Love Ya, Dubya

re: ``For a better South Asia``

http://www.dawn.com/2006/03/06/op.htm
(By Tanvir Ahmad Khan

EXACTLY seven months ago, I argued in this space that it was not open to Pakistan to seek a fundamental review of Washington’s strategic decision to build India into a major global player at the expense of the India-Pakistan balance of power. It was, similarly, extremely unlikely that the United States would extend comparable nuclear-related technology and equipment to Pakistan.

This realistic, if somewhat pessimistic, assessment was based primarily on two inter-related factors: the evolving configuration of allied power as the US unfolds itself as a virtual overarching global empire and, secondly, a close study of the dialogue initiated by Strobe Talbot with New Delhi and Islamabad in the wake of the nuclear tests of 1998.

Ostensibly related to identical nuclear events in the two subcontinental states, the dialogue comprised diverging trajectories. It was rather myopic to see it in narrow nuclear terms; it was a subtle process of conceptual and political differentiation that pre-dated it, got deepened during it and gathered momentum after that particular round of negotiations.

The story of this historic shift in the US policy towards South Asia can be told in many variants. One can describe it in the language of historical inevitability, a development that could, perhaps, be delayed by factors intrinsic to the protagonists — the United States and India in this case — but certainly not denied. The deterministic factor in power alignments, rooted in compelling strategic and geo-economic considerations, has the advantage of absolving individual and collective actors — governments and nation states — of their share of responsibility for profit and loss inherent in these periodic transformations.

Alternatively, the narrative may focus on the quality of leadership, its vision, and equally significantly, the robustness of its institutions that analyse the drift of history and devise strategies to harness it to national advantage. Yet another perspective is the one that a triumphalist Indian establishment is highlighting at the moment — the comparative advantage of democracies vindicated time and again by history. “India’s democracy and the institutions that go with it,” writes the renowned Indian economist, Jagdish Bhagwati, “give her the edge in long-term stability and sustainable growth, relative to authoritarian China.”

In one form or another, this inter-relationship of development and democracy has been the matrix of President Bush’s present effort to restructure power alignments in Asia with India as a major element of it.

President Bush’s long-awaited visits to India, Pakistan, and shall we add, Kabul, doubtless herald the advent of a new hierarchy of power in the region. It is premature to arrive at a precise measure of what such occasions project as a tectonic shift. But the initial images have their value, particularly as they reveal the degree of satisfaction shown by the concerned parties. From India, in a torrent of early comments, comes a succinct judgment from the astute C. Raja Mohan. India, he says, “debuts as a new world power with new responsibilities.” Bush, in his evaluation, “has in one stroke torn up the long-standing premises about this region.” When a nation becomes a great power, he reflects, it is among those who maintain stability and order.

Many Indians and Americans may prefer to locate their planned shared global governance in the highly effusive references made to India’s democracy by President Bush in the Old Fort speech of March 3, 2006. He went beyond partnership to brotherhood, anchoring the idea of cooperative management of world affairs in a near-mystical relationship between the oldest and the largest democracies in the world.

Consider the challenging agenda. India would have felt flattered that this major address contained little direct or indirect reference to Kashmir and virtually invited India to play an enhanced role in creating a democratic Afghan state. But it is doubtful if the menacing reference to Iran would have been heard with equal equanimity by all segments of the Indian population. The new order for South Asia is problematic insofar as some of the pillars on which it is erected may not be as solid as President Bush wants the world to believe. In fact, it carries the risk of greater disorder.

Washington knows that India lacks many attributes of a global power and that an extravagant declaration about it by President Bush is not sufficient to attain it. So it has put together a comprehensive, multi-dimensional programme for India’s rapid development. It was, however, inherent in the nature of nuclear technology that it would stand out in bold relief. India has long since considered it as the passport to the status of a great power.

It would be churlish not to admire the sheer quality of India’s nuclear diplomacy spread over at least three successive Indian governments. Its latest achievement is the degree of success in retaining sovereign initiative in fulfilling the most important pre-condition of the nuclear deal struck between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush on July 18, 2005, namely the separation of civil and military facilities fundamental to the design of a regime of inspection and monitoring.

The crux of the negotiations between the two countries was the safeguards for the fast breeder reactors insisted upon by the anti-proliferation lobby in the United States. It cited the example of no concessions made even to Japan, a natural exponent of the non-proliferation ethos. One heard from some of the best known nuclear experts that India would have to accept safeguards on the Prototype Fast Breeder reactor at Kalpakkam and the older Fast Breeder Test Reactor. But Manmohan Singh was willing to separate civilian and military facilities only on the basis of India having “the same responsibilities and practices and (acquiring) the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology.”

India, a non-signatory to the NPT, has achieved a singular success in persuading President Bush to drop the insistence on safeguards for the breeders. Estimates of the existing Indian stockpile of plutonium P239 vary but even the lowest can translate into a formidable arsenal.

India read the international situation with an impressive mix of accuracy, intelligence and imagination. Its objectives vis-à-vis the United States were anything but modest and it employed multiple approaches. By contrast, the Pakistani negotiators were burdened with a baggage of past policies that had become anachronistic and, therefore, costly. The occasional effort made by them to broaden the scope of the new post 9/11 relationship was constrained almost equally by Washington’s new dispensation for the region that now enmeshes South and Central Asia, and by the linear nature of a Pakistani regime particularly vulnerable to US pressure.

An exaggerated emphasis on the role of a so-called front line state in President Bush’s war against terror played an important role in shaping the Pakistan-US agenda. Fundamentally, President Bush arrived in South Asia with his mind concentrated on two aspects. First, Pakistan should continue to participate in the struggle against radical Islam with unflagging zeal. Secondly, Pakistan should receive assistance conducive to pervasive societal changes away from what was rather uncritically assumed to be its fundamentalist, Islamist legacy. Pakistan’s needs in the political, economic and defence-related domains, within that overall policy framework, had been assessed in minimal terms; it is considered necessary to curb undue Pakistani ambitions.

The visits were designed to be asymmetrical and, therefore, there is no surprise that the Indian part of it overshadowed the encounter with Pakistan. It does not, however, detract from Islamabad’s natural geo-strategic salience. A combination of circumstances, some of which like the cartoon protests are entirely fortuitous, made an unfavourable impact on it. An almost total elimination of a popular dimension from it added to its projection as a working review of their joint enterprises by two leaders beset with problems in pursuing them. While it provides a renewal of their entente within their preferred, if restrictive, parameters, it may end up by sharpening President Musharraf’s own dilemma.

He has been trying to nuance the war against terrorism by making valid distinctions between terrorism and extremism and by seeking a clearer focus on the causes of the present disorder. Bush prefers simplistic constructs and, more recently, has relied on ‘radical Islam’ as an almost permanent casus belli. President Musharraf has gained much from it for the perpetuation of his rule in uniform but from now, it may be a diminishing asset as he simply would not measure up to the ever-increasing demands on him to do more.

This is particularly so because in an example of classic disregard for Pakistan’s sensitivities, its armed forces are expected to make sacrifices even as Bush publicly transfers the responsibility of a democratic stabilization of Afghanistan to the brotherly democracy of India. The reiteration of this encouragement to India in the Old Fort speech was even stronger than in the Asia Society speech. The irony of the situation would not be lost on the people of Pakistan.

Pakistani efforts to balance the visits by hyping up the Kashmir issue have floundered as Bush began with tentative remarks in Washington and, faced with Indian pressure to get Pakistan to dismantle the alleged infrastructure of terror, withdrew into the safety of minimal public acknowledgment of any significant mediatory role.

A bilateral investment treaty and progress towards free trading arrangements, as between United States and Jordan or Morocco, represent welcome spikes in the curve of economic cooperation. Despite Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s stress on them, negotiations in this context have been marked by a lack of purpose, at least in the public domain. Noting that progress here “is receiving little pressure from Mr Musharraf” — one thing that would bind America to Pakistan — an editorial in The New York Times of March 3 regrets that “the Bush-Musharraf summit meeting is one between two leaders far more interested in guns than butter.”

Clearly, this economic space is where diplomatic efforts should be greatly intensified in the months ahead to challenge the newspaper’s description of the trip to Pakistan as “pointless”. The real importance of the visit to Pakistan lies in highlighting the great distance that Pakistan still has to travel in arriving at a durable and mutually profitable long-term relationship. Hard work, rather than premature celebrations, is the need of the hour.

The writer is a former foreign secretary. Email: tanvir.a.khan@gmail.com)
Sridhar

Ref FarzanaVersey #332

[The Asian Age, March 5, 2006

Separate Deal
- By M.J. Akbar

....Here, in sum, is what the spokesmen of Dr Manmohan Singh will be telling us as they take their message to the country:

l This agreement will permit India to produce fissile materials for its nuclear military needs, despite the fact that the recognised nuclear powers have halted, voluntarily, such production.

l The fast-breeder reactors, which can make super-grade plutonium when fully operational, will not be under international inspection or safeguards.

....Listen to the narrative on the American side, some of which has already begun to be articulated, even by the extremely sophisticated and persuasive American negotiator, Nicholas Burns.

l The fast-breeder reactors that India possesses will be isolated, and unable to get new technology, thanks to the inspections regime, ensuring, over time, stagnation or decline. Implication: India has been sold a lemon thanks to a gullible government.]

The fast breeder reactor that India possesses IS isolated right now because you can`t get any nuclear equipment from supplier countries now.

So why does the treaty change it for the worse?

The Man Who Never Dodges a Curved Ball! ``Let me get the hang of it!`` ``Isn`t this thing supposed to be cylindrical?`` ``Where did the ball go?`` ``Do I run to the first base now?``

PS: My offer in #340 still stands.

Farzana dear we are in the same boat and we sail or sink together..........we are already partners in whatever we are doing..........for me Chowk is the place for intellectual action and not grass root political action..........I already have my political space which I can clearly see the conservatives and Islamists trying to invade with their communal stance..........if you would like to help in anything then please do something about the quality of articles that get published on the Chowk...........if anything you should give Salim Chauhan his columns.....turn Hamid mia`s series on Gabby into a Chowk Classic....and tell the M Asadis sell his wares to Ali Sina and persuade Samina Shah to contribute more time as an author on Chowk on contemporary issues................I have done my bit of contributing to the CPM rallies in and around the national capital and I know a lot more about the rallies you have been talking about with such seriousness..........................

wishing you well

EDITORIAL: The ball is in Pakistan’s court

He seemed clearly under pressure. But the pressure has been building up slowly. Weeks ahead of President Bush’s visit, the US struck twice inside Pakistani territory to take out suspected Al Qaeda elements, in both instances also killing civilians. It never apologised for it. In fact, US analysts interpreted the strikes as a signal to Pakistan to get its act together. It was no coincidence that many newspaper reports in the US quoted US military and intelligence officials as saying that electronic traffic picked up by the US showed that the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements communicated freely on the Pakistani side but observed radio silence after crossing over into Afghanistan. As if on cue, Kabul has also been accusing Pakistan of supporting the Taliban, the most recent row pertaining to Kabul’s insistence that it had given a concrete list of “terrorists” to Pakistan, which Islamabad says is “stale”.

The joint statement on peace and security lists a number of areas of cooperation — defence cooperation, arms and technology transfers, training, joint exercises and so on — but none of this reaches the level at which the US proposes or intends to reach out to India. In any case, given Mr Bush’s emphasis on the war on terrorism, much of this cooperation and weapons procurement would relate to systems that help boost the ability of Pakistani forces to fight insurgencies and conduct extraction operations rather than exclusively confronting India.

It is clear that the United States wants to remain “engaged” with Pakistan because the key to US security in many ways lies here. But apparently this also requires a reading of the riot act to Pakistan as and when it becomes essential. It is an unequal and uneasy relationship and both sides know it. The US relationship with India too is unequal but India is in a much better position to deal with the US on the basis of shared interests and an institutional approach than Pakistan, given past history and current political exigencies. Both these factors are largely missing in the case of US-Pakistan relations. Pakistan has had to review its security policies in the region, east and west, because they clashed with US interests after the 9/11 strikes. Events since then show that there are still areas of friction when it comes to handling Afghanistan and radical Islam. The difference between the two relationships springs from the fact that India interests the US; Pakistan worries it. Therein lies the qualitative difference.

Pakistan`s most famous-ever cricketer, former captain-turned-politician Imran Khan, spent Saturday confined to his home where authorities detained him to thwart his plan to lead a march to protest against Bush`s visit.

#362 iron_mask

Dont forget the visit of the chinese dictators to India.

Where was Arundhati Roy when these people came? Where was the progressive left? Where were the JNU jhola-walas? Dont the Chinese have prisons 10x worse that Gitmo? Arent Tibetans being tortured there as we speak?

The response from our insanely anti-US left: silence.

Arjun_m #355 man this is really well put

I think certain people need to answer a few simple questions of those people are going to be taken seriously: Why is it that some people are protesting Dubya when they have no problems with musharraf and the saudi king, both of whom are responsible for killing Indian citizens..


Farzana is a happy woman today. The interacts here have only incresaed her appeal. >300+ you have got to hand it to her. She knows how to gets peoples temperatures up! That is the thing which matters - number of interacts. rest is is incedental.

re:#343 by pmishra2
One hopes u are right. The worrysome thing is that muslims have demonstrated in such large numbers for a cause that is not Indian. Since when have IMs gotten themselves into a knot about the Iraq issue. They may be concerned as many are, but to go out and demonstrate, to burn effigies/flags, all point to a misdirected energy and frustration.
IMs never demonstrate for more seat in educational institution, for women`s rights, etc.
I had always thought democracy insulated IMs from a global jehadic mindset. I was wrong. This is but a small step from jehad.
Sridhar

re:#337 by FarzanaVersey
See what Farzana` coreligionists are doing:
All because they did not like what Bush did in Iraq.
My question is: are they Indians first or do they just see themselves as belonging to Ummah.




Then i get this crappy article from the author about a deal that will change the course of India`s history. I think people like Farzana need to smell the coffee.
M.J.Akbar too has proved he is short sighted.
Nations who have become US allies have fared well. Eg Taiwan, South Korea, Japan etc. India will have to forget the times when she was the leader of third world and feted people like Yasser Arafat while its economy stagnated.
AS somebody put it: if u want to be in the company of big dogs, stop pissing with small ones.
Sridhar

#355 by arjun_m,

Well said! Couldn`t have put in stronger words to drive the point home

Some random thoughts:

ballukhan:

``this is pure communalization which is only going to help the BJP and the RSS.............................``

The joke going around in Lucknow is that both the Samajwadi party and the BJP are happy. Mulayam is certain to garner most of the Muslim votes and he has helped the BJP to consolidate the Hindu vote bank sans his Yadavs. They have likely killed the dream of Sonia-Salman Khurshid to win back the Muslim votes in U.P. The Communists too are happy as they can now confidently count on the Muslim votes in the coming elections in both West Bengal and Kerala. Thus the win-win agreement signed by Manmohan is least likely to help his party. The BJP, of course, cannot believe its good fortune. While I was happy that the BJP lost the last election, the unfortunate part was that it lost the election it fought on its claim of economic achievement and peace with Musharraf. On the other hand, Modi who fought the election on the strident anti-muslim agenda won his election hands down. This means that unless Muslim leadership wakes up and stop supporting the ummah causes, they will be playing right into the hands of the saffronites, who are otherwise in doldrums.

I agree partially with MJ Akbar`s analysis. He has indeed elaborated on what I said in an earlier post that the two sides will interpret the agreement differently to their respective constituencies. As for the Congress is concerned, there are three sections:

1. The hawks: They support the agreement wholeheartedly. They want to see a stronger India as a counterweight to China and would, in fact, encourage India to produce more nuclear weapons. Their thinking is that putting a curb on India would only increase the nuclear disparity between China and India, a useless concept in my opinion.

2. The non-proliferators: These are against any relaxation of nuclear ban on India. They are rightly worried that any concession to India will open a can of nuclear worms and will considerable weaken the U.S moral position in stopping other countries who want to go nuclear.

3. These are the people who share the concerns of non-proliferators but are willing to give India a special deal because they think that it is in the long-term interests of the U.S - both economic and strategic. They would favour a deal but with more stringent conditions than are contained in the signed agreement.

In the end, I think that Congress will pass the deal. As I said in my article on IPI pipeline, when the two banias are agreed on major issues, a deal is eventually struck. The highly effective Indian-American lobby and the powerful multinational corporations salivating at the thought of winning some mega nuclear projects would sway those congressmen sitting on the fence. My guess is that the first to fall in line would be the biggest noise makers against nuclear proliferations, our own Canadians who would love to sell a Candu reactor or two of their own.

#353 by FarzanaVersey

Common sense tells me not to get involved when seasoned veterans (in this case you and Ballukhan) are involved in a ``heart to heart`` chat marathon. Therefore, to keep my record consistent, that`s exactly what I will do.

What you say has some truth in it. The problem has never been of people not knowing where the solutions should originate - it always boils down to the question of ``who will bell the cat?``

I personally would like to think that there is not a rift at the grassroot level between the Hindu versus Muslim communities on such issues as terrorism - when a bomb explodes in a crowded place, it makes no distinction based on religion (or perhaps more accurately for most people based on the religious label) whom it maims and kills - I also agree that Mullahs are not the only ones who have organized such show-biz situations in the past - Advani`s rath yatra also falls in the zone of demagoguery.

But two wrongs never make a right.

I agree that the communalization and its caste-based cousin are terrible scourges. I also agree that the “rage” should be expressed by ALL Indians. (Note: ALL includes you, too.)

Now, if you TRULY believe there is a groundswell of anti-Bush emotions in India - and it is not based on blind religious prejudice perhaps built up by the Mullahs - but more importantly sustained by a whole network - a whole outmoded mindset, with complicity of all segments of the society (including the ``educated`` leaders), then you must try to explain what is that groundswell due to!

When one ``hates`` Bush for what he is ``doing`` in Iraq while ignoring the plain-as-daylight fact that the real perpetrators of the heinous acts are Muslims themselves - that does not jibe.

Reality should be seen for what it is - not reinterpreted to fit preconceived notions!

Signing letters clearly does not end problems - everybody knows that. These are all small efforts - preparations for belling the cat - but is it honest to belittle such efforts or is that a way to purposefully look away from its intentions?

Deconstruct THAT, if you can!

Even more reason for the Indian public to love ya, dubya..what really cracks me up is the paki demand for a payment for their ``services`` are often on the same page as their condemnation of US interrogation methods in gitmo..so on one hand pakis say they want to get paid for putting people in gitmo and on the other hand they condemn what`s happening in gitmo?

Pakistan press ponders Bush visit

The Nation

President Bush`s visit to Pakistan produced no fireworks, and made clear that Pakistan`s importance to the US, while great, should not be exaggerated.

India, with its lure of a vast market for US multinationals, much-trumpeted democratic stature and the China factor has been favoured with a civilian nuclear deal ... [In Pakistan`s case] the US assertion of abiding friendship only applies to innocuous fields.

No one would seriously deny that talks on Kashmir have made no headway, but Mr Bush is not in a position to put pressure on India to appreciate the need for durable peace in the Subcontinent.

The News

As was expected, Pakistan and the United States did not break any new ground in their relationship at the end of a day-long visit to this country by President George Bush.

As compared to his high-profile engagements in India, his sojourn to Pakistan did not involve the finalisation of any glamorous deals... President Pervez Musharraf understandably looked disappointed as he stood beside the American president as they addressed a joint press conference after their meeting in Islamabad.

For all the services that Pakistan has so far provided to the Americans in their global war against terrorism, all that President Musharraf received from his distinguished guest was a lecture on the need for democracy and refusal for any direct role in the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

Times

It is clear that the United States wants to remain `engaged` with Pakistan because the key to US security in many ways lies here. But apparently, this also requires the reading of the riot act to Pakistan as and when it becomes essential. It is an unequal and uneasy relationship and both sides know it.

Pakistan has had to review its security policies in the region, east and west, because they clashed with US interests after the 9/11 strikes. Events since then show that there are still areas of friction when it comes to handling Afghanistan and radical Islam.

The difference between the two relationships [of the US with India and Pakistan] springs from the fact that India interests the US, but Pakistan worries it. Therein lies the qualitative difference.

Express

The US priorities in South Asia can be assessed from what President Bush said at his joint press conference. It is clear that America`s strategic partner in this region is India and not Pakistan.

This means that Pakistani policy makers also need to think in new directions. The time for depending too much on the US is perhaps over. Pakistan should turn the focus of its foreign policy to China now. If the US can enter an agreement over civilian nuclear cooperation, Pakistan can do the same with China. Mr Bush has made his priorities clear. We now wait and see how Pakistani policy makers respond.

Khabrain

The whole world knows that Pakistan is a frontline state in the war on terror and has lent the US all possible assistance. Yet the Americans are not satisfied with Pakistan and want more. In this situation, the US is strengthening the hands of India which can only mean weakening Pakistan.

The American demand for more on this front can also be taken as a threat. Mr Bush has said that he is battling political and jihadi Islam whereas politics and jihad are one and the same thing in the true Islamic spirit.

In the light of all this, Pakistan should not be under any illusion. The Americans only know how to use others for their own interests. Pakistan should no turn to a policy of self reliance instead of relying on the US.

Nawa-e-Waqt

The sub-text of whatever was said by Mr Bush has made it obvious that America has a determined a premier role for India in its China containment policy.

Pakistan`s role in the region, as such, has become a secondary one - limited to fighting terrorism and preventing nuclear proliferation. Whatever demands the American president has made of Pakistan and what sort of cooperation he has demanded for its plans to attack Iran remain a secret as yet.

What is clear though is that America is not willing to give the same importance to Pakistan as it is to India. In these circumstances, the only option for Pakistan is to establish a model democratic nation so that a democratic Pakistan competes with a democratic India.

At the same time, Pakistan must make efforts to extricate itself from the American trap.

Pakistan

President Bush alone knows exactly why he visited Pakistan. But Pakistanis generally feel that he has not even given a lollipop to Pakistan.

No resolution of the Kashmir dispute, no road map for democracy, no appreciation of Pakistan`s energy needs and no attempts to cool down tempers over the blasphemous cartoons.

It was being generally thought that President Bush`s visit is aimed at strengthening President Musharraf personally, so that he may continue his fight against terrorism. But only time will tell Mr Bush has ended up strengthening or weakening his friend.

#337 by FarzanaVersey on March 5, 2006 4:01am PT


I think it is shameful that you cannot accept an opinion different from the one prevailing here by someone only because she happens to be from a certain community.
Asking people to ``be kicked out`` when you yourself have chosen not to be here is disgusting.


What`s more shameful and disgusting is your tamasha..Lookie here...poor Farzana..being asked to be kicked out..woe is here..how could they do that to HER!!

WTF exactly happened? you weren`t allowed to go to Azad maidan? Your posts to chowk.com were blocked?

I think certain people need to answer a few simple questions of those people are going to be taken seriously: Why is it that some people are protesting Dubya when they have no problems with musharraf and the saudi king, both of whom are responsible for killing Indian citizens..

you have a right to be wrong in projecting your dislike of Dubya to a majority of the Indian people and other people have the right to question your loyalties and inclinations..if you think the questions about your loyalties are disgusting, other people think your attitude on the kashmiri pundits and the taliban and despotic rulers are disgusting...

Re: # 340

Farzana:

Can you not organize such a group that you have in your mind?

Anil

#348 by ballukhan
[``This is not enough. You want to do something? Go to the masjids and ask people to go against the totalitarian Islamism? Challenge the mullahs? ``]

This was not my full quote. Here it is repeated: “This is not enough. You want to do something? Go to the masjids and ask people to go against the totalitarian Islamism? Challenge the mullahs? Make a difference to the ordinary person who has no access to mullahs and even less to these signed dignitaries? Are you serious? Then do something. I am with you.

As you know I live in Mumbai. I am not sure where you are, but assume somewhere in my country. I will accompany you or any group (that is non-political and has no religious affiliation). Get in touch with me at farzanaveeATchowkDOTcom.”

Instead of responding with grace, you have chosen to contradict yourself.

[it is not the lumpens whom I am concerned with.............it is these `educated` Islamist supporters who know their way with the words that I am concerned with.................it is these `educated` people who have the ability to weave grand theories and turn communal politics into `politics of rage`......................]

In post #322, it was the lumpens that worried you:

[As I said, WE need our brave men and women who can openly say FU to OBL and his gang of followers........and not get terrorized by the chavanni lumpens mobilized by the mullahs.................the popular street `rage` against Bush was a mobilization by the mullahs with ample help from their counterparts across the borders.................whom are we trying to fool?]

And then you come up with this…

[I need not boast about what I have done for all I care........I have certainly ensured that no mullah dares to approach me with their inflamatory stuff they peddle in...........and I have also ensured that no knickerwala dare threaten me.......]

Yes, so grant others that too. I do not know what you have done but am sure you must have…and you do not know what I have done. No mullah approaches me and the ‘knickerwallas’ occasionally send me books these days. (I am curious how you have ensure they do no threaten you; had I said it the assumption would be quite different…)

[where is the `rage` on isues of corruption, lack of civic amneties, election reforms, police reforms, farmer`s suicide, rural poverty.........after inciting the gullible muslims these inciters want to prove that the IMs are `genuinely` enraged about these issues........need I repeat on how the communalization of Indian politics has been achieved in the past??]

The communalisation and caste-isation of politics is the bane of our system. The “rage” should be expressed by ALL Indians. Why single out one group? Are you trying to say that rallies have not been taken out on other occasions, that too religious rallies? Forgot the rath yatra? Was that about farmers, health, literacy?

PS: My offer in #340 still stands.

Re: # 351

editor of ny times is objecting on different grounds.... you are intelligent enough to figure that out , aren`t you?....

I guess the Editor of New York Times -- like MJAkber -- is also a Muslim....:)

``selected`` articles from US papers -- the US`s real opinion makers

``......Thursday`s nuclear deal with India, in which President Bush agreed to share civilian nuclear technology with India despite its nuclear weapons programs and its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

This would be a bad idea at any time, rewarding India for flouting the basic international understanding that has successfully discouraged other countries from South Korea to Saudi Arabia from embarking on their own efforts to build nuclear weapons.

But it also undermines attempts to rein in Iran, whose nuclear program is progressing fast and unnerving both its neighbors and the West.(New York Times editorial March 5)

Re: # 348 ballu
[...it is these `educated` Islamist supporters who know their way with the words that I am concerned with.................it is these `educated` people who have the ability to weave grand theories and turn communal politics into `politics of rage`....]

exactly. people like islamist FV and her cheer leader nasah.... muslim communalism and pan-islamism is rearing its ugly head and now is the time to stop it before it grows further.....

``This is not enough. You want to do something? Go to the masjids and ask people to go against the totalitarian Islamism? Challenge the mullahs? ``

I need not boast about what I have done for all I care........I have certainly ensured that no mullah dares to approach me with their inflamatory stuff they peddle in...........and I have also ensured that no knickerwala dare threaten me.......it is not the lumpens whom I am concerned with.............it is these `educated` Islamist supporters who know their way with the words that I am concerned with.................it is these `educated` people who have the ability to weave grand theories and turn communal politics into `politics of rage`......................what foolishnes..................where is the `rage` on isues of corruption, lack of civic amneties, election reforms, police reforms, farmer`s suicide, rural poverty.........after inciting the gullible muslims these inciters want to prove that the IMs are `genuinely` enraged about these issues........need I repeat on how the communalization of Indian politics has been achieved in the past??

Re: # 344

nasah saheb............I have attended more commie rallies than anyone else on this chowk...........I know how the cadres are mobilized for such protests...but this time they coordinated their rally with the mullahs who, as usual, mobilized the gullible muslims from the colonies....the poor guys were emotionally blackmailed to participate on issues about which they have only information provided by these mullahs ..these poor guys left their jobs and were packed on the trucks and buses.......this act itself has made them suceptible to further mobilization by these mullahs..........and this is a cause for concern to me because I know these mullahs are going to incite riots with these gullible muslims.................

all this has nothing to do with the issue of whether Bush is a war criminal or not.................and so is the issue whether Saddam and other dictators, with whom IM-s are hardly concerned with but they were never asked to show their `rage` against, are war criminal or not..............
this is pure communalization which is only going to help the BJP and the RSS.............................and I know you understand this very well .....................

Selected articles from The Pioneer >>

Sinister protest

The Pioneer Edit Desk

The organised protests against US President George W Bush before and during his visit to India pale in comparison to the mammoth rallies that have greeted him in London and other world capitals. The Bush Administration and its neo-conservative policies are not exactly overwhelmingly popular both within and outside the US. Much of the unpopularity stems from the Republican President`s plain speaking on issues ranging from religion to jihad. The war in Iraq has added numbers to his critics in lib-left Europe while the war against terror has made him unpopular among Islamists.

What has infuriated those who dislike him is his disdain for them and their warped vision. The Left, which has been in the forefront of organising protests in India during Mr Bush`s visit, has just had a taste of the President`s disdainful attitude, as did the Islamists: He refused to take cognisance of either, and rightly so. It can be argued that in a democracy such protests are legitimate and the fact that the Government did not try to suppress dissent is evidence of India`s political pluralism.

It is another matter that the irrelevance of the Left in today`s India (which is much larger than West Bengal and Kerala) has been underscored by the fact that the crowd it was able to gather for the Delhi rally did not add up to more than a couple of thousand cadre who make a fetish of disgruntlement with everything in life.

The perverse streak in the Left`s worldview has once again been exposed by its laughable slogan describing Mr Bush as the ``World`s terrorist No.1``. It would seem that anti-Americanism has come to be defined as being pro-dictators like Saddam Hussein whose ruthlessness and cruelty matched that of Stalin and other mass murderers who grace the pantheon of Communist heroes. Arundhati Roy would stretch that definition to include support for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; she still grieves, as do her comrades, over the killer regime`s fall under American assault.

We can laugh away the Left`s preposterous posturing; few people doubt that anti-imperialism is a relic of the past and only those who still subscribe to the discredited, dogmatic and doctrinaire ideology that lies at the core of Communism believe that theirs is a righteous cause. The strident denunciation of Mr Bush by the Left, in a sense, has provided entertaining distraction from the more serious, and fearsome, Islamist protests that have erupted like a rash across India. The ease with which mobs of Islamists, most of them students of theology in madarsas, have been mobilised these past few days should cause concern to those who value freedom and democracy.

The protesters in skull caps who mobbed Delhi on the eve of Mr Bush`s visit, their compatriots who ran amok in Lucknow and forced a strike in Hyderabad on Friday, and the thousands of burqa-clad women who marched through the streets of Srinagar, reflect the sinister face of political Islam in India that is gradually emerging from the shadows of a ulema that has been preaching radical and repugnant Islamism in the guise of religious freedom without any let or hindrance.

It is ironical that Islamists, who believe that the ummah must be denied both liberty and freedom, should rally against the President of the country that leads the free world. It is no less ironical that the Leftists should have found it convenient to fly their banners alongside those of the Islamists.

---

Bush visit and the day after

Gautam Siddharth

Purana Qila, the ancient citadel of Mahabharat, the place from where the Pandavas reigned and which was repeatedly pillaged and rebuilt through 5000 years or more of its glorious and inglorious history, and which today stands barely five miles from South Block, the contemporary seat of India`s political power, was, in retrospect, a thoughtfully chosen venue for President George W Bush`s concluding address to the nation that had the extraordinary privilege to host him over three epoch-making days, for several reasons - the most important being it told us a great deal about ourselves.

The Old Fort is no stranger to history: It was here that the seeds of the great Pandava-Kaurava war were sown. It was from here that Prithviraj Chauhan whisked away his beauteous bride Samyogita. It was the very place from where Razia Sultan ruled, and it houses the infamous steps of the library where Humayun fell to his tragic death. Here Sher Shah Suri was killed by a canon that misfired from the Sixth city of Delhi that he built, and Bahadur Shah Zafar surrendered to the British, to be eventually sent to Rangoon where he wrote the last moving verses of his life. Do gaz zameen na mili, quye yaar mein...

However, posterity shall henceforth remember the Old Fort for yet another reason: For President Bush`s speech on Friday evening - not for its content alone that was memorable as it was straight-forward, but for the tremendous symbolic value of the setting which provided an apt finale to a visit that opened more doors in a single day than had been opened in the entire history - of nearly 60 years - of Indo-US relations.

Speaking from the first historical seat of the Mughal Empire, President Bush, in the course of his Indian journey, provided the vital thrust to bilateral ties that promise to soar in the coming days and months. But what did his visit tell us about ourselves?

While it told us that we are a mature democracy that allows dissent, it also brought rudely home that whereas the visiting dignitary chose to honour India`s composite culture by speaking from a monument that was last raised by its Muslim rulers, a section of their descendants preferred to allow their parochial and xenophobic tendencies to get the better of them.

The riotous mobs in Lucknow, the more than 50,000 skullcap wearing Muslims who raised slogans against the United States in Delhi, and nearly 250,000 of them who held a downright vulgar rally in Azad Maidan in Mumbai during which they burnt the Star-Spangled Banner, did themselves or their country no credit; instead - considering the landmark achievements of the Bush visit - the message they conveyed was they have no stakes whatsoever in a self-reliant, strong and powerful India, and that what matters to them is what`s happening to their godforsaken brethren in Iraq and Afghanistan. These demonstrators insulted India.

Along with their Leftist fellow-travellers who have obnoxiously appropriated the right to be called secular, and who gave no less a sordid account of their delinquency by fuelling Muslims` misplaced anger, the Islamists` sense of outrage at President Bush`s visit provided a clue to the domestic challenges that face the Indian leadership in its onward and unstoppable march towards development.

It also poses questions before progressive Muslims - and there many - who must ask their brethren by religion whether their display of transnational loyalties does not get in the way of their integration with the national mainstream. The Congress-led Government that hosted President Bush, too, must ask its strange bedfellows - the Red harlots - whether their fomenting Muslim hate was justified by any yardstick of political behaviour.

What, after all, were these protests about? That the United States had brought to heel a decidedly murderous lot in Afghanistan and Iraq? How is it that those who thought it fit to rail against President Bush and America fail to come out in protest each time Islamist terror-mongers blow up innocent Indian citizens from Bangalore to Delhi, or those who display the gumption to attack the heart of Indian democracy? What did they want to achieve with their display of outrage: That they have more sympathy for Iraqis and Afghans and less for Indian soldiers who are laying down their lives battling jihadis? Are they all jihadis?

A Mumbai-datelined report in The New York Times on Friday said: ``Nearby, a few dozen men stood under a banner declaring, `We are ready to become suicide bomber.` It is a sentiment rarely expressed openly in India, which has had domestic terrorism over the years but whose citizens have not seemed to be attracted to the current global terrorist networks. `Suppose Bush is here,` said Sajid Khan, 25, a student. `I will suicide bomb to Bush. If we could get a visa, we would go there and fight.` ``The young man, a product doubtless of a warped madarsa, promises to kill a world leader who came to India to place it among the great powers. The question is bound to be raised: Where does Sajid Khan`s loyalty lie: In the ummah or madr-e-watan dar-ul aman Hindustan?

Nearly 60 years after independence, this is not how India of our dreams was supposed to be: Instead, it was expected that all its religions and minorities would transcend shallow barriers to unite in building a strong and vibrant nation: A country of people with an identical belief - and stakes - in the Idea of India. That it has not happened so far is a result of nothing but the Congress`s vote-bank politics, which is evident from the timing of Justice Mukherjee`s spellbinding revelation on Friday: That Godhra was an accident!

Anybody can see through the ploy: Observing that vast sections of the party`s vote-bank is sulking after its canoodle with ``shaitan ki aulaad`` America, its leading lights chose to assuage their ``hurt feelings``. President Bush`s visit has, wittingly or unwittingly, raised the central question: Is India united in the war against terror? Will Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi answer this before the ink on the various agreements that their Government signed with the United States, dries?

---

India Bushes ahead


US President George W Bush`s visit, predictably, divided public opinion in India and I am not only referring to fundamentalist Muslim or Communist opposition to him. Even normally enlightened people (and I don`t include jholawalas in the category of ``enlightened``) have reservations about the US President`s shoot-from-the-hip-and-lip approach to diplomacy.

For reasons that have never been apparent to me, a sizeable section of Indian opinion was outraged by the US invasion of Iraq. I attribute that to the inability of most Indians to see the big picture. It is also a measure of the absence of a sense of civilisation in the average Indian although we happen to be among the world`s oldest. Further, India as a nation not only lacks a sense of history but also is remarkably bereft of the ability for strategic thinking. We tend to hang on to old shibboleths and totems: For instance, we continue to view Russia through rose-tainted prisms of the past forgetting that post-Soviet Russia is an altogether different, commerce-driven country.

Others, American regimes in particular, are extremely agile in diplomatic matters. Readers may recall the deftness with which Washington performed a U-turn with its China policy when Henry Kissinger, then National Security Adviser to President Richard Nixon, flew to Beijing from Islamabad to pave the way for the US President`s celebrated visit to China in 1972. That signalled a dramatic change in America`s foreign policy and resulted in the USSR`s isolation, eventually culminating in the collapse of the Socialist Bloc less than 20 years later. Now that the Soviet Union is no more, it is China that has emerged as the biggest economic and potential military challenger to the US. Additionally, militant Islam is threatening Western civilisation in a way it hasn`t ever since the Crusades led to the establishment of Christian hegemony over most of the world 1,500 years ago. Shifts in US stances need to be viewed in the context of these emerging challenges to American dominance. It is now up to us to derive maximum mileage from altered US perceptions and strategic needs. That explains why President Bush was unfazed when asked at the Hyderabad House Press conference last Thursday how he could justify enacting special laws for India to access nuclear fuel when it was not even a signatory to the NPT. His instant response was ``Things change``. That phrase, in my opinion, is the key to understand the current phase of Indo-US relations.

Clearly, the Indian national interest can lie neither with the unreformed dogmatism of Jurassic Park Stalinists nor with the rabid Islamist perception of the US as ``Great Satan``. In the civilisational conflict, India has to be ranged firmly on the side of the Western society with which it shares a great deal of cultural commonalities. As far as the Reds are concerned, their opposition to improved Indo-US ties is entirely phony and deserves to be contemptuously dismissed. West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee happily receives American FDI but calls President Bush the leader of the world`s biggest gang of murderers. Admittedly, the US Ambassador to India had no business writing directly to Mr Bhattacharjee in threatening language, but that does not mean that the West Bengal Chief Minister`s duplicity should merit applause. How irrelevant the Communists` rhetoric against ``American imperialism`` has become could be gauged by the paltry turnout at their much-touted ``mammoth`` protest rally against President Bush last Thursday.

This is not to suggest that India should now genuflect before the self-serving gods of US economic or military prowess. It is essential for India to hold its head high and behave with dignity and self-esteem. Americans think nothing of shoving when a gentle push would do, as evident from the repugnant diplomatic transgressions of Ambassador Mulford in recent weeks. His behaviour was rightly described as indicative of ``Viceregal arrogance`` unbecoming in dealings between the world`s biggest democracies. Sadly, this situation arose largely because of the unseemly eagerness of the Manmohan Singh regime to strike a hush-hush deal with Washington. The lack of transparency with which the Indian Government conducted itself enabled the Americans to assume an upper hand. However, while criticising our Government`s tactics we should not lose sight of the strategic goals that it has been pursuing. In fact, there is a bi-partisan consensus on proceeding with the nuclear deal since the negotiations were first initiated by the NDA Government although they have fructified only now. In other words, the temptation to throw the baby out with the bathwater must be avoided by all responsible political parties, namely both the Congress and BJP.

The nuclear understanding is, however, only a part - albeit a crucial component - of the bigger arrangement. Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee had used the term ``natural allies`` to describe India`s relations with the US when President Clinton was here six years ago. Since then, the two countries have upgraded their relationship to the status of a strategic partnership. That covers much more than fuel supplies for Tarapur. It needs to be appreciated that the Bush Administration has gone out of its way to frame appropriate mechanisms to draft India into the nuclear club bypassing the restrictions imposed by the NPT. A host of technologies, not just nuclear, can be accessed by India in the aftermath of the nuclear agreement and they would prove immensely beneficial to the Indian people. Agriculture and biotechnology are not ``sexy`` subjects for the usually uninformed, glamour-obsessed Indian media, but the agreements that have now been put in place could well unleash a second green revolution. Particularly in pharma and biotechnology, I am certain that Indian scientists and entrepreneurs will succeed in eventually upstaging the US itself in due course, the same way as the Indian genius managed to usher an IT revolution making this country a software superpower with the initial help of American know-how.

The Bush visit, thus, represents a quantum leap in Indo-US relations and the enlisting of India into the Big League. Sceptics will argue that China did not have to hold Uncle Sam`s little finger to climb steps that elevated it to P-5 status. It will be pointed out that China cocks a snook at the US and Western powers on human rights and Tibet, while India is seen to be apologetic and accommodating on Pakistan-related issues. Apart from obvious differences between internal conditions in China and India (surely we don`t want to live in a regimented society like theirs), it must be remembered that Beijing had total economic, political and military support from the erstwhile Soviet Union during the People`s Republic`s formative decades. We, on the other hand, chose not to have godfathers and opted to carry a huge baggage of moralistic pretences and socialist illusions instead. Now that India has arrived, we should not repeat the mistake of courting isolationism. But for that, mindsets have to change in India; blind anti-Americanism and emotional attachments to dangerous people like Saddam Hussain must be abandoned. Americans are somewhat patronisingly telling us they want to see India as a Great Power. We may react to this with some indignation, arguing we don`t need the US to mollycoddle us into big power status. But the bigger question is whether our collective psyche is one that befits that of a Great Power? In the aftermath of the Bush visit, India will do a service to itself by turning the mirror inwards.

#344 by nasah

[in an exhuberance to become a vassal and another concubine of King George -- just like another rakhel of George Bush -- Pakistan -- Indians including intelligent people like Bullukhan equate -- any Non Mulsim Indian -- protesting the visit of a Mongoloid Invader and killer of thousands -- a COMMIE....]

My dear Nasah - instead of providing inane naseehats - how about practicing some of what you preach?

In other words, please closely examine your own statement above and answer honestly whether you are not yourself generalizing in the worst possible manner?

in an exhuberance to become a vassal and another concubine of King George -- just like another rakhel of George Bush -- Pakistan -- Indians including intelligent people like Bullukhan equate -- any Non Mulsim Indian -- protesting the visit of a Mongoloid Invader and killer of thousands -- a COMMIE....

and any Indian Muslim protesting a bloody war criminal -- a MULLAH.........interesting!

and for some frenzied non resident Indians even a resident Indian MJAkber becomes a Muslim......:)

#333 sridhar

While I share your despair about indians who feel passion for Osama but none for self-improvement or education, yet, in a democracy people do have the right to demonstrate peacefully. Most of the demos were peaceful; there were some stray incidents in which fighting began.

As we all know, there is a populist tinge to much indian politics. Not so long ago the Bhandarkar Institute was ransacked by the Sambhaji brigade. The Shiv Sena has often used its mob power to intimidate people from all kinds of backgrounds (muslims, biharis, south indians). The VHP makes conscious efforts to turn out giant crowds at ``hindu`` events and uses extreme language to get them excited.

I think all of this is foolish and misguided. I dont see the muslim protests as very different from the rest.

I agree that Mullahs do not have a good track record of winning elections. But that does not mean they can not organize high-profile demonstrations. There is a difference in trying to win votes at grass-roots and having a few thousands of demonstrators (sometimes brought by busloads) present at strategic locations for maximum visibility.

The absence of objectivity (call it ``dishonesty`` if one so chooses) may lie in reading more into such demonstrations than is warranted. Certainly, the US media mentions those demos but few read too much into them.

Even Mullahs know how to leverage.

Sometimes, I think that this web-site is quite analogous to a high profile demonstration of the type we witnessed in India - an act organized by ``intellectual`` Mullahs! (But not of the type we are talking about.) Perhaps people like me CAN make a difference.

Like most people here, I personally believe that Islam is not a threat to peace - except for the ``extreme`` version of it practiced by some. (I hope everybody got to read read my March 2 i-log). GWB believes the same (one should not go by what some people here have been saying about him) - and he has repeatedly said so - time and again.

But, in the end, most people end up believing what they choose to!

`` A few decades from now when they are gone from this earth, nobody will remember their names, and what would they have achieved as far as contribution to humanity goes, absolutely nothing. ``

Listen you moron................we have no interest in seeking greatness through intellectual martydom...........neither do we seek to achieve immortality in other`s memories like you so dreadfully desire .......nor we do we want to errect theoratical dargahs like your ``Grand Unifying Theories`` with the desire that the faithfuls should bow down in some reverence whenever they recall our names.............unlike you we have absolutely no desire for the continuance of our existence in any one`s mind when we are gone................

We ONLY care about our immediate future..............we want to make our existence on this planet as beautiful as possible...............but you seek the opposite and want to create hell for us..........and for that we would certainly do EVERYTHING to ensure that imbecile Islamist sympathesizers like you do not convert more gullible muslims into your path to self destruction...........................it is a battle between those who seek LIFE and those who seek DEATH...................................

#322 by ballukhan:
[To FV-
As I said, WE need our brave men and women who can openly say FU to OBL and his gang of followers........ and not get terrorized by the chavanni lumpens mobilized by the mullahs................]

Ok, so what after FU? You think that those who do not say FU are threatened by the lumpens?

[the popular street `rage` against Bush was a mobilization by the mullahs with ample help from their counterparts across the borders.................whom are we trying to fool?]

At the moment, you seem to be fooling yourself. Do you not understand the concept of mass protest? Do you not get it that the so-called mullahs do not have the guts to contest elections and when they have they have lost their deposits in Muslim-dominated areas? Are the Left parties being mobilised from across the borders?

Now let us come to your brave men and women who signed a written statement against the cartoons. Please note, this is about the cartoons…and this supposedly not-so-brave writer has already expressed her views on the subject as well as the Quran desecration as well as not supporting the Muslim-organised rally for its communal tinge. (But because she is not your usual suspect celeb and she has not signed any written statement you have to question everything she says and does.)

Never mind. Did you not notice the rhetoric in that written statement that you saw here in this article?

I will try and deconstruct this whole statement...

[After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism.]

Have we overcome the other isms? Here are groups of warriors of Islam, if you will, who create havoc. There is no uniform ideology. Fascism is prevalent in the democracies of the superpowers.

[We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.]

And so? You mean to say that such statements have not been made before? Will they sign a similar written statement against Bush?

[Recent events, prompted by the publication of drawings of Muhammad in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values.
This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field.]

Ho-hum. What is the drift? Have they even bothered to make their stand clear and say they are all for the publication of these cartoons? Inn logoun se yeh naacheez achhee hai…

[It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism between West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.]

Gosh, this is so earth-shattering…

[Like all totalitarian ideologies, Islamism is nurtured by fear and frustration.

Preachers of hatred play on these feelings to build the forces with which they can impose a world where liberty is crushed and inequality reigns.]

Ok. Good.

[But we say this, loud and clear: nothing, not even despair, justifies choosing darkness, totalitarianism and hatred.]

Yeah, sure. Where are these people sitting? In the bright neon-lit facades that they can see from their bay windows…NO ONE chooses totalitarianism. And many do not even have the luxury of despair.

[Islamism is a reactionary ideology that kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.

Its victory can only lead to a world of injustice and domination: men over women, fundamentalists over others.

On the contrary, we must ensure access to universal rights for the oppressed or those discriminated against.]

Please do so. And this won’t happen with a written statement.

[We reject the ``cultural relativism`` which implies an acceptance that men and women of Muslim culture are deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secularism in the name of the respect for certain cultures and traditions.]

Absolutely. Now how will this rejection translate into action?

[We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of ``Islamophobia``, a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it.

We defend the universality of the freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit can exist in every continent, towards each and every maltreatment and dogma.]

Where is their ‘bravery’ now? Why have they not spelled out the other dogmas?

[We appeal to democrats and free spirits in every country that our century may be one of light and not dark.]

Bohat khoob…

This bunch of people are either talking to themselves or dressing their own sweet little group.

So, applaud them for some heavy-duty signature campaigns.

Ballukhan, you say, “there are atleast some brave men and women who can thumb these Islamists and their ideological supporters who have been pursuing their agendas by infilterating the local masjids and inciting communal violence and hatred worldwide................”

This is not enough. You want to do something? Go to the masjids and ask people to go against the totalitarian Islamism? Challenge the mullahs? Make a difference to the ordinary person who has no access to mullahs and even less to these signed dignitaries? Are you serious? Then do something. I am with you.

As you know I live in Mumbai. I am not sure where you are, but assume somewhere in my country. I will accompany you or any group (that is non-political and has no religious affiliation). Get in touch with me at farzanaveeATchowkDOTcom.

Be Indian, or oppose deal

Swapan Dasgupta


In 1949, when Sardar Vallabbhai Patel was asked by someone to react to the turmoil in Indonesia, he is reported to have retorted: ``Ah, Indonesia. Yes, Indonesia. Just ask Jawaharlal.`` The story may well be apocryphal but it does suggest that hard-nosed, pragmatic politicians are only too aware that barring times of war, foreign policy rarely intrudes into the domestic discourse of democracies. As some of the BJP`s more obtuse strategists discovered in May 2004, people don`t change their voting preferences because Atal Bihari Vajpayee hugged General Pervez Musharraf.



History may provide some comfort to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who, having successfully negotiated a very fair nuclear deal with the visiting US President, suddenly finds himself buffeted by the visceral anti-Americanism of many of his colleagues in the Congress and, of course, the Communists. That the Communists would oppose any initiative that runs counter to China`s hegemonic designs on Asia is well known. In 1999, Indian Communists, after 22 years, realigned with the Congress. China`s hysterical response to the Pokhran-II blasts served as the catalyst of rapprochement.

Yet, it is not the Communist opposition that worries the Government in the context of the Bush visit. That opposition is a Pavlovian response and lacks both credibility and the numbers. It was, for example, patently disingenuous of the CPI and CPI(M) to suddenly be concerned about the US emasculating India`s nuclear arsenal. Many of us remember that in 1998, the Communist parties were protesting the NDA Government`s nuclear policy. Their fellow travellers were teaming up with cash-rich American non-proliferation bodies to denounce India`s nukes in international circles. These intellectual mercenaries were very much in evidence over the past week.

What has alarmed the Government and the Congress is the evidence of massive Muslim mobilisation against the Bush visit. Whether in the metros or the district towns, the opposition to Bush and Indo-US strategic initiatives was almost entirely Islamist. The mobilisation was effected through the network of theological seminaries. Those who carried placards comparing Bush to various four-legged animals and proclaiming their willingness to become suicide bombers for the faith even replicated the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban in dress.

It is important to note that the concerns of demonstrators were pan-Islamic and centred totally on happenings in West Asia. Indian Muslims were instigated to view India`s foreign policy through the prism of their faith. More ominously, the Government was threatened with political retribution if the Islamist hatred for America was disregarded.

The whole country must unite against this communal blackmail. The defence and foreign policy of India has to be based on national interest, not sectarian considerations. Indians may not like what is being done to Iraq but which should get priority - India or pan-Islamism? In 1919, Mahatma Gandhi courted the pan-Islamic Khilafat Movement for short-term gains. India was the long-term loser.

All Indian nationalists, whether they happen to be supporters of the Congress or the BJP, must compliment the Prime Minister for so far disregarding these friends of terrorists and doing what is in national interest. The opposition has a right to carp about the political management of nuclear talks but it should have no reason to complain about the outcome of the negotiations. Indeed, with the Indo-US agreement, the UPA and NDA have successfully established the continuity of India`s nuclear policy.

Today, there is a broad nationalist consensus on the terms of Indo-US strategic engagement. Regardless of their other differences, all nationalist parties must now act in tandem to ensure that the necessary modifications in American law are speedily effected so that India gets international recognition as a nuclear power. This necessitates a mobilisation of the Indian diaspora and the active involvement of political parties, corporates and religious and community groups. On this issue, there is no scope for partisan politics. You are either with India or with the unholy alliance of Green and Reds.

#329, the article in the Indian Express that you reproduce says <<< How would we have reacted if our Prime Minister was invited to a foreign capital city and called a ‘‘mass murderer’’ on account of the situation in the Kashmir Valley? How would we have reacted if our Prime Minister was prevented from addressing the American Congress because a small group of badly behaved congressmen shouted and screamed >>>

Feelings of grandeur on the part of the author of the article, I must say. Nobody in America, given India`s position viz a viz the US on the global scene would pay too much attention to an Indian prime minister and his visit. Indian prime ministers (even Pakistani heads of states) are considered chaprasees by the US elite. Chaprasees are not protested against, they are merely rewarded or punished based upon how high they jump when the master asks them to.

Re: # 333:

You owe me an apology for making a statement like, ``Farzana bibi must be lamenting the fact that her country Pakistan did not get a good deal.``

My article was written before Bush even went to Pakistan and I had clearly reiterated that this piece was not about that country. You and others may differ from my views, but I am waiting for an article that gives the other point of view. Why is the active Chowk community not sending something in?

I think it is shameful that you cannot accept an opinion different from the one prevailing here by someone only because she happens to be from a certain community.

Asking people to ``be kicked out`` when you yourself have chosen not to be here is disgusting.

#332 FarzanaVersey

I highly respect Mr. Akbar. But I do not share his doubts to the same extent. (I am not disputing the historical precedents that he is referring to - but times DO change.)

The reality is -political posturing aside - nobody in the USA is wed to the NPT. It is a means to an end. The reality is that nobody views India like North Korea or (the old) Libya, for example - and certainly nobody compares it to Pakistan.

The reality is that the US congress makes deals all the time. And the most important reality is that GWB has a pretty stellar record of getting his ideas through the Congress - some of them were initially considered very hard sell, also.

The bottomline is the US Congress is a lot more malleable and easier to persuade - with the right approaches - not necessarily just Mr. Bush`s charm and wit (believe me, he has plenty) - much more malleable than the executive branch can ever be by itself.

Mr. Akbar seems to have some problems in the ``mother-in-law`` department - he should perhaps reconsider!

I agree that ANY agreement puts SOME limitations on ability to make independent decisions - Nehru had his reasons for following the ``non-aligned`` path. But times do change. Countries follow the path which suits their national interests at the time and (as they see it) down the road. The ``cost`` of the current deal are far less than its ``benefits``.

The reality also is that most nuke weapons will go to waste anyway - so if the deal ``limits`` India in some ways from producing more - why is that so bad? (Sometimes, countries (like people) can be their own worst enemies.)

Remember, China did not become a global player based on the NUMBER of its nukes.

re:#332 by FarzanaVersey
What a stupid article.
And i used to think MJ Akbar is a smart guy. He is, when he choses to be. In this case, he is prejudiced.
Already, people in US are saying US sold cheap! One commetator accused Bush of being a Santa Clause, giving away gifts to Indians! Many Congressmen are opposed to the deal, so Bush will have to sell hard and explain why India should be made an exception. This fact has totally escaped Akbar. To have the treat take effect, Congress has to pass bills modifying existing laws. There is going to be a lot of debate on this. I think India got the best deal she could have hoped, considering she was a ``nuclear pariah`` for decades and nobody, not even Russia, could do anything about it.
Sridhar

re:#332 by FarzanaVersey
Even M.J.Akbar talks from a Cold War mentality. India, at this stage, does not need any help from anyone. Its strategic strength, its economic clout has been recognized by US. That is all. This was something waiting to happen.
MJ Akbar does not quote experts like Stephen Cohen who have been arguing for many years about India`s eventual rise to high power status. May be Akbar is seeing all this thr` an islamic prism.
Sridhar

re:#332 by FarzanaVersey
Farzana bibi must be lamenting the fact that her country Pakistan did not get a good deal. MJAkbar is also a muslim, so it is not surprising he is sceptical. But what about those loonies with headcap on who are demonstrating in Lucknow and Bombay. I wish those guys could somehow be kicked out of India.
Sridhar

re:#332 by FarzanaVersey
Farzana bibi must be lamenting the fact that her country Pakistan did not get a good deal. MJAkbar is also a muslim, so it is not surprising he is sceptical. But what about those loonies with headcap on who are demonstrating in Lucknow and Bombay. I wish those guys could somehow be kicked out of India.
Sridhar

Go ahead, celebrate...without looking at the beslls and whistles. Here si soem food for thought:

The Asian Age, March 5, 2006

Separate Deal
- By M.J. Akbar


Trouble is, ma-in-law ain’t approved of history yet. Arms-wide-open George Bush and simple-but-hardly-simplistic Manmohan Singh summoned history to witness their alliance. ``We have made history today, and I thank you,`` Dr Singh told his guest in Delhi. Very coy, very nice. But it isn’t legal yet. Marriage awaits mother-in-law’s approval.

Mother-in-law is the Congress of the United States. She is particularly watchful about errant sons who declare victory before she has checked the fine print.

Once upon a time, long long ago, a President of the United States of America offered the President of Pakistan a whole bunch of F-16s, and even collected cash on the deal. Pakistan is still waiting to put those fighters to some historic use.

I don’t want to be a party-pooper at a particularly cosy love-fest, but here are a couple of quotes printed in the March 3 edition of ma-in-law’s favourite newspaper, the Washington Post. Republican Ed Royce, chair of the International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Proliferation, thought the Delhi deal had ``implications beyond US-India relations`` and that the ``goal of curbing nuclear proliferation should be paramount.`` Democrat Edward Markey, co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Non-proliferation, called the agreement ``a historic failure of this President to tackle the real nuclear threats we face``.

When ma-in-law talks from the side of her face she can be a tough old bird.

If history is made, then it will be certainly made in one respect: it will be the first time that India will sign an international protocol that has implications for its nuclear programme and nuclear military assets. A series of Prime Ministers, cutting across party lines, has resisted the most serious pressure to sign on any dotted line. The potential to build a nuclear weapon was created by Jawaharlal Nehru; the ability to build it was confirmed by Indira Gandhi; the decision to go public was made by Atal Behari Vajpayee. The one thing they, and others in between, knew was that any signature became a commitment that might fetch flexibility in the present but could become a prison in the future.

Since this is the first agreement that India might have to sign, unless the American legislatures sabotage it or the present government in Delhi makes way for a more sceptical successor, I hope those who have drafted it have read every line, checked the top line, bottom line, underline and then checked the little comma hidden in the fine print that discusses the separation of 14 civilian nuclear plants from eight military ones.

This is a marriage built on separation, in more senses than one.

The two constituencies, Delhi and Washington, are offering distinctively separate narratives.

Here, in sum, is what the spokesmen of Dr Manmohan Singh will be telling us as they take their message to the country:

l This agreement will permit India to produce fissile materials for its nuclear military needs, despite the fact that the recognised nuclear powers have halted, voluntarily, such production.

l The fast-breeder reactors, which can make super-grade plutonium when fully operational, will not be under international inspection or safeguards.

l India can now hope to make up to 50 nuclear weapons a year, for the availability of imported uranium frees local supplies for use in military reactors.

l India gets the latest technology long denied to its scientists.

Listen to the narrative on the American side, some of which has already begun to be articulated, even by the extremely sophisticated and persuasive American negotiator, Nicholas Burns.

l India enters the inspection regime, a far better situation than the zero-influence that existed so far. (It needs to be pointed out, of course, that India rose from drawing board to major nuclear power, without indulging in theft, only because of this zero-influence, a status that the Manmohan Singh government is in the process of bartering away.)

l The fast-breeder reactors that India possesses will be isolated, and unable to get new technology, thanks to the inspections regime, ensuring, over time, stagnation or decline. Implication: India has been sold a lemon thanks to a gullible government.

l The deal brings India into the American zone of influence, and turns it into a virtual ally with a potential for assistance in American strategic interests (that is code word for American intervention). India’s conventional arms programme now shifts dramatically into the supply chain of the American industrial-military complex. If the Indo-Soviet treaty kept India within the Soviet camp till the Soviet Union collapsed, then this agreement will keep India in the American parlour for the foreseeable future.

l There is a great bonanza to American industry of arms sales (this will be the most persuasive argument in the Senate, because the one thing a legislator does not want to be accused of is preventing jobs). The starting figure, according to Pentagon officials who admittedly have not dealt with Indian bureaucrats so far, is nine billion dollars. That is a lot of dollars. Keep counting, Senator!

l There is no political quid pro quo. The Soviet Union intervened when necessary to protect India’s position on issues like Jammu and Kashmir with a veto in the Security Council. America has given no such commitment. Indeed, Delhi’s leverage with Moscow is reduced with the shift in arms purchases. China will never support India over Pakistan in the Security Council and the West will have the pleasure of balancing Pakistan’s interests with India’s on issues like Kashmir.

With time, the narrative in Washington will doubtless take on other hues, since emerging questions will demand creative answers if the agreement is to be pushed through the Congress. Senator John Kerry publicly worried about fissile material during a visit to Delhi. Others are wondering whether such a reward for a nation that has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not a signal for others to risk going nuclear. And then of course there is the weight of Pakistan’s pressure to which there may not be any immediate give, but which will make its play in the coming months. Pakistan remains a frontline state in Bush’s war on terror.

Such voices may not be consistent, or even necessarily logical, but they will demand to be heard. Some will pick up claims made in Delhi and ask the Bush administration for clarifications, as for instance on the delicate matter of how many nuclear weapons India is capable of making.

If Pakistan is truly lucky, it will have the extraordinary good fortune of escaping the Bush embrace. The indications are that Bush will not offer the terms of the deal with India to Pakistan. What does this mean?

It means, first, that while India will sign a limiting commitment on its nuclear programme, Pakistan will sign nothing. Pakistan can, therefore, be held down to nothing. Bush is going to be in power for only another two years, and that as a terribly lame duck.His approval ratings are below freezing point, and his own party is distancing itself from him, raising the question as to whether he has the political capital to push anything through Congress.

What are Pakistan’s options? Pakistan’s nuclear programme has been created with China’s help. China may not have technology as good as America’s, but it isn’t a junkyard either. As a friend, China will be much more reliable than America. This is not because of any character defect. America is a democracy, and therefore always vulnerable to democratic discourse. China is a dictatorship.

China, most crucially, will not be propelled by mere goodwill or friendship; its policy will hinge on self-interest. Since a critical rationale for the Bush shift is to help India become a counterweight to China, Beijing will respond by playing the Pakistan card against India. China has already assured Pakistan three more nuclear reactors, and you never hear of any fuel shortage problems in Islamabad. President Pervez Musharraf has gone on record to say that Pakistan has its options. Is this what he meant?

We may never know what the complete truth is. But keep your ears open when the mother-in-law starts asking questions on Capitol Hill in Washington.

When a large number of illiterate Indian Musims come out of their mosques pelting stones, burning temples, identify Bush with the Danish cartoon episode, when they put their Islamic faith above national interests, when educated Indian muslim writers do not see a problem with this and whine on Pakistani and Muslims websites, we got to admit we got a problem in our backyard. It`s funny our politicians don`t see it yet.

Commies join hands with Islamists because they have lost faith in their Materialism and the liberating power of sciences........they have become opportunists and think that by aligning theselves with the mullahs they are practicing some sort of a taqiya..............most of the top politbureau members do not have adequate understanding of their prophet Marx ............even worse, their knowledge of the European Critical Theory is absymal and their manifestoes read like Trade Union pamphlets.........................no wonder we find them joining hands with the mullahs..........

Bush and the bushmen

Tavleen Singh , Indian Express.

Even as someone who has difficulties with many aspects of President Bush’s policies I found myself on his side last week when the streets of Delhi and Mumbai filled up with the sort of people who oppose him. They were a motley crew. A melange of Marxists, Islamists and well-meaning loonies of activist genre and if they should ever be in a position to create the world of their dreams it would be a totalitarian, Marxist, Islamist theocracy. How scary is that? Give me the US of A any old time. It is a free society as is our own, and we would like to keep it that way.

While President Bush and our Prime Minister were signing the ‘‘historic’’ nuclear agreement, anti-American protesters used television to enunciate their worldview. It is a simple one. Everything American is bad and George Bush is the ‘‘biggest terrorist’’ and mass murderer. Pretty rich coming from Marxists and Islamists. On the mass murder front how does Bush compare with Chairman Mao and Comrade Stalin? Osama bin Laden? Saddam Hussein?

Advertisement
[offer]
Arundhati Roy, who has the unique ability to approach politics through fiction instead of reality, made the amazing claim that she and the Marxists she marched with represented popular Indian sentiment while Bush was speaking only ‘‘to a few caged rich people in the Delhi zoo’’. She uses words so imaginatively she must go back to writing fiction. Politics and economics are not her forte or she would not have blamed the American President for India’s ‘‘new economic order’’, which in her view is ‘‘garroting’’ the poor. It has escaped her notice that in the days before India opted for a new economic order there were twice as many garroted poor people than there are today.

At least she was not carrying a placard supporting Ayotollah Khomeini. This was left to more Islamist protesters who appeared to have confused the American President with the Danish cartoonist. The largely Muslim rally in Mumbai came together mainly to express rage against the cartoons apparently without noticing that they have nothing to do with Bush. TV anchors had a hard time explaining the situation to their viewers.

The protesters had a cartoon quality and a serious one. The serious aspect is that Indian Muslims who have so far stayed away from the Islamist war against the West now seem to be joining in. When was the last time Muslims came out in such large numbers to protest against anything? In doing so they showed that they were at odds with the general sentiment of the country. Recent polls indicate that most Indians feel no resentment against the United States and many think of it as the promised land. The largest number of foreign students in American universities come from India and in the global war against terrorism most Indians think we are on the same side as America.

As for Dr Manmohan Singh’s Marxist supporters, it is time that he asked them whether they seriously believe that Iran going nuclear is good for India but India coming to an agreement with the United States on nuclear energy is bad. What kind of twisted logic is that? Not only was last week’s nuclear agreement very much in India’s interest but, as the Prime Minister said, ‘‘we made history’’. More is the shame that he could not persuade his commie friends to be more dignified in their protests. It is extremely bad behaviour to call a visiting head of state a ‘‘mass murderer’’ and considering how well our Prime Minister was received in Washington last July it is unfortunate that leftist bullying tactics prevented President Bush from addressing Parliament.

How would we have reacted if our Prime Minister was invited to a foreign capital city and called a ‘‘mass murderer’’ on account of the situation in the Kashmir Valley? How would we have reacted if our Prime Minister was prevented from addressing the American Congress because a small group of badly behaved congressmen shouted and screamed? If the protests in the streets were bad, the behaviour of Marxist MPs on the doorstep of Parliament was disgusting and should not have been permitted. ‘‘He is the biggest killer of humanity,’’ shrieked one CPI(M) MP, ‘‘and we will not let him spread his tentacles on our soil.’’

Let us not pretend either that this is acceptable, democratic protest, because it is not. In all the years I have covered politics in Delhi I have never seen a foreign head of state called a ‘‘mass murderer’’, and in the bad old days when Moscow dictated India’s ‘non-aligned’ foreign policy there were many visiting dictators for whom that term could have been appropriately used.

Thank you Mr.Bush

Karan Thapar , Hindustan Times

---

Have you noticed how the world doesn’t like America? Few countries have anything good to say. The irony is that those for whom it has done the most tend to be least grateful. And this applies regardless of whether the recipient state is Asian, Latin American or European.

In the 1950s, when the Marshall Plan was reviving Europe’s crushed fortunes, it was commonplace in England to joke about Yankee unpopularity. The one that became best known went like this: “We hate them for three reasons, because they are over-paid, over-sexed and over-here.” This snide if successful strand of humour has roots that stretch far back into Europe’s relations with the ‘New World’. Oscar Wilde was a past master: “It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful still to have missed it”, or “America had often been discovered before Columbus, but it had always been hushed up.”

Even the French had their little digs. Clemenceau, who was Prime Minister during World War I, is best known for the following witticism: “America is the only country to have progressed from barbarism to decadence without experiencing the intervening stage of civilisation.” Freud: “America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen but, I’m afraid, it’s not going to succeed.”

What lies behind such humour is rank jealousy. Success, no doubt, breeds envy but when your own impoverishment or incapacity adds the curse of dependence envy turns rapidly into dislike. The more the world needs America the more it hates itself for it. And since one cannot swear at oneself, America becomes the next best victim.

Of course, Yankee crassness, at times their innocence and often their idiocy have added to this. Americans are hardly their own best ambassadors. I recall a US Senator at the Cambridge Union who single handedly helped his side lose the motion “This House reaffirms its faith in America.” It happened when, carried away by his eloquence, he warmed to the subject and promised to lift the poor cities of the world “up, up, up — all the way till they look like Kansas City.” That shattered all prospects of a vote in favour.

And yet if America feels let down, stung by ingratitude, even lacerated, I can understand its feelings. Because those who need America the most are often the ones to kick hardest. This week India came very close to joining the list of the ungrateful.

Consider the facts. After nearly forty years of undisputed existence, the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, one of the world’s most sacred holy cows, has been dismantled to admit one single country. Of itself this is epoch-making. It’s revolutionary. But when you add the fact that this will give India, a country that was sometimes called a nuclear rogue state, the capacity to enlarge its civilian nuclear industry, which otherwise simply couldn’t have happened, the magnitude becomes enormous.

But are we grateful? Not if you look at the Left or the Samajwadi Party. Nor if you judge by the so-called popular protest on the streets. Not even if you go by the polls published by newspapers like this one. Instead, we’re more concerned about Bush’s Iraq policy or his threats to Iran, by his duplicity in the war on terrorism or even his simplistic, moralistic, little-Christian attitudes. We prefer to see reasons to dislike him. We ignore all cause for gratitude.

My point is simple. If Bush is so