Viewpoint

Egypt Revisited

2011-12-25T01:08:00.000-08:00

“Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly.”
- Mao Tse-Tung.
None, at this point, would comprehend this better than the people of Egypt!!

From where I left brooding over Egypt's future after the political turmoil in Feb 2011, the Supreme Council of Armed Forces under General Tantawi, not surprisingly, has entrenched its responsibility as a make-shift solution. Newsweek's November 2011 issue describes Egypt as "A country at war with itself" - an unfortunate reminder to the people of Egypt of the long road to peace first, and democracy next.

What began as sectarian violence between the Coptic Christians and the Egyptian Police has escalated into wide spread violence against the Military establishment. While the country, for the first time in decades, was buoyant about an electoral process, the ensuing violence has made Cairo's Tahrir Square a boiling pot with continued clashes. The rowdy behavior of the Egyptian military against the very same people it helped liberate from the Mubarak regime is a reflection of the Infection of Power.

While the population erupts to surge towards a democratic government, an ugly face of democracy and elections that Egyptians are hitherto not exposed to is manifesting with the growth of political parties such as the Al-Nour party. The Al-Nour party is one of the resultant fragments of the political revolution of 2011 and is a strong proponent of the Salafi Islamist ideology. Should the party come to power either independently or through a coalition, the implementation of the Sharia law, or an equally non-secular Islamist law, is a reality that threatens to destroy Egypt's secular fabric.

It is amazingly unfortunate that an amateur, in-active blogger can continue to harp on this story 10 months after first writing about it. The pessimism expressed amidst the euphoria of Mubarak's ouster has sadly come true with the road to a peaceful, democratic, and then a secular Egypt, seeming almost an unrealistic fantasy.

Should Egypt really want a Democracy?

2011-02-12T05:04:00.000-08:00

The recent uprising in Tunisia and Egypt seems to have sparked off a strong nationalist sentiment across the Arab world. Algeria, Libya, Jordan, Yemen and Sudan are seeing traces of protests. Lebanon's parliament underwent an upheaval resulting in a Hezbollah backed government. Desperation has drawn the people of these countries to revolt against ruling regimes that do not exactly qualify the world's definition of a democracy. Corruption, lack of freedom of speech, economic distress, state sponsored oppression has brought people onto the streets hoping for new democratic setups to be their saviour. For someone observing these events sitting in India, the goals and the reasons for the revolt and the hope from democracy are all so ironical when the world's largest democracy reels under the very problems that the protesters across the Arab world fight for. Have we as citizens of the world started to accept democracy as the only solution simply due to a lack of ideological options?

While some might call me cynical after having enjoyed the liberties of a democracy, I cannot help but ponder over the shortcomings of this ideology over an extended period of time and the room it provides for selfish implementation. Democracy in India was a natural transition from the British Empire and proved to work pretty well under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and Lal Bahadur Shastri. Corruption, as a problem started to plague the country under Indira Gandhi and since then has very efficiently trickled top down from the highest echelons of power. Transparency International's corruption perception index puts India at 3.3 on a scale of 10 with 10 being the least corrupt. Egypt is at 3.1.

Freedom of speech in a democracy is one of those virtues that democratic governments across the world very tacitly maintain a balance in. An example is the RTI act of 2005 in India which was meant to provide citizens with access to records of the government. It was hailed as one of the most revolutionary free ideas that the Indian Parliament had formulated. It still works as designed except that when somebody decides to take it seriously enough to become an RTI activist, they get killed. 2010 alone saw the killing of eight RTI activists. 'Ask and you shall be killed' reads a post on the RTI website. True freedom of speech is a luxury that only non-corrupt governments can protect and practice. I can safely say with no exaggeration that there are no such governments left in the world today.

State sponsored oppression in non-democratic setups is another favorite argument of the democratic masters of the world when propagating the reasons for seeking out democracy to citizens of totalitarian states. India, today faces one of its most challenging problems in the violent backlash from communities that were ignored and oppressed for decades, both through violent and economic means. State sponsored riots against religious minorities have been supported, instigated by some of the most prominent political leaders of the country. India is not an exception amongst democracies. Its neighbour Sri Lanka has been witness to one of the most genocidal policies against its minority. France's Hijab controversy is another example of a democratic state's discriminatory policies against its minority. Europe on the whole suffers from gross mis-representation of its Muslim population across all of its parliaments. Seldom is the question of State oppression put to the minorities in a democracy.

While these are my thoughts having lived in an established democracy, having been part of the majority population, having faced almost no oppression, I can only pretend to empathize with the people of these Arab countries. The dictators definitely had to go. At no point do we doubt that. But is democracy of the 21st century, no longer as defined by Abraham Lincoln as - "A Government of the people, by the people, for the people" - the best way forward?

This brings us to the way forward for the Egyptian people. In an interview with a BBC correspondent, a protester on the street graciously thanked the military for their pro-people stance during the protests while mentioning that extended occupation of the military is undesirable. Unfortunately, the track record of militaries across the world that have come to power in such extreme circumstances has been somewhat unsatisfactory. They come in with a popular uprising and just forget to leave.

The February 2011 issue of Frontline already calls the military takeover "a Washington orchestrated pseudo democratic facade". While this might seem an outrageous, pre-mature accusation at this point, Washington's foreign policy when confronted with similar situations in the past does not lend much support for a counter-argument. The United States has a lot at stake in Egypt. For the United States and Israel, this political upheaval was unexpected and unwanted. This was summarized very candidly by the former Israeli Ambassador to Egypt, Eli Shaked: "Democracy is something beautiful. Nevertheless, it is very much in the interests of Israel, US and Europe that Mubarak remains in power". Israel and the United States risk losing their biggest ally from the Arab world in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Also, the United States wouldn't like to see the billions of dollars of military aid provided to Egypt as a failed investment. This is where the Egyptian military's commitment to its people will be tested. Conducting free and fair elections in Egypt has all the possibilities of bringing in a government whose foreign policy might irk the United States and Israel. The United States, as in the past with Iran, Iraq and more recently with Pakistan, might rethink its policies towards Egypt at which point the Egyptian military would lose aid financially, technically and strategically.

The Egyptian revolution of 2011 is only half complete. The next big challenge for the Egyptian people is to ensure that the Army does not enjoy an extended vacation at the helm. The transition to a democratically elected government through free and fair elections is expected to bring in freedom, economic alleviation, employment and reduced corruption amongst other liberties that a free country is expected to enjoy. The expectations of the Egyptian people from the ideal called democracy might just be a little far-fetched. The problems that they hope to eradicate might stay on or might even get magnified with power hungry packs trying to fill the vacuum left behind by Mubarak. While these are domestic challenges that a Democratic Egypt would face, there are the international directives from democratic masters that newly established democracies are expected to comply with. All new democracies have had an unfortunate history of having their resources and economies plundered by the Powers of the world. Abraham Lincoln's conception of a democratic state both domestically and internationally when he said - "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy" - died with the man.

Is it still about the Yellowcake?

2010-02-21T06:43:00.000-08:00

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has finally taken a stance on Iran's nuclear programme. The IAEA report dated February 18, 2010, in attitude, tone and judgment subtly supports the concerns being voiced over Iran's intentions of going nuclear, militarily. All that one would hope at this point is that this report is not a mere consequential action to all the anxiety.

The history of Iran's nuclear program is intriguing when reviewed under the current circumstances. The foundations of the nuclear program was laid when in 1953, Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi toppled a "democratically" elected government with the help of the CIA. Following this, a civil nuclear co-operation program was established under the "United States" Atoms for Peace program. Reactors were set up in Iran for synthesis of nuclear power for civil purposes. With close ties to the US then, Iran attracted investments from companies in the US as well as companies from Europe. (specifically the Bonn based firm Kraftwerk Union AG)
All was hunky dory in this arrangement with billions being invested by Iran for nuclear support until 1979. The Iranian revolution of 1979 overthrew the Shah putting an end to the Pahlavi dynasty. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution replaced the Shah as the supreme leader of Iran. The dramatic change of Iran from being a pro-western monarchy to an Islamist republic alarmed the US. US foreign policy towards Iran following the revolution was uncertain and non-committal. In the midst of this confusion, things turned sour with the detaining of 52 American diplomats by a revolutionary Iranian group in 1979 which was followed by the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 where the United States provided ample support to Iraq. Relations between United States and Iran have never got better.

Another dimension to this period of history is the birth of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (NPT) The NPT was proposed by Ireland with Finland being the first nation to sign the treaty in 1968. Subsequently, all members of the UN Security Council, the then declared Nuclear powers, signed and endorsed the treaty. Iran signed it as well; India, Pakistan and Israel refused to amongst the major countries.
The signing of the NPT to the member nations meant that

While synthesis of Nuclear energy for civilian purposes was accepted, all civilian nuclear facilities of member nations were to be placed under IAEA regulations. Any sort of irregularity with IAEA standards would immediately be recognised as non-compliance.
The treaty banned all member nations from testing nuclear devices for military purposes.
The treaty banned all member nations from any sort of trade or co-operation with non-member nations towards synthesis of nuclear energy, even if it was for civilian purposes.

Signing of the NPT treaty meant that all of the nuclear reactors that were being set up with Western help in Iran would be subject to regular IAEA inspections. This also meant that Iran could never develop an Atom bomb, which was sincerely endorsed by Iran's supreme leader Khomeini who issued a fatwa against development of nuclear energy for military purposes. This is a view still maintained by Iran's supreme leader.
The deviation of Iran's nuclear policy on NPT guidelines was first reported by the IAEA in September 2005. This report, finding Iran guilty of non-compliance, in IAEA standards, was a rare non-consensus report from the IAEA board of governers with 12 abstentions. This inconclusive report proved to be the basis on which the UN Security council called for increased sanctions against Iran.

With this backdrop, one has to wonder if member nations like Iran were better off not signing the NPT. Two countries, India and Pakistan, which refused to sign the NPT went on to develop Nuclear bombs. The World community immediately threw in sanctions on the two countries. These sanctions proved to have very little repercussions on the two countries with all sanctions being lifted off within 5 years. India, went on to sign the Nuclear deal with the United States which now enables it to procure fuel and technology for its Civilian nuclear reactors. With this, India became the first non-NPT member to be allowed to trade in the world Nuclear market. The only condition placed on India was to place its Civilian nuclear reactors under IAEA regulations. Nothing was said on its military nuclear reactors. India, Pakistan and Israel (which has an opaque nuclear policy) neither signed the NPT nor bore the brunt of World criticism.

So what actions of Iran has suddenly sparked Nuclear panic? To begin with, Iran's pro-Islamic nature since the revolution has never gone down well with the United States. Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hasn't been shy in criticizing US foreign policy in the middle east. In fact, Ahmadinejad has effectively used his anti-West stance to gain considerable political mileage in Iran. While Ahmadinejad might not really be building nuclear bombs, he has definitely contributed to an agitated environment. While Khomeini has always maintained that building nuclear bombs is anti-Islamic, Ahmadinejad has been a little brash.
While these are political dimensions to the crisis, the actual facts of Iran's nuclear program as such provide no further evidence of Iran developing a nuclear bomb. IAEA has always maintained that Iran does not possess a nuclear bomb nor at the moment have the capabilities to develop one. The National Intelligence Estimate of the United States has pointed out that Iran seemed to have intentions for a military nuclear program in 2003 and also mentioned that this has been shelved by Iran's government thereafter. One of the arguments that the West have always stood by, of course with evidence that can be corroborated, is the fact that Iran has been enhancing its enrichment capabilities continuously. Iran haven't denied the fact that they have started enriching Uranium from the 3% level to a 20% level. But, again Iran argues that this rise is only to make its civilian facilities more efficient. It has to be mentioned here that enrichment of nuclear fuel for civilian purposes is a right that NPT member nations enjoy as long as it does not reach the 90% level required for a bomb.
From an IAEA point of view, Iran has been criticised for not facilitating inspection of their nuclear facilities. This non-conformist attitude can be attributed to either of the two factors. One, that Iran views the IAEA as an organisation of the West equating defiance to insecurity. Two, by not co-operating with this organisation, Ahmadinejad gains political mileage in his country and in the Islamic world.

As important as it is for Ahmadinejad and Iran in general to exercise restraint, it is also extremely vital for the IAEA to remain unbiased and pragmatic. Any inconsistency in handling the Iranian nuclear issue will only alienate Iran further, with catastrophic consequences. Taking all the evidence at hand, the reactions of the UN Security Council (barring China and to an extent Russia) has been unfairly critical and anxious. The administrations of the Unites States, UK and NATO in general have lost a lot of credibility post their theories of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which are yet to be found. And this mistrust is not just outside, not just in the Islamic World, but even at home.

PS:

In terms of proven Oil reserves, Iran ranks third accounting for 10% of oil reserves in the World. Iraq is fourth.
Seven years after US led NATO invasion of Iraq, Exxon and Shell have been granted access to Iraqi Oil fields.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024681706256198.htm

Mis-representation with Post-Poll alliances

2009-04-06T21:20:00.000-07:00

The Indian General Elections 2009 are in full swing. Political parties have fielded their best strategists to embrace as many political parties as possible to formulate the strongest of the coalitions. Amidst the frenzy of pre-poll alliances, ideologies of Political parties are seen to be lacking. And if you don't have the numbers to form the Government on the 16th of May, 2009, deal makers can start hunting again to forge post-poll alliances. The question is how much of electoral choice gets represented in the final government?

Maurice Duverger, the French sociologist made three distinct observations about the relationship between the electoral system & the ensuing characterisation of that system. He stated that
1. a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system.
2. proportional representation is conducive to a multiparty system.
3. a majority vote on two ballots is conducive to a multiparty system, inclined toward forming coalitions.

The essence of Duverger's laws barring the second statement above aimed at explaining the phenomenon of under-representation in a democracy with a plurality voting system. This under-representation can be understood through a simple example. Consider three political parties A, B & C where A's & B's ideology match while C differs in ideology. Assuming the total percentage of votes garnered by A & B is 30% each of the total votes while C garners the remaining 40%. In the "simple-plurality" or "the first past the post" voting system, the winner in this case would be C. Here, even if the electorate choice is A's & B's ideology, due to a division of votes between the two, the party C whose ideology is less preferred goes on to form the government thus leading to a gross under-representation of the electorate. If this occurs in a democracy with a single balloting, then in the subsequent elections the smaller of the two parties, A or B, would either merge into the bigger party or just wither away leaving two major parties to contest the elections. (This is the first law) If the democracy has a two-balloting system, then during the second phase of balloting, the two parties A & B would be inclined to form a coalition. (This is the third law)

Now, with Duverger's observations having been proved time & again through the functioning of democracies around the World, the trend of Coalition politics in India requires probably an amendment to Duverger's observations. While Duverger's observations mention coalitions & alliances, it concentrates more on the pre-poll rather than post-poll alliances. While Duverger's concern was under-representation, an Indian voter today should be more concerned about post-poll alliances & "mis-representation".

The Indian political scene is in a state of disarray with the formation of multiple coalitions & the prospects of a hung parliament looming large. While a few years back it was argued that Indian democracy was once again proving Duverger's first law right, with its single balloting & moving toward a two-bloc system (not necessarily a two-party system) through two major coalitions the UPA & the NDA, these observations can be quashed with multiple coalitions already announced before the 2009 elections. While these pre-poll alliances can be justified, how does one justify a post-poll alliance? When a Political party goes out on a campaign seeking votes based on a certain agenda, isn't it imperative that they stick to that agenda if they are voted to power. Do post-poll alliances ensure that the agenda & promises made to the electorate is retained? How does a voter who goes to the election to vote for a coalition (not necessarily a political party in the current scene) assure himself that this coalition would stay with neither addition nor disintegration after the elections? Today, if one goes out and votes for the BJD or the projected RJD, LJP, SP alliance or the new alliances in the South between AIADMK-PMK, none of which are in a position to form a Government in New Delhi on their own; how does one decide where they would go post elections? Obviously, these parties & coalitions have to align themselves to either the Party or Coalition in power or towards the Opposition. The Power of the electorate ends with the Voting while the System provides the political parties the leverage to align themselves wherever they wish to. Isn't it "un-democratic" to expect the electorate to vote with no information provided on the party's final stance in Parliament?

If a voter votes for a Party or Coalition with a certain ideology propagated pre-poll, there is no guarantee that the ideology is retained post-poll. This can lead to nothing but huge "Mis-representation" of electoral choice in the final Government. Bring about an amendment to the Constitution which makes this dirty opportunism unlawful. Catch a Coalition, Party or an Individual in the Political scene standing up for that.

President Obama Reverses George Bush's Stem Cell Research Policy

2009-03-29T05:23:00.000-07:00

On March 9th, 2009, President Barack Obama lifted the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. A ban which the former President, George Bush had instigated through Presidential Executive order on his first ever televised addressing after his inauguration. As Obama reverses yet another policy of the Bush administration, it is absolutely perplexing to comprehend George Bush's view & decision.When George Bush assumed office, he inherited a confusion from the Clinton administration. A confusion which sprouted in 1995 when the Human Embryo Research Panel pushed the Clinton administration for federal funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell (hESC) research. The Clinton administration rightfully declined to fund any research where Embryo cultivation was done with the sole intent being research. But funding was agreed for research making use of left-over embryos after IVF (in vitro fertility) treatments. Then, came the Dickey Amendment from the Congress which banned federal funding for any kind of hESC research. In 1999, the Clinton administration reconsidered funding of hESC research & decided to fund hESC research making use of Embryos discarded after IVF treatments only.This centre-left attitude on a confusing issue was reconsidered immediately after the conservative Republican party returned to power. So much so that, President George Bush's first televised addressing to the nation focused only on federal funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
George Bush & the Republican party then took a centre-right attitude by allowing research on existing human embryos but banning federal funding for research performed on embryos formed from then onwards. Bush's argument was that there were approximately 60 stem lines already existing on which extensive research could be carried out. Bush also stated that these 60 stem lines could regenerate indefinitely. This was however, strongly opposed by leading scientists indicating that there were only around 20 to 30 stem lines left that could be used for research with most of them having no regenerative capacities. Whether this was a factual error by the Bush administration was never thoroughly investigated. Justification for banning federal funding relied heavily on this fact. A criticism of hESC research was of possible formation of a cancerous tumor called Teratoma. This limitation however was never cited in Bush's speech. This was not the last time Bush dealt with the hESC controversy. While he made hESC research the subject of his first televised addressing, he went on to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, the first bill he ever vetoed. After 2001, with awareness & gradual realisation of the potential hESC research had, both houses of the Congress & the Senate passed a bill which would provide federal funding for research on discarded embryos from IVF. Unbelievably, Bush vetoed this bill. He subsequently went on to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 as well. This continued opposition from Bush is what perplexes me. Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader from 2003-2007, one of the strongest supporters of the ban which Bush brought forth in 2001, reconsidered his decision & supported the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. Though he continues to be a strong opponent of abortion & same-sex marriages, he has advocated federal funding for hESC research having realised the potential it has. What were Bush's reasons? Bush's main opposition was that it was unethical to kill an Embryo which had the capability of developing into life. Why didn't Bush realise that 400,000 frozen Embryos in US fertility clinics could be put to better use than being left to wither away? Why didn't Bush realise that after an IVF treatement, the surplus embryos can very effectively be used for hESC research? What made Bush overrule a bill accepted by the Congress & the Senate, not once but twice? What made Bush ignore an opinion that some of the most conservative Republicans had in supporting Federal funding? Was George Bush, a Methodist (Protestant) really influenced by the extreme opposition of Catholic churches on the issue? Did Bush not realise that though Adult Stem cell research showed promise, the hESC research was far more medically prospective overcoming a lot of shortcomings Adult stem cells had? Was Bush so preoccupied to fund the War on Terror that he considered funding hESC research or State Children's Health Insurance Program (which he vetoed), a waste of federal spending? None can answer these except Bush himself. While it took Obama less than 2 months to realise the potential behind hESC research while rightfully maintaining clear reservations against cultivation of hESC for research purposes only; Bush didn't realise it even after 2 terms at the helm.

Mis-adjustments of a Rapid Economy

2009-02-25T00:33:00.000-08:00

The last decade of the Twentieth century has seen India emerge as a major player in the World economy. Transition in World perception of India, from being an under-developed to an emerging economic superpower has taken just two decades. And, in this lies India's challenge. A country which undergoes sudden economic propulsion is sometimes underprepared for the increased cultural exchange that comes with opening up to the World. Cultural acceptance is a slow & gradual process with no guaranteed total acceptance.
The recent spate of incidents in Mangalore & the aftermath are testimony to this societal confusion. I will not again elaborate on the brutality of those attacks. I am hoping however to reflect upon the inexplicable reactions it has invoked from Political parties.

With the recent history of Karnataka's fragile coalition Governments & the Lok Sabha elections being around the corner, one would have expected a scathing attack from rival parties on the State's inaction. This would have been an issue that the Opposition could have effectively capitalised on to wreck the pro-development image the ruling party has sculpted. Surprisingly, none from the State Opposition, the regional Congress nor the JD(S), have launched an all out offensive. This is a clear reflection that these political parties may not agree with the Ram Sena offensive but are confused on agreement on the now famous "Pub Culture" phrase. So what is it that is holding the Opposition back?
Political ideology is but a mere reflection of Public sentiment. In some cases this strikes a chord with the Public, in some it doesn't. So, it is imperative for a Political party forseeing a General election, not to strike a dischord when Public opinion itself is divided. So, for once probably with a pragmatic view the Political class is not entirely at fault.
This is where the complexity of the rapid Economic development & the attached Cultural exposure surfaces. Increased salaries to not just the elite but all sections of the society has been one of the success stories of India. And with this comes increased consumerism, be it branded clothing, expensive cars or a dry martini. While this is normal for the liberal, deep pocketed youth; the relatively orthodox parent will seldom understand this exposure. Though pubs have existed for a long time in cities like Bangalore, it was more or less a playground of the elite. The foray of lower sections calls for rapid Cultural adjustments starting at individual homes. Unfortunately, Cultural adjustment cannot be as rapid as Economic development.
Difference of opinion will always exist during Cultural evolution. However, it is the responsibility of the State to see to it that imposition of opinion from either side is codemned. In a democracy, one can ony educate the Public on a given issue, the decision still rests with the Public. Hooliganistic approaches, Regulatory Policies will only further widen the divide. Being an optimist, I hope this Cultural Evoulution happens albeit not at the pace at which we want it to.

Territorial Extremism vs Religious Extremism

2009-01-17T05:36:00.000-08:00

February 15th, 1989 was a day when a war-ravaged country saw a glimmer of hope after ten long years. The Soviet Union finally decided to withdraw from a country where they had arrived uninvited in 1979. Capitalistic-democracy, then had its greatest victory ever with the collapse of the Soviet union on December 26th, 1991.
The Cold War had finally ended & the World should have been a better place. Unfortunately, a grave mistake was being committed amidst all the fervour behind building a Capitalistic, Democratic world. The United States fighting alongside the mujahideen withdrew its troops irresponsibly from Afghanistan. The fight against Territorial aggression would now transform itself into a Religious crusade.
One should notice that the causes for modern day War have essentially had 3 dimensions- Political, Territorial or Economic. However, after the cold war, a forgotten, more dangerous, dimension was brought back with renewed vigour to modern day war-Religion. Though one can argue that the second world war, the Palestinian intifada have had religious dimensions, the background to these wars remain to be the three mentioned above.
This new war however has only one dimension-Religion. A war in which the participant is guaranteed ultimate glory in the afterlife. This makes death a sought after climax leaving the adversary with very little to threaten.

Despite being a misinterpretation, one has to wonder as to how death can appeal to a larger audience. The point that is often overlooked is that Religious extremism is not all about Religion. There are two parts in motivating the naive participant, one is the misinterpreted religious factor of course, but the second being stories of war crimes, territorial aggression, territorial occupation, humiliation, etc on countries with a predominant population of the religion. Even if the participant has the slightest predicament against the first factor- a misinterpretation, this predicament is rubbished with the second factor which is almost, entirely true. So the motivator uses modern day dimensions of war as much as the Religious dimension. It is only that the religious dimension presents a wider audience, not limited by territory.

So, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Palestinian state broken up to form the State of Israel, United States fuelling the Gulf war, increased United States military presence in the middle east, Bosnia-1992, Chechnya, Iraq-2003, Israel-Gaza 2008, etc, etc are seen as acts of Territorial aggression, Territorial ambition or more candidly Territorial extremism. Rightly so. Such acts have all but complemented the second factor mentioned earlier.

Religious extremism claims innocent lives-never justified. Territorial aggression claims innocent lives-never justified.

Territorial aggression becomes Territorial extremism when economic gains, political mileage, regional supremacy or presence, territorial ambitions, etc are the dirty hidden intentions behind establishing a democratic world. Territorial aggression has existed for centuries & has been accepted more or less, now as aggressive foreign policy & nothing more. Religious extremist backlash in the modern world however, seems to be the ugly fallout. The sad & disgraceful thing with both forms of extremism are the loss of innocent lives.

A war or a jihad, if ever necessary, was meant to engage the militia of the enemy & never unarmed women & children. Let each country evolve itself into the democratic world. Presence of foreign militia to achieve this is perceived only as an imposition rather than a privilege. Interestingly, etymology of the word Terrorism, if ever re-derived seems better derived from Territory-Extremism rather than Religion-Extremism.

A Democradical

2009-01-02T03:38:00.000-08:00

After the previous post, I started to brood over the scenario where Pakistan actually extradites Laqvi. As poetic as it may sound, I doubted Pakistan's willingness in doing this. Well, my doubts have been clarified today with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi clearly stating that there will be no Extradition of Pakistani nationals to India. However, he keeps the option of trying the accused under Pakistani law, open. Another report goes on to state that the US which was pressing for extradition has changed its stance probably realising the complexities behind this demand. Should India be disappointed or was it just a case of high expectations?
At present, looks like the latter.

To begin with, for a country to extradite to another country, some sort of an Extradition treaty needs to be in place. There is absolutely no such agreement between the two countries. Of course, something that can be expected with 3 wars & 60 years of border dispute.

Today, Pakistan has a democratically elected Government- probably, paradoxically, the biggest deterrent to extradition. When former president Pervez Musharraf with the ISI, caught & extradited someone as important as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the US, the extradition was made easy because only one institution was ruling the country- the Army. Also, the extradition was being done to the US, not conventionally seen as an enemy state, thanks to all the F-16s the PAF uses. Even, if any opposition existed within Pakistan, it was conveniently & discreetly put to rest by the ISI. Under Musharraf, the Constitution & Judiciary of Pakistan had second row seats. So extradition being against the sovereignty of the State was ignored with the pretext of being commited to the War on Terror. Maybe, Musharraf was actually committed to the War on Terror or was the funding provided by the US to strengthen the Pakistani army just too tempting. Besides, who would dare go against Musharraf? The ISI which obviously benefitted from the funding, the Army which Musharraf headed or the Judiciary? Well, what happened to the Chief Justice under Musharraf would certainly not endorse that, would it?

So today when President Zardari or Prime Minister Gillani- whoever decides to be Head of the State (they still seem a little undecided on that)- needs to take a decision to extradite a Pakistani National, he needs to first convince his party, the parliament, the Army, the ISI, the radical heads & every kid who reads a newspaper on the streets of Pakistan. Also, when India happens to be the country at the other end of that extradition agreement, it is a case of hoping beyond hope. If an Indian was wanted by a Pakistani court, would India extradite him? I think not.

So, with mounting US pressure, how does Pakistan wriggle out of this situation. Simply yet cleverly, reminding the world that it is now a Democracy, that it has its own Constitution to adhere to, its own Judiciary to follow. It reminds the world that extraditing a Pakistani national to India would be against the Constitution in absence of an extradition treaty. Unfortunately, Pakistan is absolutely right & justified in doing so. Pakistan however has promised to try Laqvi within Pakistan- anyone's guess as to how effective that would be. Pakistan has made a move which cannot be questioned by the world even with the real intent behind it being evident. This decision by the Pakistani Govt keeps all State, Non-State actors of Pakistan happy & renders a helpless position, more or less, to India & the US.

This is a position that a State like Pakistan enjoys being DEMOCRAtic & raDICAL at the same time, a Democradical State. It can support the most inhuman acts against its neighbour countries while falling back upon the sanctity of "Sovereignty of a Democratic" when threatened. For the first time & probably not the last, India & the World would have preferred a military, totalitarian rule committed to the War on Terror, albeit hidden intentions, to a Democratic Government with only hidden intentions.

26/11 & the UPA

2009-01-01T03:09:00.000-08:00

It has been a month since Mumbai 26/11. A month super-charged with emotion- Anger, sadness, mourning, pride & disgust. However, the way this country reacted (the Government included) was, I thought commendable. 26/11 was branded as India's 9/11. Even if there was a parallel in terms of these incidents being the biggest attacks the respective countries have faced, there certainly is no parallel in the way the two countries have reacted.

Post 26/11, there was a sense of immediate unexpected anger. An anger not towards the terrorist, not towards the neighbour, not thankfully towards the Indian Muslim but towards the System. A Terrorist act aimed at bringing a divide in the delicate social fabric of the Indian society in fact strengthened it further. It was immensely mature in the way the country reacted by directing its anger first not towards external factors but internal factors for the attack. The external factor however could never be neglected which directed this anger towards the neighbour, Pakistan.

So anger towards Al Qaeda for 9/11 & anger towards the Internal System & Pakistan for 26/11. The similarity in reactions to 26/11 & 9/11 end there. This anger in the United States sadly lost direction. Muslims in the US were targeted. You had acts like the Patriot Act which ridiculed the rights of citizens & Muslims living in the US in particular. And of course the two wars which made the victim countries & in turn the world more unstable than before.

This sense of war cry was voiced by many in India too but thankfully was not considered as the first option by the UPA. There were calls for invading Pakistan, bombing Terrorist camps in POK, etc. This is where India (comman man included) needs to realise the complexities & consequences of such actions.

Before we wage a full scale war on Pakistan, we need to realise that we as a country, militarily are neither as strong as the United States nor is Pakistan as an enemy, as weak as an Afghanistan or Iraq. Pakistan is nuclear-powered, hasn't denied first-use if provoked, is ruled by two institutions-the government & the Army. These facts make it an extremely complex country to deal with.

So what do u do to such a country. Exactly what the Government Of India is doing. International Pressure. Though Pakistan is an irresponsible state with no remorse to promoting Terrorism, inherently it still cares about its image among the World's elite. Pakistan today cannot afford to lose international (read US) support. By being actively involved in the War on Terror, the Govt of Pakistan (not the Army) fears a backlash on the northwest frontier by the Pashtun-Taliban & also internally from its own Pashtun community. Also, war is not something that Pakistan can afford. The economy of Pakistan is in tatters. The system as a whole is crumbling & it is in danger of moving toward a state of radical mayhem.
This weakness of Pakistan has been wonderfully exploited by the Govt of India. The MEA's statement of keeping all options open, military included, was certainly not comforting to the US. They do not want a war on Pakistan's Eastern front when they want Pakistan on the western front. This was again tactically exploited by India which made the US step up pressure on Pakistan to act & act effectively. India further scored when the ban on Jama'at-ud-Da'wah came as an order from the UN Security Council rather than as a request from the Indian Govt to the Pakistani Govt. This, one should notice was commendable for the Indian Govt still upheld the sanctity of UN as an organisation. To the Indian Govt, the Security Council & not War, is still the negotiator. This not only strengthened India's position but further alienated Pakistan on the World stage. Pakistan is currently succumbing to pressure from the World & yielding to India's demands. As of today, the FBI has provided Pakistan with evidence of Laqvi's & Let's involvement in 26/11. If we do manage to get Laqvi convicted for 26/11, the Indian Govt would have accomplished what the US Govt hasn't after 8 years of bloodshed.

2009-01-01T00:50:00.000-08:00

Frankly, blogging has not been something that has fascinated me probably because of my limited writing skills or because I just didn't see a need to. So what would encourage an amateur writer(if you want to call me that) to start writing !!

Its the first day of the year 2009 & I have spent the first half of it glued to the television. I was watching the news & its quite interesting to notice the change in content being broadcast compared to previous years on the first day of a new year. No one seems really bothered about the new year or as to where India's elite partied. The names of Laqvi, Kasav & Hamas resonate on every news channel.

Is this how the world welcomes a new year. With the names of heartless terrorists flashing on the news, with two nuclear-powered countries at loggerheads, with a country bombing its neighbour with utter disregard to innocent human lives & world opinion. Can we, the human race disintegrate further or do we still have a long way to go? With all the advancement & modernity we boast of, we probably are as barbaric as ever in our minds.

So here is born a new blogger. A blogger encouraged to blog only because there is just so much he can write about- Sadly !!