In My View

Pakistan: Flawed State

Successful conclusion of Parliamentary polls in Pakistan this month has given rise to a fresh bout of the rhetoric of ‘change,’ ‘democracy’ and ‘development.’ London’s Daily Telegraph has defined that change by the ‘imminent’ departure of Pakistan’s president, Parvez Musharraf. Some others of its ilk had begun speculating on polling day itself, whether he had kept an aeroplane ready for a quick exit to Turkey; a place he had reportedly confessed to have plans to retire.

Ironically, this last product of Western journalistic expertise – about Musharraf’s quick getaway to Turkey – typifies the tragedy that Pakistan faces. It is this that even the apex of the country’s bourgeoisie does not find it as a post-retirement haven. They are only there to plunder and help sink the country’s general population into absurd depths of misery, as recent history has recorded. Asaf Ali Zardari’s 48 million-pound estate in the United Kingdom is just the tip of the ice-berg.

Of course, it is a different point that Musharraf does not betray any such departure plans yet, as envisioned in this high decibel psychological warfare. But the next few months would be crucial for him to take a few giant steps that would define him as clearly different from the feudal-primitive capitalist lot that has been elected to the country’s National Assembly.

He has to show that he, being a Mohajir, is not there just to exploit the poor people as serfs like the feudals of the kind of Bhuttos or Zardaris. Nor is he there just to indulge in primitive accumulation like the Nawaz Sharifs who thrive in the dispossession of the peasantry.

The latter’s convergence at this juncture in a post-poll coalition is a last ditch attempt by the feudal-primitive capitalist bourgeois class to maintain control of the country on the face of disarray and destabilisation that could rob them their gains. They would also inevitably fall apart as their class interests conflict over time.

The rhetoricians of the ‘change; democracy; and development’ theory, or those who wallow in their not-quite-unusual ‘no change’ corners, could not have mistaken the popular verdict for this pre-capitalist order as the collective opinion of the mass of Pakistanis. If at all, it is an expression of their frustration at the lack of a nationalist bourgeoisie in Pakistan, thus exemplified by the low turn-out in the polls.

It might be safe to argue that the only nascent nationalist bourgeoisie that exists in Pakistan remains within the confines of the country’s armed forces and sections of the bureaucracy, who know that without the country they would not exist as the preferred recipients of all privileges in Pakistan.

It is important for Musharraf now to remove the traces of the comprador influences that work on the armed forces and its allied organs. One would argue, if he tries to move in that direction, it would dry up the biggest chunk of dollar denominated foreign direct investment (FDI) that comes into the country in the form ‘military Keynesianism.’

By that what I mean is this: the billions of dollars of Western foreign aid that pours into the country is mostly spent in the upkeep of the only State institution that survives, the armed forces. A large part of the funds then get recycled in the national economy of Pakistan thus fuelling the engines of public goods and services, only a small proportion of which ultimately reaches the people on the ground. So if Musharraf tries to eradicate the comprador-collaborationist class, he might end up cutting the hand that feeds the system, which would be deleterious for him.

But Musharraf is omniscient enough to understand where his comparative advantage lies. He knows that he has Washington tied up in knots by which it is imperative for the US government to continue to fund his ventures. The Bush administration or any other subsequent administration would be compelled to funnel in money into Pakistan because they know without the cash flowing in, the small beachhead they hold in Afghanistan would collapse. Even the experiment with the NATO taking up arms on behalf of America in Afghanistan is showing severe signs of exhaustion.

But is Musharraf indispensable to the Western capitals like Washington and London in that schema? The latter have shown enough signs in the recent past that they want to get rid of him because he talks back at them. He even takes their money and asks them to get off when they conflict directly with Pakistan’s interests. But Musharraf has survived because no credible alternative has emerged from within the armed forces yet to which the Western capitals can hitch their wagons.

Possibly, sizable sections of the armed forces have calculated that they do not have the stomach for the besmirching that Musharraf has already undergone, thus further undermining the institution from which they draw their strength. Some of them might also have been inspired to understand that their longstanding relationship with the Pentagon as a surrogate force has only eroded Pakistan’s national interest, thus cutting the very ground they stand on. They might have realised that this is the only time left for them to set the house in order.

However, the situation itself has changed, albeit only slightly, because of the general elections. The ‘military Keynesian’ largesse that would come into Pakistan now could develop a different dynamic with a rival power centre at the helm. Musharraf would have to look hard in the 1974 Constitution whether he can maintain his hold on the faucet. And he would have to look for expanding his power-coalition by incorporating the more progressive sections of the feudal-primitive capitalist class that has won the general elections. If he can do that he would be able to add more muscle to his core constituency of nationalist bourgeoisie existing in the army.

So a much vilified Musharraf is as much driven by the situation as he is the driver. He would remain in the driver’s seat only till he can satisfy the felt-need of his former colleagues of the armed forces for change. That change can come about, by Musharraf not becoming a Bonapartist as he tried to do with Kargil, but by constantly expanding the ranks of the national bourgeoisie through his actions and words. He has to be Pakistan’s fount of change. And he has the necessary tool for change: the armed forces. Supreme irony lies in the fact that it is also the reason why Pakistan is a flawed State.

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

Its Europe's turn now

It's getting over in the world!

In My View

Significant triumph for Pakistan

The less-than 40 per cent Pakistanis who braved their political exhaustion and came out on polling day on Monday (18 February) sent a strong message to many capitals around the world. That message was one of a desire to shirk off the terrorist tag; to gain respect and dignity in the world stage; and to give democracy another of the many chances they have given periodically, only to be betrayed by their political class.

From an Indian viewpoint, this election held across the border has two significant features. One, it has been the freest general election the country has witnessed since 1970. And two, this is for the first time in many decades that a Pakistan poll has been bereft of customary India-bashing and fulminations about Kashmir.

In 1970, the Awami League (AL) of then East Pakistan had won an absolute majority. But that mandate was not translated into political terms by then Pakistan president, Gen Yahya Khan; thus disallowing Mujibur Rehman’s AL from forming a government in Islamabad. The progression of history from that point on does not require recapitulation here. But it needs to be told that from those days a belief had gained ground that if free elections were to be held in Pakistan, no supreme authority would be in a position to give effect to the mandate the people deliver.

Nevertheless, the year 2008 promises to be different. This was an election about the country surviving with a viable State. Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, midway through the poll campaign, had ensured that the only poll issue was terrorism. Plus, political parties like the Pakistan Peoples’ Party and Mian Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League had sought to put on the dock all that the country’s president, Parvez Musharraf symbolised.

If the voters have sent one unequivocal message by the power of their ballot; that is about their rejection of terrorism. On the issue of Musharraf they seemed to have suspended their judgment. For they seem to have told the Asif Ali Zardaris and Sharifs that they do not trust them enough to give either of them a clear mandate.

None of these messages of the electorate are difficult for Musharraf to translate into reality. In fact, by doing what the people of Pakistan have bidden him to do, Musharraf would gain in stature and be able to create some insulation to ward of the heat of withering criticism he was taking for the past few months.

During the last days the poll campaign he had tried to inject some elements of unfamiliar democratic discourse in the politics of Pakistan. On one occasion, he had lamented that the country’s politics was not throwing up new leaders. And on another, he had exhorted the contestants that they should be gracious in their victory and defeat.

For the first phenomenon, he, or what he stands for as a part of the Pakistan armed forces establishment, has to take most of the blame. The armed forces never allowed the political processes to function in the country with enough autonomy, ever since the country’s leaders of the independence struggle passed away. They have loomed so large on the horizon that every other political functionary has been dwarfed in the process. Also, global political players like the USA entered the country holding the hands of the armed forces, catering to their needs, and played havoc with Pakistan’s core interests.

In the past year or so, Musharraf had shown that he could give as much as he could take. If he played the role as a frontline State in the ‘global war on terror,’ he made sure it was not all out war that could suck in significant sections of Pakistan’s society. He showed steely nerves while looking American leaders in the eye and telling them that there were limits to which Pentagon could run amok in Pakistan’s territory. He even made tactical peace with the tribal warlords in North West Frontier Province (NWFP), so that the territorial integrity of Pakistan was maintained. In short, he took the bull by the horns, and made it stall.

The bull fretted and fumed. If Condoleezza Rice sounded conciliatory and supportive, her public diplomacy section under neo-con Karen Hughes went on an overdrive to stoke the predatory instincts of the American media, who bayed for Musharraf’s blood. They sought to discredit him so much in the public eye that he became ineffective to the point of paralysis on the face of Washington’s onslaught. They wanted regime change by the media.

Musharraf has weathered that strategy. Now is the time for him to play the statesman. He has to let the political forces to play the field. Once they cobble together the government, he has to divide powers with them and rule.

For India’s Pakistan policy, the time ahead would also be a test for the acerbic wit who heads the desk as a joint secretary. South Block would need to devise a policy that gives proportional weightage to the dual repositories of power in Islamabad. India would have to decide who it deals with in terms of Kashmir.

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

Penblunt & Hogwash

All in the name of News

I am aghast.

So long I have been find ‘mischief’ in the name of news the Hindi television channels; but here the so called a sophisticated English news channel has transgressed boundaries of ethical journalism.

Pinaki has been asking me about those English and Hindi news channels that I commented upon as clean and better than the rest, and invariably cackled and scoffed every time I mentioned the names I had in mind.

Now, I am aghast with what they have done in the case of the Raj Thackrey fostered violence against north Indians in the central Indian state of Maharashtra.

Just a few words on the imbroglio, or else you’d not get the angle.

Raj Thackrey is the nephew of Bal Thackrey, who heads a retrograde Hindu chauvinistic outfit called Shiv Sena (Army of Shiva), and Raj was an important part of the central leadership of the Sena.

That is, till he fell out with Bal Thackeray’s son and his cousin, Uddhav Thakray and started his own outfit, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, acronymed MNS, the name meaning “Army for rebuilding Maharashtra.”

It is a fact that vast volumes of unskilled labourers and skilled workers of all denominations from many north Indian states have fanned out into various parts of India, as they have in Maharashtra too. And they do an awful lot of work at highly competitive wages.

In the ‘70s, Bal Thackrey had pitch forked himself into the political mainframe of the state by tirading against these north Indians, but over the years, this issue had simmered.

Early this month, Raj, to upstage Uddhav and cull out some of the latter’s vote bank, had issued a fatwa against these north Indians and almost immediately violence flared up, perpetrated by MNS ‘soldiers’.

This is the scenario that warranted TV news coverage, and they all went berserk. All. Even the ones I had fondly thought of as moderate and clean.

To start with, the main violence happened on a Sunday two weeks ago, and all of the next day, Monday, the channels, all of them, kept showing those incidents of violence repeatedly, hour on hour, hour after hour.

Sitting in the lounge of just such a channel, waiting to meet the editor in chief, I watched this violence on the soundless TV set and was scared at how fast the thing was spreading.

It was not!

The violence had ignited that Sunday, and had been brought under control within a few hours, but the channels never once mentioned in the scenes that these were file videos of the previous day.

I think that was enough to keep the violent mood ready, as naturally, the north Indians would feel what I had felt, about being targeted for two days non-stop, and react, for how long can one hide and sob?

This was a clear and purposeful distortion, for this was what the media bosses here feel is what people wants to watch: “interesting, eye catching shots”.

So what if the repeats lead to a spread of rioting? All the better for the channels, for they would have more gory (interesting, eye catching) shots to run not for the day but for the next two, may be three days.

But worse was to come.

A few days later, the Maharashtra government mustered enough courage to arrest Raj Thackeray. They requested the Central Government for military support, just to arrest a petty politician poaching on his cousin’s turf.

And the amazing thing was that the editor in chief of the channel which boasts of being the best and cleanest, flew down to Bombay to cover a tiny communal flareup!

And from his office in Bombay (not from the scene of arrest and violence) he conducted a non-stop BREAKING NEWS run (so what if all the channels were getting the same clips?).

I am sure the editor in chief did know that nowhere do editors in chief get down to reporting minor communal violence, and that he did so to give the coverage a high voltage, (“none less than Mr Rajdip Sardesai covered the riots, boss!”).

As if that were not enough, as the cameras showed Raj being arrested and there poured in reports of violence from the districts (with the Bombay cameramen ruing that the city remained peaceful, with nothing interesting and eye catching to show), the channel started showing… guess?

The scenes of violence in Bombay last week!

The editor in chief had solved the problems of absence of violence in the financial capital of India on the day when he in person had gone to report.

Sitting in my Bombay office, wondering if I would be able to catch the late evening flight to Delhi, I was, as I said, aghast….

There was no marker stating that the scenes were from a week ago, no “Library video of last week” mentioned on the screens, as if that violence was taking place in the streets of Bombay there and then as a response to Raj Thackeray’s arrest.

(I have run out of exclamation marks by now…)

Even worse was this sequence of shots:

1. Raj Thackeray being taken to court on February 13
2. Scuffles of supporters outside the court, February 13, with the camera angle kept low so that a small crowd looks like a huge melee of hundreds
3. And then, (this one was just too much) as video clip Raj Thackeray at a political rally, some years ago, raising a sword above his head in a symbolic gesture of assured violence.

That shot took the icing, the cake and the box in which the cake had arrived, and ran them all down Sardesai’s channel into a toxic gutter called TRP.

Shame on you, Sardesai, I once admired you and even fought with a dear friend like Pinaki over your credibility….

Now give me a space to hide…but of course, not in your home, NO!

In My View

Crumbling Monopolies

American eminences like former US secretaries of states, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz; former US secretary of defence, William Perry and veteran US Senator, Sam Nunn had caused a mild flutter a month ago worldwide. In a signed article on the right-wing Wall Street Journal they argued in favour of “… endors(ing) setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal…”

These personages have been, and still continue to be high priests of American power – backed by a cornucopia of nuclear and conventional weaponry - and have never blanched at the prospect of exercising it at the behest of their ilk, the American elite. Consequently, their call to the international community for abjuring nuclear weapons naturally does not have the moral resonance of a call for the same by an Albert Einstein or a J Robert Oppenheimer, both of whom had been victims of the American coercive State.

For reasons similar, this column had consciously ignored the event. It was written off as a final flailing of arms by an imperial janissary witnessing the final days of the empire. Conversely, it could also be viewed as the one last attempt to hoodwink the world's populace and maintain supremacy for a few more days, especially with a Democratic Party regime on the horizon of Washington. Either motive was eminently ignoble.

However, I had to change my mind. For a few days ago, exactly a month after Kissinger et al purveyed their perfidy, K Subramanyam, known informally as the Bhisma-pitamaha of the Indian strategic community; or more accurately the Dronacharya, wrote an article in the Journal's (intellectually) poverty-stricken Indian cousin, Times of India.

He had concluded his piece by saying, “India has been an advocate of nuclear disarmament from the early 1950s up to the Rajiv Gandhi plan. It will, therefore, be logical for India to endorse the initiative of these gentlemen in principle. (Emphasis added.) But it must refrain from committing itself to any specific steps without further detailed negotiation and consideration of the impact of the proposals on our security.”

For Eklavyas, that formulation sounds deficient in Indo-centricity; more applicable to a China than India. China has a stake in the current status quo as a member of the P (Permanent) -5 or an N (Nuclear) -5. It has already emerged on the scene as the newest entrant to the Big Power club, and thus would abhor any new competition in terms of currencies of power.

India, on the other hand, has some way to go. The thinking behind this current call for abolition of nuclear weapons is on account of the challenge the current nuclear weapons regime has encountered, beginning with India and Pakistan and continuing with Iran. The US and its allies have realised that the deterrence logic of their nuclear arsenal has been overturned, with it is now working in favour of emerging powers. For the former can no longer browbeat these countries into submission based on their absolutist positions. The new nuclear programmes have brought some symmetry in highly asymmetric worlds, where the gulf between the nuclear haves and the have- nots was far too wide.

In many ways, Pakistan should acknowledge the ‘contribution' of AQ Khan towards levelling the nuclear field by his cottage industry of nuclear technologies Atleast, the word is out that Parvez Musharraf government in Islamabad is thinking of releasing him from confinement, soon after the elections are over in that country. Pakistan Muslim League (Q)'s Wajahat Hussain – whose brother was harassed at a London airport recently – met Khan and conveyed the Pakistan president's decision. Nevertheless, that is another story.

On the other hand, if nuclear weapons were to be abolished in today's world, it would leave the big powers, with their huge conventional and advanced arsenals and large armies, thus negating the cost they would now have to budget and mount up, with nuclear weapons technologies abounding. That cannot be the goal of an emerging power; of raising the comfort level of existing Big Powers. On the other hand, a diminution of supremacy of established powers can only help Indian gain elbow room.

Hence, it has to be said, the time in the world today is not opportune for India to commit to any nuclear weapons abolition agenda of the USA. By the same token, it has to be remembered that the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan, Kissinger etc initiative has harked upon had also talked of a drastic reduction of ‘conventional' arms; removal of all military forces and bases from foreign countries; a ban on development of new weapon systems, such as space weapons, and other means of warfare; institutionalisation of a global common security system.

Now, that surely sounds more comprehensive in its scope than an exercise in perfidious realism that a Kissinger or a Shultz is famous for. Subramanyam too is aware of these goals set by the former prime minister of India.

That should be the very basis of any negotiation by India; if at all it needs to engage in any discussion on the future contours of global power. A future that ends monopolies can only be the desire of a state, which had shown to the world that liberty is the ultimate human desire.

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

Penblunt & Hogwash

Stung Bollywood bare dares

Penblunt

That was an amazing sting, the one in which the Indian Hindi language news channel Aaj Tak exposed the Bollywood topcats and their underworld links.

I risk the chance of this blog being terminated forthwith, as my friend Pinaki and “owner” of this blog, just informed me that to his mind, there was nothing newsworthy in it, whereas I am saying it was amazing.

However, there’s always that ubiquitous disclaimer from publishers: “The views expressed in the Penblunt column are not necessarily those of the management of this blog.”

Anyway, this is why I thought it was amazing.

First, the perspective: news has gone out of Hindi news channels and that is being accepted by all and sundry excepting one channel, which is notorious for showing sex-violence-ghosts-demented humans as snake-gods-monkey-men-more-ex-violence… and so forth.

Those channels say whatever trash people want to watch is news; which can be interpreted as “anything that is not news elsewhere is news in Our Channel”.

But leave them to their distorted brains and ruined bank accounts (revenues are not coming in, so what if eyeballs are).

We are talking about some of the more newsy Hindi news channels, and their editors are lamenting that there is hardly news in news channels’

Which is why a smart young lady opened another Hindi news channel and made its mission statement: “Bringing Back News” on her Hindi news channel.

Given that fact, it is easy to understand, I guess, that these channels would still need to survive and the only way they can get their meaningless existence felt is by way of storm-raising stings.

A sting operation, as we understand in this flourishing democracy, is the democratic right of TV channels to send their half-trained and semi-educated young and overzealous reporters to invade anyone’s space with hidden cameras, lure the person / s with various stories and incentives to speak their minds and then flash out the whole thing on their respective channels.

The media is measured in terms of TRP (television rating points) by TAM. I shall apply the SLIP of Sting Level of Injury Point by PB (very clearly my own, or Penblunt standard, as there is no rating system for stings so far, but only for the stingers).

It is simply, the impact of a sting is the level of injury it causes, and by that standard, the Aaj Tak sting was 8.

It was not biased to any one star. It tried its best to show clearly the faces, and the accusation of doctoring the tapes did not cross my mind.

It gave the clearest audio and visual in any sting I have seen in Indian television so far.

It did itself some credit by ‘stinging’ Shah Rukh Khan and coming out with nothing to hold him down, and yet showed that he was clean, because normally in stings, if there is no scandal, it is not a sting at all.

So given the fact that stings are apologies for news anyway (everyone always knew many stars were dirty), the quality of the sting itself was good.

But that is not all. Look at what Aaj Tak had set out to achieve.

The news director of the channel had said sometime early this year that in the over-crowded news TV market in India (30+ channels so far!), the impact of even the most socially relevant and meaningful stings is little.

Thus it is after the stings on Gujarat communal riots and Uttar Pradesh police as hired killers, Aaj Tak decided to do a sting that would put it way past any channel, because it is stinging Bollywood and some of the most loved names in the firmament.

That was a master stroke.

It opens up a huge question in the minds of the common cinegoer: most films from India are about the underworld. So next time a cinegoer may well ask, why should one watch a film by such and such a star who is shown as fighting the criminals is actually taken money from them?

I suspect Pinaki will say: Huh, the cinegoer does not have such scruples.

May be not… as a grassroots man, who knows the common man better than Pinaki!

But even if that were true, Aaj Tak has done two things: it has shown a sting that is superbly done and close to the hearts of the people. And it has virtually ended the sting market, as beyond Bollywood, there is nothing that would interest a common viewer more by way of stings.

Gujarat riots and the government’s direct hand in it has been exposed, police-as-contract-killers has been exposed, a Godman as a sex maniac running a destitute children’s home and abusing those very kids has been exposed.

And nothing shocked them, the common man.

Aaj Tak news director had another worry arising out of the overcrowded Hindi news channel market is that even the strongest sting does not retain its impact beyond a day or two.

Now it is Bollywood that has been stung.

Now, the Ultimate is now over.

Therefore, is the worry: quo vadis, Hindi news?