits".

In response, the government is setting up a special task force to work on legal defenses, has barred the media from naming or photographing army officers involved in the Gaza attack, and has placed restrictions on overseas visits. Today, ministers were expected to approve an aid package to help soldiers fight warrants abroad for their arrest.

The concern about war crimes trials follows a series of pronouncements by Richard Falk, the United Nations' special rapporteur on the occupied territories and a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University in the United States.

He has accused Israel of gravely violating the laws of war during its three-week offensive, which killed more than 1,300 Gazans, most of them civilians, and wounded thousands more.

There is a well-grounded view that both the initial attacks on Gaza and the tactics being used by Israel are serious violations of the UN charter, the Geneva conventions, international law and international humanitarian law," he said during the final stages of fighting. Jonathan CookIn an attempt to make life more difficult for Israeli leaders, anonymous activists in Israel launched this website -- "outing" those it accused of war crimes, including Ehud Barak, the defence minister, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, and Ms Livni. It also identified most of the senior military command.

This link in Hebrew could also have the support of the former, tainted politician Bibi Netanyahu and his party of right wing Likudniks in the hope of making gains in the forthcoming Israeli elections.

Israel is the non NPT Signatory nuclear power in the region and it behooves it to extend to its neighbours, including those in the occupied territories, the same dignity, rights and respects that it demands from them. all the states, and occupied territories should also learn that force is not the solution to solve their problems, however rudderless they may appear at times.

Salam

In a frank blunt assessment, unusual for the usually taciturn Saudis, Prince Turki al Faisal, former head of the Saudi Intelligence and then ambassador to UK, Ireland and the US, warned the Obama Administration that "the US-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk."

First he speaks candidly about the Bush Administration:

America is not innocent in this calamity. Not only has the Bush administration left a sickening legacy in the region, but it has also, through an arrogant attitude about the butchery in Gaza, contributed to the slaughter of innocents. If the US wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact - especially its "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia - it will have to revise drastically its policies vis a vis Israel and Palestine.

And then he proffers advise to Obama Administration without mincing words:

First, President Barack Obama must address the disaster in Gaza and its causes. Inevitably, he will condemn Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel. When he does that, he should also condemn Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians and support a UN resolution to that effect; condemn the Israeli actions that led to this conflict, from settlement building in the West Bank to the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings and arbitrary arrests of Palestinians; declare America's intention to work for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, with a security umbrella for countries that sign up and sanctions for those that do not; call for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Shab'ah Farms in Lebanon; encourage Israeli-Syrian negotiations for peace; and support a UN resolution guaranteeing Iraq's territorial integrity.

The Saudis believe in quiet diplomacy and almost never speak out like this. The royal family rules with consensus and these words from Turki reflect their current exasperation and fears. At stake is not only the fate of the warring factions in the the mid-east, but one can sense their own insecurities. Nobody can predict what may happen to their rule if the Kingdon's citizens rebel.

(I owe an apology to readers of Baithak, where I had linked this article by Prince Turki and dismissed it derisively, bracketing him with the double speak that emanates from the usual suspects in the region and alluding a collusion of interests bandying the Saudis, the Mubaraks and the Abdullahs with the Olmerts.)

Hello

Barak Obama in the first interview granted to a major network chose Al Arabiya. As every move by the his administration is keenly observed and analysed this first interview to Hisham Melhem when compared with his first phone call to a foreign leader (President Mahmud UncleTom Abbas of the near defunct and puppet PA) gave out mixed signals.

He spoke of instructing Mitchell to "listen" lamenting that in the past the US started off by "dictating". He was careful to mention "Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated" while skirting around India.

Obama reiterated the US support for Israel in no uncertain terms to his Arab and Muslim audience ..."... Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount." But almost in the same breath he spoke to a increasing lobby within Israel that has had enough of the mayhem and violence..."But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace." and added these encouraging words, "They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side."

I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams. And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.

Steve Clemons of the The Washington Note notes that Obama's "first moves have been utterly brilliant." He also connected his Al Arbia interview with what he called "Prince Turki al-Faisal's warning in the Financial Times this week" that the Arab Peace Proposal offered by King Abdullah would not remain on the table indefinitely, and that the window could be closing in the wake of the Gaza crisis."

After the previous administration's my way or the highway attitude, Obama's respect's for "words" was evident in this interview. He used "respect" four times in his interview which ran over from the initial 6-7 minutes to over 25 minutes. While ostensibly speaking to the Arabs and Muslims he also provided a parameter that his Secretary of State, Defense and National Security Adviser would find illuminating and illustrating of Obama's approach, beyond which they would venture at their peril.

The sense that IDF and Israeli politicians could be hauled for War Crimes, the loathing and impotence felt in the Arab/Muslim Main Street articulated by a reticent Saudi Prince Turki al Faisal - and responding to them as well as the haughty disregard of the Bush era - Obama's reach out to the Muslims - will prove to be the seminal events that will cast their shadows for long.

This Obama interview reminds one of Yasser Arafat's maiden speech at the UN. Now that the neoconzix era is over, let us hope this olive branch is cherished.