Next Indo-Pak Summit: Body Language Lesson for Indian AV Media

Talking At Each Other

Sulekh (28) is a television professional presently working in New York, the USA. He permanently moved to that country in 2001. He witnessed the second of the twin towers tumbling down, emerging out of the subway station at Manhattan. Sulekh and I talked yesterday (28 Jan) night:

PINAKI: We are finally on the same page

SULEKH: Yes

PB: Shall we begin talking at each other

SU: What happens if Al Gore wins the Oscars for non-narrative

PB: I remember the great Time magazine cover in 2000 which called the two contestants Bore and Gush

SU: I am serious, he could come in by end of Feb into the Democratic fray which is currently dominated by Barak Hussein Obama n Ms. Clinton


PB: I think 2008 is long way ahead...bt let's pause for a moment n begin with asking you how's the "Chasing the American Dream" project going for you?

SU: I never believed in the American Dream. I see myself in a perpetual state of drift. A chronic alienation from endemic violence in the state of India was the push.

PB: What took you to United States?

PB: Man, come on, give me another one. You don't feel alienation and reach the heart of the MAINSTREAM

SU: I felt nauseous even before I was politically aware or conscious. As A sensitive kid, I remember writing my first poem against state violence in Punjab. My father who happened to be a poet himself was shocked at the intensity of my reaction as a 10 year old.

SU: My home town had a parallel administration led by Goons, corrupt bureaucrats, and downright incompetent politicians.

SU: What many don't realize my journey began a long time before I left India. A near public lynching in my hometown that involved an accident on the street, followed by the humiliation at the hands of the local police administration stayed with me.

SU: Leaving home was never easy. And once I did leave home, there was nothing else to connect with. The umbilical cord in a metaphorical sense was broken with no prospect of repair. I don't consider myself an economic migrant. I seek a place to live which will allow me to be myself without omnipresent violence, aesthetic, cultural, political, social.

PB: Ask Melissa, doesn't it sound a bit like the story in hicktown, Wild West, USA? No offence meant to Muzaffarpur

SU:I am sure it does but it was worse than that. Worse still it continues to be so.

PB: No ordinary mortal in India is allowed to own guns like they can in the USA...And state violence, isn't it inherent in the nature of states if you remember your Max Weber.

SU: Thats the irony that no mere mortal can own guns. I value

PB: You obviously have the necessary space in New York that the country here did not allow you to have. But would not Delhi or Mumbai, both cities you have worked in, would have accorded that to you?

SU: Its not the country. India is a psychological entity that I value a lot. Its how I personally felt that we lacked on a lot of counts that made me an outsider.

PB: Can you spell out what the USA is providing you not so much in the philosophical realm, but in a more temporal sense?

SU: No one, just about no one can come and touch you without definite consequences for them under the law of the land

SU: Its a big assurance. I could be hit by a hurricane, die in an accident, get killed by a terrorist attack, but my dignity isn't compromised ever just because a drunk constable didn't think it was proper for me to be with a woman in my car.

SU: If I were to compare the instances when I felt violated as an individual, I can't compare India with the US. There wasn't a day when I didn't feel helpless back home. I think beyond a point there was a disconnect that I couldn't work around.

SU: I have a self image of an artist and coping with my own experience vis-a-vis my surrounding was driving me insane. I was pathologically depressed. In a nutshell, I guess the guarantee of life, liberty and equality to the extent that US provides far more important than the economic opportunities that have been a traditional pull for immigrants from the world over.

SU: I made a decent life in India and my miseries were not at all borne out of any economic distress.

PB: Well, Sulekh, your personal demons are purely your own to slay...but considering that you are a sensitive and sensible social individual, I would like to ask you that whether the picture you painted and the the situation is still the same, being a racial minority under the regime of the Homeland Security Act or the Patriot Act? Is the Miranda Law is still read out each time a person is accosted by the law enforcement just as the Hollywood would like to make us believe?

SU: I said yes!! And I believe its important that its continued to read. My personal demons were not a genetic fall out of my being. The political system in India is largely responsible for violence without respite. Wonder if any good were to come out of a complete re-writing of the Indian constitution.

PB: Well, I think that you are not fully informed about the situation that I inquired about in my question. My information is based upon the few civil rights suits that are coming up in the US courts filed by Muslims. In fact, those suits are mostly barred from coming to a court of law. By the present definition of criminal justice in the USA, the burden of proof has shifted to the accused from the accuser...But leaving that aside, wouldn't you consider that while the USA is a 250 year old and more of a democracy while the same is barely six decades old in India? In fact, I remember an interesting conversation an American academic a few years ago when he had told me about Laloo Prasad Yadav and the phenomenon you just described the likes of him perpetrated. I had to remind him that American history is replete with the political and social machinations of the robber barons and railroad ganglords. In fact, if I remember correctly that Joe Kennedy was one such. he did acknowledge that even his country had to pass through periods of difficult transition....

PB: But coming to a different point, as a student of international relations you are possibly aware the important ideological standpoint of Americans about "American exceptionalism." Now i beleive that a lot of that moralistic understanding of life emerges from pioneering entrepreneurial instincts of the people. Do you see a lot of that in evidence?

SU: You are right except that I don't believe in re-incarnation or eternal life as an individual. There is a reason why I don't have a religion. I am responsible for what happens to me thus no sympathies extended to the faithful of either faith.

PB: You have not answered my immediately previous question?

SU : American exceptionalism is a coincidence at best and a fallacy at worst. The Home of the brave and land of the free is as gullible as any other society. Its decision to not be bound by international law lie more within the realist paradigms of power than a nebulous, ethnocentric/jingoistic assertion of its exceptionalism/superiority.

PB: Without turning this into a IR seminar, let me remind you that realism really ask you live within international covenants that have been arrived at through a global consensus. My question was slightly different. How entrepreneurial and pioneering are the American people, and by that I don't mean the emigrants, but the usual WASP varieties or the Blacks, though they are still fighting for equality? Would you say that they White poor are as socially and economically mobile as say the intermediate castes in India?

SU: This is a difficult question. Every once in a while a Google/ Apple/ Microsoft come up on the radar. To keep the wheels of an economy this size moving, the contribution of its citizens can never be underestimated. The role of class and its bearing on entrepreneurialism can be historically evaluated.

SU: As an aside I recommend that you watch Lars Von Trier's Dogville and Manderlay. Its part of the trilogy entitled USA: The land of opportunities. The third and final film in the trilogy "Washington" had been recently announced.

SU: The relentless Danish critic of course has never visited US. His films have constantly pushed the film form as much his avowed political agenda.


PB: Send me the DVDs pal. Find the reason to live there. Sending me good books and DVDs are your reason to live in the Promised Land.

SU: LOL

PB: Now if that is an oblique reference to my not visiting that neck of the woods, send me a ticket and see! Now is that person who works for "No Lobbyist Left Behind" programme by your side? I would like to tell both of you why I dislike the US of A as a notion: I dislike the notion because it sells dreams it cannot fulfill.

SU; She isn't an active contributor to this yet. She refrains from journalistic pomposity.

PB: I like that. But I thought all special interests have to be inherently pompous only to obscure their more narrow goals at the end.

SU: That's why a selfish existence doesn't beckon no pomposity.

PB: One final question before this becomes unreadably long. Do you feel that Americans are social conservatives? Again, I don't include immigrants.

SU:Wrong! Americans are no one people. And the ones I know are certainly not. I am on no ones side. The Americans, the Indians, the Asians or whosoever. Left, right, centre, conservative, liberal, moral, the binaries are all repulsive.

PB: Well, we truly talked at each other. Will do it again in about a decade.

SU: I don't know if I will last that long. I would put together a little piece on my interaction with the Indian Diaspora over the last five years.

In My View

Petro TNCs set to grab Iraq’s oil

Readers of this column may recall a few weeks ago, this space had argued that the USA’s Iraq Study Group (ISG) could not recommend what it had set out to do at the beginning – partitioning Iraq into three entities based on sectarian lines – because it could not resolve the oil tangle. Iraqi oil lies primarily in the hands of the Shi’is in the south and Kurds in the north. The Sunnis are bereft of much of the oil wealth. And this natural blemish could be a cause for long term violence in the region, jeopardising the business interests of US-based petroleum transnational corporations (TNCs).

But this did not stop the ISG from recommending short term and long term plans to reorganise the oil sector in Iraq. In recommendation no 62 of the ISG report, the panel had set out the short term goal "to prepare a draft oil law that ... creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment." It further suggested the US government should intervene in the writing of the draft Iraqi Petroleum law to ensure that the new law covers the huge oil reserves of the southern oil fields.

The ISG had emphasised the importance of introducing the Petroleum law, as a keystone to be approved by Iraqi Parliament, “no later than early 2007.” The ISG even admitted that the US-led occupation forces in Iraq were going to stay for a long time to come, to ensure the protection of the oil flow, when they recommended that "the US military should work with the Iraqi military and with private security forces to protect oil infrastructure and contractors."

As a long term strategy, recommendation 63 the ISG report emphasises that US interests lie with the international oil companies and specifically the US companies, to ensure that they have complete control of Iraqi oil reserves (the second largest in the world). It also stated that, "the United States should encourage investment in the Iraqi oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies."

First steps towards that end have been taken by the dummy government in Baghdad. This Sunday, 21 October, the Iraqi Oil minister extolled the virtues of the new Bill that would become a law when Parliament approves it.

A crucial element in the law is the provision of Production Sharing Agreement (PSA). An ingenious plan to hoodwink the public, the PSA was tried out in Indonesia for the first time in the late 1960s, experts say. While unlike Aramco in Saudi Arabia (a conglomerate with Saudi royal family participation and US oil majors like Chevron) that owns the oil wealth of that country signifying State control, a PSA does not devolve ownership rights to a corporate body – instead hoodwinking the people into believing that they retain control of their often only natural resource, oil – but all exploration, extraction, production and selling rights remain with the investing corporate. This ensures that people tend to not raise a furore as symbolically they retain the sovereign right on their oil wealth, thus also having the responsibility to keep it secure. Yet, barring that one responsibility meant as deterrence against nationalist unrest, you may well understand, the real power gets transferred to the investing corporates.

Considering that Iraq is beholden to the West, mainly the Anglo-American combine in more ways than one, this is how the Independent newspaper of Britain saw the developing situation, “Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. ‘Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome,’ said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.”

Same Platform, the civil society group quoted by the London-based newspaper had prepared a report entitled, Crude Designs: The rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth. In that they have quoted the ‘Oil and Energy’ working group of the US State Department’s Future of Iraq project, set up in 2003. In their report the group had apparently stated with obvious obfuscations, “Key attractions of production sharing agreements to private oil companies are that although the reserves are owned by the State, accounting procedures permit the companies to book the reserves in their accounts, but, other things being equal, the most important feature from the perspective of private oil companies is that the government take is defined in the terms of the [PSA] and the oil companies are therefore protected under a PSA from future adverse legislation.”

In other words, the Anglo-American TNCs want to hedge for the future in the present when the going is good and they have absolute control. George W Bush Administration’s current Iraq plan of a troop ‘surge’ or escalation is designed to create a Baghdad that would function as the holding headquarter of their oil interests in the future, even as the United Nations under a new South Korean Secretary General watches from the wings in apparent paralysis.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in.

Trends And Developments

Politics of Pensions Privatisation

Differing ideological perceptions over privatisation of pension funds in India, which have been keeping comprehensive old age pension reforms on the back-burner for years, once again came to the fore on January 22 when the Prime Minister and his top economic ministers discussed the matter with Chief Ministers and State Finance Ministers.

In the prevalent multi-party scenario across States, it was effectively an all-party meeting on a key issue of economic reforms pertaining to retirement benefits not just for employees of government-run enterprises, but also for workers in the organised private sector and, at least in theory, the millions of wage-earners in the unorganized sector.

Different political parties and different State governments have for long held almost irreconcilable views on the matter. But, judging from the latest deliberations, it appears that some form of consensus could be emerging.

That, at least, was the refrain of formal speeches and presentations. But the Left parties, who see themselves as allies with clout of the federal UPA coalition, continue to stoutly oppose the pension reforms plan put forward by the Central government. Not surprisingly, the alternate road map suggested by the CPI(M) and the CPI have no takers among the government reformists.

Virtually indicating that he was inclined to go ahead regardless of Marxist murmurings, the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh argued that there is a lot to be gained by moving forward and allowing many pension products delivered by a variety of agencies – both public and private.

In his address to the Chief Ministers' Conference on Pension Reforms, Dr. Singh pointed out that India does not have a comprehensive social safety net focusing on old age income security covering the bulk of our population. He said: ”One major objective of the PFRDA Bill is to put in place the architecture and the delivery mechanism for pension schemes of these kinds".

Dr. Singh stressed the need for better management of pension liabilities so that State finances can be managed in a healthy, sustainable way. He warned that the rising pension bills would be increasingly difficult to finance in future, particularly when large sums of money need to be spent on social sectors such as health, education and rural development. "The new pattern will fetch a return superior to that given by the government at present without compromising the safety factor," he claimed.

In essence, what the Prime Minister was recommending was that a new pension scheme for government employees should be legislated to allow investing a portion in stock markets to improve returns.

This was echoed and elaborated by the Finance Minister, Mr. P. Chidambaram, who said the rules governing non-government funds would be adopted for the proposed new pension fund. (Currently, only private pension funds can invest up to 5 per cent of their corpus in equities).

"Pending the passage of the bill, it is necessary to adopt an interim model for investment of accumulated subscriptions", Mr. Chidambaram told the Chief Ministers. "Hence it is proposed the investment guidelines applicable to non-government Provident Fund may be adopted as the interim model," he said.

Even though many States do seem to be veering round to the view that there is need for hastening the pension reforms through passage of the pending legislation with some modifications, the Left parties continue strongly opposed to any investment of pension fund money of government employees in the stock market.

The Finance Minister of West Bengal, Mr. Asim Dasgupta, said the three Left-ruled States diaapproved of the proposed new pension system because it would allow long-term savings to be invested in equities, without offering any guarantee of assured returns.

But Mr. Chidambaram also drew attention to another aspect – making pension instruments and schemes available for the common man. He said India would face huge challenges in future due to ageing of the population. The life expectancy at age 60, which is around 16 years at present, is expected to rise rapidly, requiring longer periods of retirement support for the elderly.

This becomes particularly acute for the unorganized sector, which is by far the major employer of our labour force. This large labour force functions without any options for their old age.

Incidentally, whereas the number of persons employed in the organized sector in India is about 50 million, the number of persons employed in the unorganized sector - and this includes casual and temporary employment - is estimated at a staggering 310 million. Of this large workforce, only about 11 per cent, including Government employees, is covered under any kind of pension plan.

It is estimated that one-eighth of the world's elderly population lives in India. The number of persons over 60 years of age today is 90 million and this number is expected to rise to 175 million by the year 2030.

The question that faces every country, especially ageing societies, is how can the elderly be provided for in the last years of their lives? The answer is - a reasonable and affordable package of retirement benefits that includes pension and health care.

But until the political parties sort out their ideological differences, it seems difficult for the government to move forward in a meaningful manner to put into place a comprehensive old-age pension scheme which can benefit people from all sections of society.

According to some expert studies, the debate is essentially over some crucial details.

Firstly, whether India should shift from the current system that defines benefits, on the basis of safe assets, to a new system that defines in which benefits depend on investments of the pension funds. The government says the current system cannot continue for long because of fund shortfalls, which will bankrupt many State governments. The combined pension expenditure of all States has risen from Rs. 3,131 crore in 1990-91 to Rs. 41,660 crore in 2005-06 (BE). While pension expenditure of States as a percentage of tax receipts was 7 per cent in 1990-91, this proportion rose to 14 per cent in 2005-06. Assuming a continuation of the trend, projections indicate that pension expenditure of the Centre could reach Rs. 35,020 crore by 2009-10. For the States, the projected figure is as high as Rs. 65,081 crore by that year.

Secondly, whether pension funds should be allowed to invest in stock markets. Proponents of reform say yes, pension funds should take on higher risk in the hope of higher returns. Opponents say no, this will harm the poor pensioners, if the investments prove unprofitable.

Thirdly, whether private institutions should be allowed to manage pension funds or government bodies should keep their monopoly. Both sides have done much math to support their respective cases, and both cite instances from other countries that have succeeded or failed with pension reforms. (Japan even had an election with this as the focal issue).

The path of India's pension reform over the last nine years has been riddled with many complex actions, reactions and inactions at the level of policymakers, researchers, regulators, aid agencies and the financial community. However, despite an overwhelming political consensus, the PFRDA Bill has continued to languish in Parliament over the last six sessions.

Trends And Developments

DMK calls for Statute review

In a potentially controversial move, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which is the dominant partner in the ruling coalition government in the southern Indian State of Tamil Nadu, has called for a new Indian Constitution, although it specifically rules out any changes to the clauses that pertain to the unity and integrity of the country.

That the demand for a redrafting of the Constitution is not just a casual suggestion is evidenced by the fact that it was incorporated in the formal Governor’s Address on the opening day of the winter session of the Tamil nadu State Assembly on January 20.

Most observers were taken by surprise when the Governor, Mr. Surjit Singh Barnala urged the Central government to rewrite the Constitution to reflect more effectively the aspirations of backward classes and minority communities in the country.

DMK supreme and State Chief Minister, Mr.M.Karunanidhi, evidently intends to use his considerable political clout at the Centre, where his party is a key constituent of the Congress-led UPA coalition, to bring the issue of major Statute changes on the national agenda.

The DMK demand comes against the backdrop of the very recent Supreme Court verdict on the 9th Schedule, which is perceived as a threat to reservation policies and therefore to the vote banks of political parties in Tamil Nadu, which has 69 per cent reservation as opposed to the 50 per cent ceiling prescribed by the apex court.

The Governor said it was necessary to keep pace with the changing times and in order to “ensure holistic federalism and social justice, the Constitution should be rewritten afresh”. Seeking to justify the demand, Mr. Barnala said over the past 50 years, the country's political, social and economic facets and needs of the working classes had radically changed. “Citizens belonging to the most backward schedule caste and tribes have been forced to do tight rope walking”, he said, adding that a complete review of the Constitution was necessary.

IN THEATERS FEB 9- Hannibal Rising Trailer

Trends And Developments

Tata Motors set up plant in Pakistan

Even as uncertainties continue to dog the controversial Tata small car project in Singur, in the eastern Indian State of West Bengal, the Tata Motors, India’s largest automobile firm, has set up shop in Karachi, Pakistan, by setting up a truck and bus assembly unit, The new venture is being handled by the company’s South Korean affiliate Tata Daewoo Commercial Vehicle Corporation (TDCVC).

The company has entered into a technical assistance pact with Afzal Motors (Pvt) Ltd of Pakistan to assemble trucks and buses. The plant has a capacity to produce 3,000 vehicles a year and would assemble heavy-duty trucks and buses.

TDCVC, which is a 100% subsidiary of Tata Motors, is the second largest manufacturer of heavy-duty trucks in South Korea, with a modern manufacturing facility at Gunsan. It is also the largest exporter of heavy-duty trucks from South Korea, accounting for about two-thirds of the export of such vehicles from the country. In 2005-06, TDCV posted a turnover of Rs.1584 crores, a growth of 34.5%, and a profit of Rs.58 crores, a growth of 160 per cent.

Cash-flush J&K still a backward State

Despite so much Central funding over the decades, Jammu and Kashmir lags far behind the India ‘s national average in terms of all economic development indicators. The first ever economic survey of the state has revealed that the state was facing a huge infrastructure deficit.

The survey stated that against an annual economic growth of seven per cent at the national level during the first four years of the 10th Plan, Jammu and Kashmir has remained content with just 5.5 per cent. The Gross State Domestic Product (GDP) was estimated to be Rs 250.50 billion for the year 2006-07. The per capita income of the state was Rs.17, 174 per annum. This was much below the Indian national average of Rs.25, 907 per annum.

Surprisingly, however, the population living below the poverty line in rural and urban areas, as per the estimates of the Indian Planning Commission was reported at 3.97 and 1.98 per cent respectively. The corresponding figures in rest of India were 27.09 per cent and 23.02 per cent.

Explaining this surprising trend, the state’s Finance Minister Tariq Hamid Qarra admits that absolute poverty had declined in Jammu and Kashmir. He however, stated that relative inequality seems to have increased in the same period.

He contended that while the lot of poor has improved, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened further. The Finance Minister said the lower level of income and adverse distribution as shown by the per capita income and the percentage of population below poverty line is directly a function of poor infrastructural availability.

Road length per 100 sq km area in the state was 35.71 km as against 104.64 km in the country. On an average, one post office in the state served an area of 60 sq km as against 20 sq km in rest of India.

The survey report is silent on the kind of high central allocations made to Jammu and Kashmir in view of its special status in the Indian Constitution and hence the question remains as to where all the money meant for infrastructural development has vanished.

The number of phones per 100 of population in the state - was 7.76 in 2005-06, as against 13.57 for the country. On the social infrastructure front, on an average one medical institution had to serve 3,127 people. ”We have only 111 hospital beds and 48 doctors/vaids/hakims available per 100,000 of population,” said the finance minister while presenting the survey report in the state assembly in Jammu.

Even in literacy, the state lagged behind as the literacy rate as per the 2001 census was 55.52 per cent as against 64.84 per cent at the all-India level. The female literacy rate was recorded at 43.0 per cent for the state compared to 53.67 per cent for the country.

The unemployment rate in the state, estimated by the National Sample Survey Organisation, stood at 4.21 per cent. According to the survey, the unemployment rate in urban areas was 7.33 per cent. This was much higher than the rural figure of 3.54 per cent. Compared to this, the all India unemployment rates were lower at 3.09 per cent - 2.31 per cent in rural areas and 5.37 per cent in urban areas.

The state government got the survey conducted to set out a broad contextual framework for a long-term development strategy for the state, taking into account its peculiar development problems.

Hopes soar of early Siachen thaw

The 23-year old dispute between India and Pakistan over the highest battle field atop the Siachen glaciers in the Himalayas appears heading for settlement with New Delhi signaling "favourable" consideration of Islamabad’s latest proposal for pullout of troops by both and turning the icy mountain area into no man's land.

Dr Manmohan Singh-led United Progress Alliance (UPA) government is engaged in examining inputs gathered from different agencies, including the Indian Army, and a final decision is expected very soon, top sources here said on Wednesday. This will pave way for his first trip to Islamabad as the Indian Prime Minister to break further ice with President Pervez Musharraf in resolving various disputes between the two nuclear neighbours, including the vexed Kashmir issue.

A set of suggestions were handed over to India by Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riyaz Mohommad Khan here last November during the Foreign Secretary-level talks . Since then, they were sent to different agencies, including the Army, for the comments that are "favourable" for the pullout, the sources said.

The two neighbours had reached the understanding on the troop pullout not once but twice in 1989 and 1992 but the actual withdrawal of troops from the glacier did not materialise as Pakistan refused to accept India's demand for "authentication" of ground positions. Refusing to authenticate the Indian control beyond the map position NJ9842, Pakistan kept insisting that the Indian troops should return to 1983 positions as per the 1973 Shimla Agreement that contemplates that the Line of Control (LoC) can be altered only through the bilateral negotiations.

A via-media, therefore, from the visiting foreign secretary in November surprised the Indian negotiators when he put the official suggestion on the negotiation table, offering to "acknowledge" the Indian military positions at the glacier even while not "authenticating" them as such. In its proposal, Pakistan has said that "authentication" would amount to tacit acceptance of India's claim on the glacier, which was against the spirit of Shimla Agreement. It has, however, suggested that its alternative proposal of "acknowledging" positions would meet the Indian Army's apprehensions. "But, if there is intention to seek endorsement of certain claims, it will be difficult," says the Pakistani proposal.

Sources here said that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was eager to declare the area as "mountain of peace". Te Indian Cabinet is slated to discuss the pros and cons of Pakistani suggestion and inputs from various agencies within the next two to three days. Realising the political implications of the issue, Prime Minister is also likely to discuss it with Congress high command, including party president Sonia Gandhi. It is, however, still not clear whether Dr Manmohan Singh will broach the issue with the Opposition parties in India as well to remove any apprehensions they hold about negating the achievements with forward movements that the Indian Army had made in 1983 to recapture the positions on the glacier from the Pakistani forces.

The Prime Minister's Office in New Delhi believes that a decision on Siachen would have a salutary effect on the peace process between India and Pakistan, which has tended to stagnate with little tangible progress on the ground almost throughout 2006. The Union Cabinet is also likely to discuss the possibility of the Prime Minister's maiden visit to Pakistan while debating the Siachen pullout.

The Defence Secretaries and officials of India and Pakistan have met 10 times since the two countries decided to work out a mechanism to address the final objective of demilitarisation in 1987 when former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and his counterpart Benazir Bhutto were at the helm of affairs.

The two armies are operationally deployed there for the past 23 years and the Indian defence establishment does not want to be taken offguard in case Pakistan reoccupies the heights. At present, the Indian army has the strategic advantage of commanding all the major high points of the glacier, thereby providing it access to the mountain passes that can come under fire from the other side if Pakistan occupies them. However, Pakistan is seemingly in a better position as it has to maintain less arduous logistical support to its army due to favourable gradual descent on its side of the glacier. Pakistan, moreover, has better access to the glacier as the road heads are closer to the less steep heights. India, on the other hand, has to maintain all its logistical support through air due to extremely rugged and harsh terrain where temperatures hover between minus 30 to minus 50.

In My View - Thursday-Wednesday

Bangladesh steps backward to move forward

Democratic transitions of power in the Indian sub continent are a rarity, be it in Pakistan or Bangladesh, now Nepal or in Sri Lanka. In October last when Begum Khaleda Zia government’s term came to an end, a sense of foreboding had set in. This feeling was based upon the sharp and intense polarisation in the nation’s polity by which the Bangladeshis had been divided between two contending camps headed by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) alliance, on the one side; and a 14 party alliance led by the Awami League (AL) of former prime minister, Hasina Wajed, on the other.

The country had been wracked by violent protests in the penultimate days of Zia rule when the AL and its allies agitated against the selection process of a chef advisor for the caretaker government that was to succeed Zia government. Bangladesh’s constitution demanded that. protest

The task of the caretaker government was to hold the general election in an impartial manner. The AL had protested against the choice of the candidate to head the caretaker government as it found him to be a BNP cohort. In the ensuing turmoil the president of Bangladesh, Iajuddin Ahmed took the reins of government and vowed to hold the polls at the first available opportunity on 22 January.

The Al had again objected seeking revision of the electoral rolls as it had believed them to be contaminated by inclusion of a vast number of false voters. Ahmed was not ready to revise the rolls, which would have called for a delay in the polls, and would have caused a severe setback to the BNP-JeI alliance. The AL alliance decided, in its turn, to boycott the polls and register its protest in a continuous programme of mass moblisation. The resultant political crisis threatened to engulf the nation in turmoil.

Thus, when the Emergency came, not many people were surprised. For, the logjam the political process had entered into did not seem to have a way out. Many believe it would not be soon that democratic politics would return to Bangladesh. Initial indications emanating from Dhaka also appear to underline this belief. Senior members of the caretaker government have gone on record to say that they wish to achieve a situation where elections could be held free of “black money power,” electoral malpractices and a rectified electoral roll. The last task itself would take upwards of six months to be accomplished, if the government in place decides to do a thorough job.

Some astute political observers of the nation see a more diabolical plot in the evolving situation. They see the hand of the army in the sudden volte face of the President, Iajuddin Ahmed, who seemed to change his mind in a span of 24 hours. Between 10 and 11 January, Ahmed had a remarkable transformation by which on Thursday, 11 January, evening when he addressed the nation, he debunked all that he himself had done in the past few months. This radical shift, these observers say could not have occurred without a less than gentle prod by the armed forces. These people also say that a significant section of the army wants to launch a ‘de-Tareqisation’ operation in the country.

That bit of counterfactual statement requires a clearer enunciation. People in Bangladesh believe that during the Khaleda Zia government, all powers were really centred in the hands of her son, Tareq, who one civil society activist describes as someone who had, “looted the country in five years in a manner that no South Asian country has ever witnessed in their histories.” While that could have been written off as middle-class hyperbole had it not been for the fact that the member in charge of the power sector of the previous caretaker government led by Ahmed, soon after its anointment, had to declare that he would launch an investigation on a “power scam.” The scam ran into more than ten thousand crores, sources say. Reportedly, this was despite Ahmed’s own affliction of the “Madam desires/ or does not…” disease that he had carried over to the independent constitutional apparatus, which he chose to head. The current talk about negating influence of money power in Bangaldesh’s elections seem aimed at none other than the same protagonist, Tareq Zia.

From the window in South Block through which the Indian Ministry of External Affairs looks out to Bangladesh – though some say it normally stays shut to keep the heat and the grime out – this may look like familiar territory, a confounding mess. Yet, subtle differences could not have missed the attention of the punctilious desk hands. Most important of that is that the nation’s army chose not to jump into the fray directly this time around. Indian mandarins might have also noted with some relief that this time the cantonments seemed particularly sensitive to the words being said in Washington, London or New York. The latter – the UN’s – threat to stop the country’s individually lucrative armed forces assignments to various peace missions in other parts of the world had hit heard the senior brass. And they had acted quickly, a Bangaldeshi columnist noted recently.

This susceptibility to international pressure can also create problems in the medium term. For many believe that the caretaker government with its long mandate would be beholden to do the bidding of Washington and New Delhi, both spoken in the same breath. And that would not be too popular at a time, when Bangladesh is being seen as the latest frontier in the ever expanding terror network of the Islamists led by Osama Bin Laden. India should not have anything to do with that new hyphenated interest and instead, wait to achieve clarity in a proximate neighbour.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi of Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in

In My View - Thursday-Wednesday

Whose Marx is it anyway?

In the initial years of this decade, the BBC had aired a poll it had organised in the penultimate years of the previous millennium about who was the most influential philosopher of the 20th Century. The resounding answer had been Karl Marx. The intellectual pull of Marx has been so much over a century that even his greatest enemies, the capitalists have had to denote their objective position in terms of their critique of Marxism. This column usually deals with subjects of international nature, albeit seen through an Indian prism. But today’s subject takes a look at the phenomenon of Marxism, which lies at the root of a politically significant fortnight, both internationally and domestically.

As noted in earlier weeks, Latin American nations are increasingly voting to power various governments who in some way or the other draw their inspiration from Marxism. Nearer home, Nepal has taken the first institutional step towards putting in place a revolutionary government that directly claim to be Marixist, Leninist and Maoist. All these developments are taking place in countries that are mired in inequality, privation, and underdevelopment.

On the other hand, in India’s own red bastion, West Bengal, a Leftist government led by avowed Marxists are showing intriguing signs of embarking on a path of new economic thinking that seems to smack of capitalist features. Indeed, one of the state’s Left leaders and senior CPI (M) Central Committee leader, Benoy Konar, who is knocking on the doors of the party’s apex Politbureau, has stirred a hornets’ nest by arguing that, “West Bengal is not a sovereign country. It is a province within a capitalist-feudal State. There has been no revolution in West Bengal. West Bengal does not have a socialist or a people's democratic government. The West Bengal government is a democratic government which has to work within the socio-economic framework of the capitalist-feudal State. Its main responsibilities are to realise the fullest potential of growth for its agriculture and its industries, to safeguard the interests of its working people, to provide some relief, to extend democracy and to make the people aware of the existing anti-people socio-economic system through their practical experiences and to project an alternative policy. Leave alone the LF government; let us recount the experience of the November revolution about capitalist development. In spite of being called the socialist revolution, Lenin had to say that in reality it was a working class-peasantry revolution, which means in real sense it was a democratic revolution under the leadership of the working class, whose task was to reach socialism after completing the task of bourgeois-democratic revolution.”

As if on cue, the state government had to acquire about 1,000 acres of land for a motor vehicle project of one pf the leading industrial groups of the country, know as the Tata group. Undoubtedly, the group can count on belonging to the top two per cent of the world population who control about 50 per cent of the world’s wealth. So by seeming to side with them, the West Bengal has come under withering criticism of the Left sympathisers – both aligned and independent. Hence, the question, Whose Marx is it anyway?

Benoy Konar and his party’s position can be best understood of one were to pick up the clues from an interpretation of Marxism by the German social scientist, Juergen Habermas. In his famous, The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory, he had analysed “In the dimension of labour as a process of production and appropriation, reflective knowledge changes into productive knowledge. Natural knowledge congealed in technologies impels the social subject to an ever more thorough knowledge of its “Process of material exchange” with nature. In the end this knowledge is transformed into the steering of social processes in a manner not unlike that in which natural science becomes the power of technical control.”

In other words, if labour, the key component of social transformation were to remain mired in primitivity of production relations, it fails to reach its historic level of emancipation where it can take social control of production processes serving its own interests. In fact, Habermas has gone further by describing the full knowledge of the “process of material exchange” almost as powerful as natural science’s hegemony over technology.

But returning to the internationalist roots of this space, the nations of Latin America too would have to eventually take a similar position as that being witnessed in West Bengal. For their commodity-based economies require urgent change towards modernisation that heightens the consciousness and technical competence of their own labour, by which the latter gain effective control of their own destinies.

Meanwhile, there would be pain from deviations – real and imagined; from increased exploitation as Capital seeks to inflict. Valdimir Illyich Lenin, the first successful revolutionary Marxist – as opposed to Marx, the failed Marxist in praxis – had written is his, Left Wing Communism: as infantile disorder about the transition of Russia from ‘pre-bourgeois patriarchal mode’ to bourgeois development that, “Illusions that stood outside and above class distinctions, illusions concerning the possibility of avoiding capitalism, were scattered to the winds. The class struggle manifested itself in a quite new and more
distinct way.”

He had also warned, “A petty bourgeois driven to frenzy by the horrors of capitalism is a social phenomenon which, like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries. The instability of such revolutionism, its barrenness, and its tendency to turn rapidly into submission, apathy, phantasms, and even a frenzied infatuation with one bourgeois fad or another - all this is common knowledge.”

Clearly, the followers of Marx need also to gain control of their own epistemeolgical roots.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi (Kerala). He writes on Strategic Security issues. And he can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in.

In My View - Thursday-Wednesday

On Kashmir, Musharraf unplugged

Pakistan’s President Parvez Musharraf is a master of public diplomacy. He had so upstaged a big showman like Atal Behari Vajpayee in Agra in 2001 that even a normally loquacious Vajpayee was left gasping for breath. At that time, Gen Musharraf had been trying to break free from isolation after staging a military coup, and in the aftermath of the Kargil misadventure. Today, he wants to win again: this time an election in 2007. And this time too he wants India to do him a favour by bolstering his chances at the hustings.

So in the last few weeks, suddenly there has been an accretion of messages from Islamabad. Some of them have been unpalatable to the usually tolerant lot of Pakistani journalists, few of whom apparently walked out of the Pakistan Foreign Office briefing in which the hapless spokesperson had to say that the country never had any territorial claims on Kashmir. Across the border, in India people sat up and took notice. Knowing Gen Musharraf’s ability for subterfuge they looked for pitfalls. But there are a few things that need to be considered before a judgment is passed on the new Musharraf proposal

First is the considerable improvement in bilateral relations. For the first time, people to people contacts between the countries seem like a viable alternative to the jaw-jaw situation that has existed for decades. Second, under international pressure, a large and an influential section of the Pakistani establishment seem to have come around to the view that their strategy of dealing with asymmetries through unconventional militaristic methods are becoming increasingly untenable. The global opinion has shifted from looking at the terrorism and militancy in Kashmir as isolated phenomena largely born from the disputed inception of nation building in the sub continent. Instead, they now look at these activities as an integral part of global terrorism where the vision is of religious revival, thus challenging the secular path of development.

On top of that, Musharraf and his fellow travellers also understand that if Pakistan has to survive as a viable state, they would have to forsake their dualistic strategy of sponsoring ‘freedom fights’ on the one hand, and reducing religious radicalism in the society at the same time. On his own, he is trying to deal with the latter on two fronts. First at the urging of his Western allies, he is clamping down on radical groups who are waging their jihad against the former, and second, he is encouraging the voices of liberalism and rationality in Pakistan to rise up. The recent Hudood law revision is a case in point.

One has to understand, that in Pakistan the existing political establishment consisting of Pakistan Peoples’ Party of Begum Benazir Bhutto and Pakistan Muslim League of Mian Nawaz Sharif are severely compromised due to their corruption when in power, and their subterranean anti-democratic linkages with forces inimical to Pakistan’s national interest of becoming a strong, modern state. So while Musharraf rules the country and struggles to maintain a semblance of order, he also needs to develop political institutions that gain popular backing.

This is the backdrop against which India has to judge his latest forays in trying for a solution to the Kashmir. An important section of opinion in India possess grave doubts about Musharraf’s legitimacy in power, thus impinging on his ability to strike a lasting deal on Kashmir, that could be viewed as pathbreaking. A realistic appreciation of this aspect should actually begin from the belief that the Western powers have invested a lot of political capital in Musharraf as the frontline state in tackling Islamist insurgency. This has enabled the latter to have significant elbow room and crucially, time, to set the house right. In that scenario, he may be the best option India has in Pakistan. For the current Pakistan leadership understands that a deal on Kashmir could constitute an important leg for the globally important battle against Islamist revivalism.

So when Musharraf complains that his various attempts at public diplomacy are stonewalled by the Indian which consecutively seeks to better the last offer by their complete lack of response to the previous, one needs to take note. Indeed, there should be an appreciation in India that the timeline of 2007 should be given some credence and some political capital be invested in Musharraf, as there do not seem to be any other investible option existing in Pakistan at the moment. In this light, it is crucial to acknowledge the courage that was shown by the government in Islamabad to jettison a six decade old position on Kashmir.

Beginning from there, if one looks at Musharraf’s current proposal on Kashmir for identifying the regions of the troubled area; demilitarising them; giving them self-governance; and joint management of the resultant entity needs to be taken up. The deal itself is considerable improvement on the pervious positions of Pakistan on the issue. Plus, it provides enough negotiating space in terms of all the four goals to be achieved in a time-bound manner. The two national special respresentatives, MK Narayanan and Tariq Aziz should be credited for these immediate developments and allowed to begin thrashing out the details.

Of course, India should also keep a keen eye on how the gauntlet thrown by Gen Musharraf is playing out in Pakistan. That could well be decisive in this home stretch.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with Mathrubhumi (Kerala). He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in.

In My View - Thursday-Wednesday

Nuclear Non Sequitor

In the days ahead, India would decide whether to go ahead with the final 123 Agreement as enabled by the United States-India Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Act (Hyde Act) mostly on the basis whether its scientific community considers removal of technological restrictions on the country will open new vistas for them. For the Hyde Act, as enacted, has far more intrusive provisions than could pass the muster of the normally cloistered Indian nuclear science establishment.

Many of the provisions of the Act would even find it hard to pass the expansive litmus test of Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh’s “national interest.” Some may find it ironic that he needed to especially call the Atomic Energy Commission Chairman and the country’s nuclear czar, Dr Anil Kakodkar, and reassure that he would not be left out of the loop when the final piece fell in place.

Consider what the Minister for External Affairs, Pranab Mukherjee, said in Parliament about the situation after enactment of the Act, “Keeping that in mind, the enactment of waivers from certain provisions of the US Atomic Energy Act, which allows the United States to cooperate with India in civilian nuclear energy despite our not accepting full scope safeguards and despite maintaining a strategic programme, is significant.”

Of note, is added emphasis of his on the bipartisan support the Indo-US deal has been able to garner in Washington. Indian negotiators would know the huge hurdles the American nuclear non proliferation ayatollahs can put up to keep the world free of nuclear weapons excepting that of the United States of America. Some of them like George Perkovich showed their hand when North Korea supposedly exploded a nuclear device.

Without pointing at the gross violation of the spirit of the Non proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) in the way the N-5 (five Nuclear Weapon states as mandated by the NPT) flouted Art VI and continued unabated with their nuclear weapons programmes. Instead, Perkovich and Co did not focus at this major failure of the global regime but advocated tightening of measures by which the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ can be deepened. Same restrictive regime being prescribed would have been applicable had India not decided to expand its nuclear energy programme by virtue of internationally accessed nuclear reactor technology.

But even after ignoring that India is effectively signing on to this same globally unequal treaty by acceding to the US bilateral nuclear regimen – after turning on its head its legacy of independent positions on nuclear issues – the Indian scientific chiefs could look at the Act as a panacea for their years of seclusion as they practiced ‘self reliance.’ In these times of globalisation, where India is prone to celebrate low technology commercial successes with years of neglect of Indian science education at the basic level coming home to roost, the paltry scientific talent, unable to cope with the challenge posed by the restrictive regimes are falling to lures away from the challenges.

Apparently, the enabling Act for the 123 Agreement creates roadblocks even for an independent nuclear research. Because it seeks to deny equipment and technology for Uranium enrichment; reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel; and production of heavy water. This would not create an environment of open access as the Indian scientific community so dearly desire. India, in their turn, cannot even try to wrangle deals out of the other members of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group as the USA, the primary promoter of the India specific exceptions, would be barred from encouraging them to consider export of such equipment.

Sec 107 of the Act directs the president of the USA to implement end-use monitoring programme “to supplement the IAEA safeguards regime to ensure that U.S. exports of nuclear materials and technology to India are dedicated only to India’s civilian program. The program would be directed at ensuring that the identified recipients of the nuclear technology are authorised to receive it, and that it is only used for peaceful, safeguarded nuclear activities. It would also ensure that the assurances and conditions attached to the licenses for export of such materials to India are being complied with. This will provide confidence that U.S. actions under this cooperation agreement will be in compliance with NPT Article I, which requires the United States not to assist in any way any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture nuclear weapons.”

The above provision explodes a few myths the Indo-US proponents had been propagating since its birth in 2005: that there would be no intrusive inspections – bilateral or multilateral - of the Indian nuclear programme aimed at restricting its scope; it also clearly states through the provisions that the USA has no intention of considering an unofficial ‘nuclear weapon state.’ A logic that this kind of a provision exists in the realm of a US-China nuclear co-operation is facetious as the latter is a nuclear weapon state.

In this light, the normally cloistered nuclear science and space scientific community needs to de a public cost-benefit analyses for the Indian public to accept this deal.

Pinaki Bhattacharya is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi (Kerala). He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in

In My View - Thursday-Wednesday

Law as an Ass: More Saddams in the offing

Pinaki Bhattacharya

Defending Mr Saddam Hussain is a difficult task. Here is a former dictator of a country who ruled with an iron fist. If the Western media machines are to be believed, albeit with skepticism, he has waged chemical warfare on sections of his own population; his secret police Mukhbarat made a reputation for itself in torture, debasement and disappearance of its own people. So much of a reputation they had that the Anglo-US combine in the country are reported to be looking for their former operatives to provide them fresh appointments in the coalition.

But Saddam Hussain has to be defended. And India should defend him with a clean conscience not just for being handed down a “victors’ justice” but because the legal process of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) was deeply vitiated. India’s national interest lies in upholding the basic principles of international jurisprudence and universal declaration of human rights.

New Delhi’s new Minister for External Affairs got the second part of the message right while making a grave error in the first. Mr Pranab Mukherjee assumed that the US and its British allies have won a victory in Iraq. Every day the pictures emanating from the country tell a different story. In October, 113 American soldiers have lost their lives even as they stay mostly in their barracks as the US seeks to replace its own army with the Iraqi police and army. Demands in the USA are rising and may prove a reality soon when these forces will have to return to their home bases. Even the US President, Mr George W. Bush claims everyday that the ‘War on Terror’ (WOT), of which Iraq is a key battleground, is not over.

So Mr Mukherjee may have to do better than express rather distant reservations about the “judicial process” and declaring that Anglo-American coalition victors in this war. For as the point man of the country, he is entrusted with the task of upholding and ensuring the interests of the country in the existing international system. And that international system has found the detention of the former Iraqi president “illegal” in the eye of international law.

“Deprivation of liberty of Mr Saddam Hussein is arbitrary, being in contravention of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights to which Iraq and the United States are parties," was how the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, under the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR) reported in September, 2006. The UN Special Rapporteaur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers, reported to the newly created Council for Human Rights in March, 2006, “[the Special Rapporteaur] express[es] his reservations regarding the legitimacy of the tribunal, its limited competence in terms of people and time and the breach of international human rights principles and standards to which it gives rise.”
But that is not all. Consider these,
· “The U.S. created Iraqi Special Tribunal which assessed the death sentences is not legal, independent, or impartial as required by international law and simple justice.
· The case was tried in the midst of raging violence across Iraq which has taken hundreds of thousands of lives. Three defense counsel were assassinated in the first trial and a fourth has been assassinated in the second trial, to date.
· Two Chief Judges were removed from the IST in the midst of the trial by political pressure. A third has been removed in the second trial, to date.
· The IST limited the defense to five weeks of testimony then cut off its witnesses. The Chief Judge said "if you cannot prove your innocence with 34 witnesses, 100 will not help." The Court delayed and rescheduled its decision in the case from mid June for nearly five months to influence the U.S. elections.
· The US lawyers involved in creating and directing the IST, unable to restrain their desire that their role be known, announced the length of the final judgment in the first trial, over 300 pages, presumably in English, more than a month ago. The planned "November surprise" should surprise no one.”
None of the above came from communist provocateaurs of the Indian Left parties, seeking to cosy up to the Muslim voters. It came from Mr Ramsey Clark, the American defence lawyer of Mr Hussain’s who was thrown out of the court on 5 November by the IST chief judge. Mr Clark is a pillar of American establishment. He had been the US Attorney General between 1967and 1969, even as his employer the former US president, the late Lyndon B. Johnson chose bombing targets amongst Vietnamese villages.
Many may say that his recent briefs do not exude great confidence in his sense of judgment of human character. He defended recently Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic (in absentia) of Serbia.
But some would say that his services might be needed again if a Democratic regime in the USA decided to send in the Marines and whisk away, say, Mr Narendra Modi from Gujarat and put him on trial in Pakistan at a ‘Pakistan Special Tribunal’ and charged him with ‘genocide’ against Muslims. What would the external affairs minister of the day do, for there would be precedents? And what would the Indian elite – secular and communal – say then? Would they then remember that the Left told them so?

Pinaki Bhattacharya is a Special Correspondent of the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. And he can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in.

In My View - Thursday-Wednesday

Grandmothers’ tales

Historically, India sought out civilisational contacts with others for its own enrichment. Indian folklore is replete with accounts of faraway places of ‘milk and honey’ for which its people pine for long. The country’s current interaction with the USA belongs to a similar realm. Last week good news flowed from faraway Washington in a manner it seemed they will not stop. Two of them are of immediate value. The US Senate passed a bill that would create ground for enabling legislation for the Indo-US nuclear deal to see the light of the day. The other was that the visa fees for Indians wishing to visit the USA have been significantly lowered.

Many in this country dream of the day when they would get their entry into the USA and live happily ever after. For them these dreams are usually defined in terms of the material benefits that could accrue to them. Many critics of those who challenge this vision claim that the latter are against “modernism”; and can only relate to a future of India from the reference point of poverty. They say the present Indian society aspires to excel, and it looks at the USA as its psychological benchmark.

Therefore, it appears crucial to understand whether the USA can be considered an undisputed leader of modernity. At this stage, usually the discussion degenerates into a raucous debate about whether technological and scientific achievements can make one such a leader. Though knowing that indeed technological excellence alone cannot drive ‘modernism’ – otherwise industrially revolutionised Britain would not have given birth to such Dickensian portrayal of the dark underbelly of the English society – one can still take the plunge to argue the S & T case.

Beginning at the apex, even a cursory glance at the list of Nobel laureates since the time of the awards inception, one can see that Americans have dominated the list. But importantly this domination has been most in the post-World War II period. And this has been largely driven by the immigrant German scientists who fled Nazi Germany.

Even now, white, Anglo Saxon, Protestants – the quintessential Americans – hardly find a place in the honour roll. Now, one can argue that the USA is a nation of immigrants. If one goes with the melting pot logic, one naturally has to wade into the area of culture and ask: Has the USA produced any influential literary or artistic genre that has created a global impact?

Knowing his limitations in this area, this writer had sought help from a friend – a wholly reconstructed leftist friend, vastly more well read, and one who understands the importance of capital. He was asked a question; give the names of three most important post-War (modern!) American literary figures and artistic persona. After a night’s torture, this friend has produced this list for the first category: Saul Bellow, JD Salinger and Harper Lee. One must add he also predicated his list with the comment that American literature has not been able to emerge from the boundaries of a narrative style. For artists he had names like Andy Warhol, Man Ray and Jackson Pollock.

This writer has sought to recall whether any of these personalities have made waves in the contemporary times they straddled in the same way a Gabriel Garcia Marquez has or an Orhan Pamuk does. The answer unfortunately is in the negative.

In art the situation is even worse. Andy Warhol in many ways had made the toilet seat a strong motif of his art. But can even a contextualised toilet seat compare with the draw of Cubism? On the other hand, this same friend seeks to throw such sentences like the centre for the arts have shifted to New York from Paris, France for the ‘money’ has moved there. One can hardly argue with such logic.

Another measure of ‘modern’ times is the spread of education. For an educated mind is usually a modern mind. Some statistics reveal a picture that contemporary Indians cannot revel in. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the autumn of 2005 – a beginning of an American education year – 72 million children were enrolled in the US school system and merely two million graduated from high school.

Earlier this writer had also asked his friend to name three philosophical ideas that emanated from the USA that shook the world. He could effectively name only one, feminism. The other, post-modernism, is clearly in the disputed territory as substantial body of evidence exists about its European parentage even though its principles of believing the ‘here and now’ is applicable to the notion of believing in the USA as is being currently propagated in this country.

Post-modernism typically is an example of intellectual ferment a civilised society undergoes when it seeks to deal with its contradictions. European left had dreamt up this philosophy essentially after the failure of global communism to deal with the monstrosity of the Soviet Union. The USA can hardly partake in any such delights. But they certainly lay claim to the idea of ‘liberal democracy’ – variants of which they seek to export based on the might of their military power.

Yet, the world had been historically progressing towards such a political goal ever since the Magna Carta was accepted by the British landed aristocracy. Then came the French Revolution with its declarations and finally, the American Bill of Rights. Yet, the Americans allowed the Blacks and women to vote in their elections only at the beginning of the 20th century – more than 150 years after their independence.

But still the Indians love their USA. It is the land of ‘milk and honey’ of their folklores. They wish to dream the American Dream.

Pinaki Bhattacharya is a Special Correspondent with Mathrubhumi (Kerala). He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in

In My View - Thursday-Wednesday

Partitioned Iraq in post-Saddam future

The USA’s decision to accelerate the process of execution of Iraq’s former president, Saddam Hussain is possibly less pathological, and more diabolical, in its scope. Many had been flummoxed at the ‘strategic failure’ of Washington in not being able to gauge the level of Islamic ire at executing Hussain just ahead of the Id festivities. Many other US supporters, like Britain, have wrung their hands in frustration at the George W Bush administration’s endemic inability in understanding the sentiments of millions of Muslims.

But not many had given attention to the fact that the USA is on the verge of framing a new policy on Iraq, which is geared towards trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in West Asia. A crucial element in that is Saddam Hussain’s execution, its leaked video recordings; and the fallout. The central idea of this future policy is to grasp the nettle where the James Baker-Lee Hamilton bipartisan Iraq Study Group had left it. And the main theme of that policy has to be based upon the solid rock an American force withdrawal from the embattled nation, without a replay of the scenes of a helicopter-borne hasty departure from atop the Saigon US embassy.

Hence, the idea is to minimise longer term damage to US interests in the region. That can only be achieved by a partition of Iraq into three concurrent, but whittled down nations; that of the Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the centre; and the Shi’is in the south. The reason one comes to this conclusion is based on one’s inability to accept that the Bush Administration was unaware what would be the sectarian impact of an execution conducted by a government that is widely seen as Shi’i machinery for gaining supremacy. This fact need not have been buttressed by the shouts of ‘Muqtada-al Sadr’ as Hussain had waited on the gallows to be hanged.

But now that has happened, it has driven a firm wedge between the two communities that may remain irreparable in the medium term. If the Sunnis had a share of the country where there would have been oil, the division of Iraq would have taken place much earlier. In the north, the Kurds virtually operate as a separate nation. As the Sunday Times of London in October, 2006, the Shi’i leaders like the religious overlord of Iraqi Shi’is Abdul Aziz al-Hakim are pushing for “regional autonomy” – short hand for fuller separation. Notably, he visited Washington recently when he met the US President, Bush.

Interestingly, the first proposal for autonomy along sectarian lines in Iraq was mooted by the Democratic Party senator, Joseph R. Biden in May last year. Today, the Democratic Party controls the both Houses of the US Congress almost after 12 years. And they have to redeem their pledge to the American public that the troops would be brought back home. Biden’s plan had five elements: an Iraq of three regions (Shi’i, Sunni and Kurd), share oil revenues with the Sunnis promised 20 per cent of present and future oil revenue; an international conference leading to a regional non-aggression pact; all US forces to be drawn down by 2007 with a token 20,000 remaining as an anti-terrorist force; increase reconstruction aid with creation of jobs programme.

The biggest stumbling block in Iraq to this plan were the Sunnis who were loathe to be in a land without oil. With the legally heinous execution of Saddam Hussain, Iraqi Sunni sentiments would be sufficiently inflamed to lead them to a realisation that they would not be able to stay alongside the other two communities, over whom they had ruled for so many decades. This could also lead to a Sunni consolidation of sorts under the banner of Saudi Arabia, that could be welcomed with open arms by the USA.

While the immediate advantage of this plan would accrue in terms of stopping the daily bleeding the US interests are taking in the region – indeed the world – the long term goals would be better served by an American retreat now so that they can return on another day. In other words, the remaining US interests would be safeguarded for the moment if the nation’s forces depart from the explosive theatre, till the country can regroup. A partitioned Iraq would also create better opportunities for the big powers to play in maintaining their vital interests in strategic region. Smaller states out of a large Iraq can also pose less of a threat even if it falls in the hands of either the al Qaeda or Shi’i religious militants. They would then have a much smaller footprint, thus not endangering such steadfast US allies in the region like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

But Baker-Hamilton ISG had left this option out of its menu even though there is evidence it had seriously toyed with the idea as the earlier quoted Sunday Times report had stated. They had possibly given up on the concept as they could not find a viable solution to the oil problem. Hence, they have wished if the situation reaches such a pass, the US should ensure that the control of oil revenue, thus oil assets, are under a central control in Baghdad even if fissiparousness takes hold. Also, they might have felt that if they recommended such a path, Iraqis could vow not to let that happen and instead, listen to the remnants of voices still speaking in favour of Iraqi nationalism. And that would deal a body blow to the US national interest.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in.