In My View

Will Pakistan’s woes derail peace process?

A leading Pakistani commentator, Hussein Haqqani claims that the country is ruled by an ‘oligarchy.’ Pakistan’s ruling class is dominated by oligarchs who either rule by muscle or by money, but more usually, both. These are the people who still own thousands and thousands acres of the country’s arable land; enjoy the status of minor potentates in the communities they belong; or draw their strength from the mullahs. In the north west of the country, of course, the ruling paradigm is that of traditional tribal ties.

They care little about the laws of the land. For they know all laws in the country can be manipulated to their advantage; and the only modern institution of the country, the armed forces, also do their bidding to maintain its hold on power. This combine has little to do with democratic discourse; and care little about the nascent civil society.

From that light, the recent popular upsurge in the country against President, Gen Parvez Musharraf’s decision to initiate judicial disbarment against a Supreme Court chief justice, is curious, to say the least. This is an expression of popular discontent that is not being overtly led by any political party of the country. So it leaves scope for some interrogation.

And in the context of Pakistan what better place to begin the questions fly than the neoliberal school’s belief that waning influence of the political parties can be replaced by what they call, ‘non-majoritarian’ institutions, like the civil society organisations and the judiciary.

A potentially dangerous proposition, it seeks to bypass the democratic structures of a nation – they claim it is undertaken only when those institutions have fallen into disuse or altogether do not exist - and tries to empower various interest groups to the exclusion of popularly chosen politicians.

South Asia seems to have fallen particularly in the grip of such experimentations. Bangladesh confronts a similar prospect. And the ground in Pakistan seems to being created for such activism.

From the viewpoint of an analyst, it opens doors for some healthy speculation about its pros and cons. Considering Pakistan has a limited rule of law that could be upheld by the State, a tightening grip of such ‘non-majoritarian’ groups could bring in fair play, atleast at the outset.

They could also provide a fillip to the building of more enduring institutions in a country where most other bodies are conspicuous in their absence. A judiciary seeking a broader mandate can try to gather legitimacy from such international covenants, which can instill abiding values of liberal nature into a country where mosques and mullahs can declare the rule of Shariat in their compounds, in contravention to laws of the land.

But the downsides outweigh the positives. In a country where the majoritarians seldom wield enough State power, a ‘non majoritarian’ experiment can only push it to the extremes of unrepresentative and non-democratic practices. The stymied popular voices thus could seek release in more sectarian avenues, threatening the very fabric of the nation.

Some in India believe that every time, the two cross border twins seem close to seminal changes in their relations, the efforts get derailed by forces beyond the control of those who sought to lead the change. Be it the close interaction between Benazir Bhutto and the late Rajiv Gandhi or Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mian Nawaz Sharif or even now, Gen Musharraf and Manmohan Singh, any attempt at addressing the root problems ailing the dialogue between the two neighbours have always been stifled by political instability.

Reports had been emerging lately that the two nations were inching closer to a deal on Kashmir, that could lay to rest decades of animosity and ideological frictions. So the crowds on the streets of Pakistan in favour of an unseated Supreme Court judge threatens to move the focus from conflict resolution to newer conflicts that could raise grave doubts about the legitimacy of the Musharraf regime.

Add to that are sudden spurt of international concern – read, the US – about the continuing ownership of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, as exemplified in a recent New York Times report. The irony of the situation could not be missed by most perceptive observers of the country; a nation that has allowed a virtual free run to foreign investigation and intelligence agencies like the FBI and the CIA for more than five years is now being questioned whether it can safeguard its weapons of mass destruction.

People with longer memory might also remember that the current US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, when she was the National Security Adviser three years ago, had reassured the world with grave certitude that the nuclear weapons Pakistan had, were in the safest custody.

So the question that needs to be asked now is, in the sub continental context what is more important – a Pakistan subservient to the US interests, or an Islamabad that could break free from this bondage by addressing History’s embedded misfortunes.

From the Indian standpoint, it would be a prudent course to follow the developments in Pakistan closely while seeking to establish the public markers of its interest in the Musharraf regime. This could help stabilise the shaken foundations of the regime with whom New Delhi has dealt for some years, away from the public glare, to seek a lasting solution.

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

In My View

1-2-3, Cha, Cha, Cha

The Indo-US nuclear deal is looking less and less like a tango and more like an African hula dance. While the main aim of the US government is to bring India into the ambit of the global nuclear regime, and thus restrict its manoeuvrability, India looks at it as an escape hatch through which the country can slip into the market for nuclear commerce and access of hitherto forbidden technology.

In the process, the current negotiations on what is called the ‘123 deal’ or more formally, a Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement – under the sec 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 – is about getting the semantics right so that the final agreement not only conforms to the assurances given by the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh to Parliament but also, to the India-specific law, passed by the USCongress called the Hyde Act. A tall order, indeed!

Yet, notably the US president has the right to waive much of the limitation that can be imposed by the Congress under sec 128 and 129 of the Atomic Energy Act, because of failure of “full scope safeguards” of the IAEA on the recipient, and/or termination of peaceful nuclear material and technology on account of “material breach” of a Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. This can be only on account of US presidential determination that, “cessation of such exports would be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of United States nonproliferation objectives or otherwise jeopardise the common defense and security.”

Crucially, India has concluded strategic partnership agreement, called the Defence Framework Agreement, with the USA two years ago. India has already received the generosity of the US legislatures once when the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee observed that India could not be provided exemption by the US president under the provision of the sec 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act. The result has been the Hyde Act.

While doing the same, the Act had still imposed certain conditions, much of it is well known in the Indo-US strategic circles. In terms of exporting Uranium enrichment and reprocessing technology technology, the US domestic bar is really technical in nature as any other country could export the technology to India after the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) regulations are relaxed. Though the USA still maintains a certain control through influence on the NSG’s decision to supply them through a third country.

Notwithstanding the feel-good nature of these aforesaid provisions, there are two important caveats. The first is an attempt at transforming India’s voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapon testing into an international commitment of no further tests. The second is of more fundamental nature. Sec 108 of the Hyde Act states that it directs the US President to inform the US Congress of the construction of a nuclear facility in India, and significant changes in the production by India of nuclear weapons or in the types or amounts of fissile material produced.

This would necessitate an amount of intrusive oversight by the American government on the Indian nuclear programme, both civil and military.

Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, Dr Anil Kakodkar had been talking about the proposed agreement to “explicitly state” all the safeguards that the country needs to maintain its vital interests.

He had also stated that the prime minister’s statement of concern in Parliament on 17 August, 2006, needs to be reflected in the 123 agreement as concrete provisions addressing them.

Some of those concerns are worth recounting. They are,

(a) Dr Singh had stated that the requirement by the US president for annual certification to the US Congress of India’s compliance with the “non proliferation and other commitments” changes the nature of “permanent waiver” to India to an “annual waiver.”

(b) He had also said, “We have made clear to the US that India’s strategic programme is totally outside the purview of the July (2005) (Joint) Statement, and we oppose any legislative provisions that Mandate scrutiny of either our nuclear weapons programme or our unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.”

(c) “We will not allow external scrutiny of our strategic programme in any manner, much less allow it to be a condition for future nuclear cooperation between India and the international community,” Dr Singh had assured the country.

The question may thus arise, why should the USA or the members of the NSG be interested to do a deal with India, under the circumstances, if it were to leave significant elements of the Indian nuclear programme outside of the purview of international scrutiny?

No Indian leader has yet addressed this issue. They have not stated, what are the benefits the US seeks from bringing India into the fold of the global nuclear regime? Some rationale has been provided by the US strategic analysts. They have stated that by bringing India – an important hold-out country of the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) - into international fold, the US hopes to achieve its strategic goal of strengthening the exclusionary clauses of the current nuclear regime.

If one were to follow from that rationale, then India’s stated intransigence about its strategic nuclear programme could only add to the uncertainty that rules the nuclear realm, especially after the fracas with the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programme.

In other words, if the 123 agreement has to address the Indian concerns, it will have to do so at the cost of its most important strategic goal.

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

In My View

Pakistan vs Musharraf: Play for Rule of Law

Pakistan’s celebrated columnist, Ayyaz Amir, had called it a “judicial Kargil.” From an Odissi dancer in Lahore to a businessman in the city’s market, the unceremonious removal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Justice Ifthikar Hassan Chowdhury, had smacked of authoritarianism.

While that was familiar territory for them, the straw had still to break on the camel’s back. Mr Chowdhury was called to the famous Army House, where Gen Musharraf resides, and asked to resign at the end of a four hour long meeting.

According to some versions, the general had tried to strike a deal. He wanted the highest judicial officer of the country to go easy on his government.

The latter had lately been proving to be an irritant; not just for Musharraf government’s attempts to sell off public assets to private buccaneers, but also by claiming habeas corpus rights on people gone missing in the famous US-sponsored ‘War on Terrorism’ (WOT).

Whether Justice Chowdhury’s removal was an expression of good intent by Gen Musharraf towards the Americans – especially after the Cheney diatribe of late February - only those knowledgeable in Pakistan can tell.

But the people of Pakistan have spoken almost in one voice. They expressed their anger at the decision to remove Justice Chowdhury. Lawyers, judges and others took to the streets. Even though the journalists were slow in reacting – initially taken in by the government’s campaign of calumny against the CJP – they too pulled up their socks quickly. Across the board, they condemned the act of Pakistan’s president

Justice Chowdhury is a Punjabi Baloch. In an ethnically stratified society like Pakistan; with Balochistan and North West Frontier Province in turmoil, he quickly picked up support. Pakhtoonkhawa Milli Awami Party, reportedly the largest in the province, called for a general strike on the issue.

But many others had a different point of view. Some felt that the judiciary in Pakistan had it coming. They had turned over far too often at the behest of the military leadership. As Mr Hadi Shakil, president of the Balochistan High Court Association, put it: that with a general elections looming on the horizon, Pakistan’s president wanted the judiciary under his “full control.” “A message has been conveyed to all the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts that they should blindly support each step taken by the military regime. Otherwise, they will meet the same fate as the CJP,” he was reported as saying.

Even the charges against Justice Chowdhury were instructive in their content. He was accused of demanding helicopters, aircrafts and Mercedes Benzes at the drop of the hat. His son, a junior bureaucratic factotum was apparently favoured with promotions and prized postings at his bidding. The prestigious Daily Times of Pakistan had even speculated that he might have been fired for accepting a gift of a BMW car from a private individual.

There is a lesson here for Indian judiciary. When society gives some the right to pass judgment over others, it usually expects a standard of probity to be set – almost like ‘Caesar’s wife,’ beyond reproach. Clearly, Justice Chowdhury was not of that ilk, much likes his caped brethren across the border. So when he passed judgments over the acts of omission and commission of the government, they found it convenient to tar his image a wee bit.

Still, he has become a cause celebre in Pakistan. For his case has come up at a time when diverse political forces in the country are turning inimical to Gen Musharraf. With the impending polls, the otherwise discredited political parties – on numerous charges against corrupt leaders – like Pakistan Peoples’ Party and Pakistan Muslim League or the Jamaat have found a cause that resonates with the people. The case has even provided ammunition to those sections of Pakistan’s securocracy who would like to think that Gen Musharraf’s time was up.

They have watched with chagrin how Gen Musharraf had turned his back on the jihadi commerce, at least for a while. A distinctly possible peace with India could take away much of their privileges they enjoyed till now. Even the large defence appropriation on national resources could significantly decline, thus cutting short many ‘empires’ within Pakistan’s army and the hydra headed Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

On the other hand, Gen Musharraf too appears to be losing his deft touch visible in the way he had dumped Taliban after 9/11 or had sought to cap the increasing secessionist pressure in the country’s north-west. He has sought to postpone the final indictment of Justice Chowdhury by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) of the country. The SJC has adjourned till April the hearing of the case.

Ayyaz Amir had predicted that the impact of this “judicial Kargil” could be far more damning for the general as this was closer home politically than the chilling heights of Kashmir. Indeed, some human rights activists have speculated that the rescheduling of the case would give them more time to rally bigger numbers and regroup with added vigour.

If that happens, whatever be the outcome, rule of law in Pakistan will win for the first time in its history. And that would be salutary for the public opinion across the divide. Unless, of course Pakistan’s army steps in to stymie a democratic exercise, we will know for whom.

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

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.

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.