The Guns of America: On School Shootings and America

The Guns of America

School shootings crop up, on and off, in the sole super power, the United States. The latest incident of this kind has left around 27 people dead in Connecticut. These tragedies keep on recurring in the United States with mentally disturbed young people taking out their ire and warped world view, outlook and bottled up anger onto innocent people.

What does this tell about the country? Nothing except for the fact that the country stands as a metaphor for the human condition. America is the country or more accurately an idea or a philosophy. This idea was incubated in the eighteenth century and reached efflorescence in the 20^th century. The power of this idea is immense; it not only draws diverse peoples to it but also radiates outward. The American firmament is defined by diverse people, making up a mosaic that is wonderful and beautiful. The idea of America attracts, absorbs and is a solvent- a solvent of prejudices, biases and other insalubrious aspects of human nature.

In a way, the country reconciles extremes: the Muslim, the Hindu, the Christian, the Jew and the atheist all form and comprise its mosaic. The nature of the American idea allows and lets them be without any idea or ideology save the idea of America dominating. This idea is composed of liberty, freedom and dignity for all and is a work in progress. Juxtaposed against the idea of America is the country America- a vast space inhabited by diversity and defined by difference.

This is a country in whose capital which is also described as the world’s capital, you can be mugged for a few measly dollars, wander or wade into gunfire exchanges between gangs if you happen to be in the wrong neighbourhood, the hub caps of your car(to cite Thomas Friedman) be stolen by the homeless or harangued by a drug addict. In the same country, you can be a school drop-out but still become Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs or even the president of the country even if you belong to a historically deprived and wounded culture. In this country, you can also be an immigrant with a humble background but yet aspire to the best and be among the best and the privileged. Colour, creed, race or cultural difference does not matter in this country. What matters is the gumption and the oomph that you have and the will and desire to make it big. What has been called the ‘American Dream’ does the rest. There really is no one or nothing to pull you down.

What then explains the school shootings and their recurrence? While some attribute it to lax gun control laws or in some states the permissibility and acceptability of owning and carrying guns, this is a half truth. The reasons are deeper and profounder. And answering this is the domain of the psychologist. I am not one so the explanation that I will venture is an amateur one. The school shootings and other bizarre and abnormal behaviour that some Americans display are a psychological or even psychosocial phenomenon. Troubled childhoods, negative reinforcement, warped thinking and psychopathic tendencies are or may be the main reasons for this aberrant behaviour. The shootings , it could be said, are a form of a perverted and cathartic release for the young killers. They view society as diametrically opposed to them , are in conflict with themselves and the society. By shooting and killing, they are not only killing others but killing themselves in a metaphoric sense. The killers hate themselves and by killing others whom they hold responsible for their condition, they are also killing their own selves which they hate and loathe. This is sad and tragic for both the victims and the perpetrators.

What then can be done to prevent these orgies of murder and rampage? The answer is a grim one. Nothing. Psychopathological behaviour is present in every culture and manifests itself in different permutations and combinations. It is hard to detect and more often than not comes into public gaze and attention only when the deed or the act has been done. The best that can be done is to educate people about the symptoms of this condition and alert them to this. However, a word of caution is in order here. The victim of this condition needs to be dealt with kindness. Isolation, hostility and distance only makes the victim retreat further into himself/herself and then lash out. Kind but vigorous care maybe the only answer if the malady is diagnosed early.

America is a wonderful country. The idea of Americais bold and beautiful. The episodes of psychopathological behaviour do not mean that something is wrong with the country. These are phenomena that are present in every culture and society. Let these episodes be seen for what they are and let vigilance and kindness be the weapons employed to deal with these.

Trouble in Kashmir as the US Withdraws from Afghanistan?

Will the United States exit from Afghanistan lead to Pakistani recidivism and violence in Kashmir, asks Wajahat Qazi?

The date for the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan is approaching. This lead up to the exit is creating angst across the globe and in India in particular. It is believed that the withdrawl, whatever its reasons, will lead the extremist forces, inimical to peace and stability and proponents of global jihad to believe that they have emerged victorious. And that this will be an eerie echo of the end of the Cold War era, the ignonimous Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the United States estrangement from Pakistan.

This insalubrious development, it is held, will encourage the forces of recidivism and global jihad and will have serious implications on both regional and global security. In India, the security and defence establishment believes that the US exit from Afghanistan will relieve pressure on Pakistan and the United States drift away from the war on terror formulation will encourage Pakistan to focus, de nouveau, on Kashmir. Pakistan, it is believed, will once again, through its proxies, the Taliban and allied or ancillary groups stir trouble in Kashmir. It will thus be square one again and the subcontinent will flare up. This line of thinking is fallacious and alarmist. Why?

The reasons are manifold. The most salient is that the regional as well as global equations have changed and Pakistan, the pivotal actor in these equations is in the midst of some change. It appears to be reorienting its foreign policy posture and orientation and seems to be opting for engagement instead of confrontation - both with the world (read the United States) , Afghanistan and India. This almost amounts to a paradigm shift. Historically, the Pakistani establishment is what Samuel Huntington called the praetorian oligarchic elite derived what may even be called its raison d'etre from hostility towards India, strategic depth in Afghanistan which meant propping up its proxies in Afghanistan and a very topsy-turvy relationship with the United States. (This relationship with the United States was never in the nature of an alliance but more or less an instrumental and transactional relationship).

Indicators of this change are the qualitative change in the tenor of relations with India reflected in improved trade relations with India, the easing of the visa regime, muting somewhat its vociferous stance on Kashmir and other such measures. The noise made at the United Nations over Kashmir is just noise and may be aimed at placating the Pakistani society which has been fed a staple diet of anti - India and Kashmir rhetoric. And continued infiltration of militants into Kashmir (very sparse levels) which goes against the ostensible drift of relations between India and Pakistan can be explained as a way of maintaining a degree of leverage over Kashmir. All in all, the indications are that there is a qualitative change afoot in the nature of Pakistan's polity, foreign policy and strategic orientation.

This change is predicated upon the global security environment and more importantly the structural conditions in Pakistan. The former has meant securitization of the war on terror formulation where states that use terrorism as a state policy stand marginalized and the latter, as is observed on a quotidian basis, has meant that the very forces that Pakistan used as foreign policy trump cards have turned against it. The country, it could be said, is at war with itself. Continuing with this would mean gloom and doom for Pakistan and if these forces are allowed leeway that Pakistan could split and fragment.

In combination these conditions – endogenous and exogenous – are forcing some sort of change in Pakistan. Consequently, Pakistan is undergoing a review. Overlaying these conditions is the fact that the United States has learnt from its past mistakes and is not, contrary to speculation, disengaging from Pakistan. It sees Pakistan as a player that can degenerate into a spoiler state and given this is engaging with. These conditions, it is hoped, militate against a Pakistan which will act as a spoiler state and revert to its traditional stance of hostility towards India and stirring up trouble in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

It is in Pakistan's interest to have reasonably good relations with India and drop its strategic depth obsession in Afghanistan, and above all seek the approval and good will of the sole superpower, the United States. Pakistan cannot really afford to revert to its traditional stance.

Another important condition that needs to be factored here is the qualitative and quantitative change in the nature of the conflict in Kashmir. The conflict stands transformed. There is a vigorous political process in the place and the separatist spectrum not only stands marginalized but also disconnected from the people. This has implications for nuclear deterrence and conflict between India and Pakistan. Pakistan, under the shield of its nuclear weapons, created war like conditions which went under the name of the Kargil war. This cannot be repeated both because of the global and regional security and political conditions, the peace that obtains in Kashmir and the transformation of the conflict. Deterrence is holding well and the conflict has been managed and contained.

Cumulatively, all this means that it would mean almost suicide for Pakistan to revert to its traditional posture and stir trouble in Kashmir or Afghanistan. As long as there is a façade of a political process in Pakistan and its real power structure - the Army and the intelligence agencies - is in control of the security and foreign policy dynamic of the country and as long as Pakistan does not breakdown and extremists take power, there is little if no chance at all that Pakistan will resort to recrudescence. This means that the fears of the Indian security and defence establishment are overblown.

This , however, does not mean that vigilance be dropped or that the international community be smug and complacent. What it does mean that politics and diplomacy whether it be the nature of Pakistan's engagement with the world or the problems in Kashmir, be accorded primacy over narrow and parochial considerations. This has implications for Kashmir's internal security. An act that goes by the name of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is in place. This act empowers, among other things, an ordinary soldier to kill on mere suspicion. Abuse of this act has led in the past to protests and anger. The justification for this act- vigorous insurgency- does not obtain in Kashmir. Recently, justification for the Act has been made on grounds of Pakistani recidivism after the United States exit from Afghanistan. However, as demonstrated here, this constitutes fallacious thinking.

The subcontinent may be on the cusp of a new security order. It becomes exigent that the equations and foundations underpinning this order be strengthened and nurtured. These can be consolidated and institutionalized with the primacy of diplomacy and politics over narrow and alarmist considerations and concerns. Global peace and security may well be contingent on this. Let peace be given a chance and let this be the goal of statecraft and statesmanship in the region.

The Ugly American Revisited

In 1958, Eugene Burdick and William Lederer wrote a novel provocatively titled,' The Ugly American'. The novel, defined by allusion and metaphor and set in a fictional nation called Sarkhan, aimed and attempted to bring to the attention of Americans the ungainly behaviour of Americans overseas and contrasted it with the behaviour and attitude of others. The others in contention here were the communists. The novel was a political oeuvre and the context and backdrop for it was the Cold War- the titanic struggle between the United States and the former Soviet Union. It deemed the attitude of Americans in the Vietnam War as stemming from arrogance and insensitivity to local cultures, opines Wajahat Qazi.

The novel also drew out the irony and the paradox through the impressions of an Asian journalist who is bewildered at the Americans who he knows in America and Americans overseas. A total contrast defines the two. It then draws attention to the protagonist of the novel, Homer Atkins - a person with an ugly demeanour but noble disposition - who mixes and fraternizes with the locals, understands them and offers genuine empathy and useful assistance. The novel, in short, was meant to be an eye-opener. It incidentally became a best seller and was made into a movie.

Unfortunately and alas, the lessons of the book appear not to have been learnt. America overseas indeed is a misunderstood behemoth and this misunderstanding accrues from what could be called American naivete which is presumed to be arrogance given the country's overweening power and might.

This assertion calls for a very brief exegesis on the nature of the United States: The country, to an outsider, cannot really be pinned down and a perspective brought to bear on it. It is a massive cauldron of peoples which has over the years morphed from a white settler country into a multicultural country but yet paradoxes define it. There is a line that divides blue America from the red America: The red America is insular and parochial; blue America cosmopolitan and open. The battles between the two Americas have been called 'culture wars'. And then there is black America, an America bruised and wounded- psychically and spiritually. In these America's, a ' red' American can easily mistake an Iraqi for Indian or scratch his head over where Kashmir is; a blue American, to the contrary can surprise one with his/her knowledge of cultures, world affairs, nuance, sophistication and insight. America can then not be pigeon holed or reduced to a stereotype.

This is America from outside looking in. Then there is America, the superpower, the mighty and potent America- responsible for maintaining world peace and order; or resolving disputes and problems and exporting its immense cultural and soft power overseas. This America's foreign policy determines the drift and thrust of world politics. The images of the two Americas are difficult to reconcile.

The question that this raises is what accounts for the discrepancy between the nature of America and its perception overseas? The answer lies in America's naïve approach towards the world - especially the Muslim world. First, it was the self righteousness of the neo cons that led to misadventurism in Iraq. It was premised on a belief that democracy and liberalism could be exported. And now it is the deafening silence that America has maintained over the butchery in Syria. The Arab Muslims may be justified in their bewilderment, fail to understand American activism in Iraq and then total and complete withdrawal from their affairs when they needed American support most. Any reasonable mind would deem it as hypocritical and attribute Machiavellianism to Americans. This however is not even a caricature. Foreign policy is driven by a host of considerations and cannot be reduced to one factor.

Anyhow, this is besides the point here. What is intriguing and alarming is America's banning of a group in Syria which has made military gains against the obnoxious Assad regime. This outfit, Jabhat ul Nusra has made gains against the regime is popular with people. The United States believes that it has links with Al Qaeda. I know nothing about it but what I know about Americans is that the banning may be premised on a blanket dismissal of all Islamist groups and deeming them to be hostile to America.

This is not necessarily the case. Not all Islamists are the same. There are variations within them – ideologically, programmatically and practically. Some are extreme and will not countenance the West in any form or shape; others are moderate and would like to engage in some sort of a dialogue with the West or the United States. The United State's blanket dismissals estrange and alienate these moderates and accord leeway and strength to the extremists. Islamism as a comprehensively opposed ideology or movement to the West or the United States then becomes a self fulfilling prophece - a premise that needs to be pre-empted.

The relations between Islam and the West are delicately poised. They can go anywhere. Prudence demands that even straws be clutched at and some sort of a meeting ground and dialogic mechanism be arrived at lest therelationship degenerate into something ugly and insalubrious. Jabhat ul Nusra may or may not have links to Al Qaeda. The issue is broader. Let the Americans reread , 'The Ugly American' ,introspect, mull over the essence of the book and then re-engage with the world. It is about time.

Education: the Great Leveler;

 

As I was walking into my office, a police man walked towards me, offered salutations and in a pleading tone said, ‘Sahib: I want my children to be IAS/IPS officers. I am not educated but I want to impart the besteducation to my children and want to aim high. I would like them to meet you’.I was taken aback and pleased: a humble constable; not even a matriculate had set high goals and aspirations for his children. This is very welcome and I hope this becomes a trend. As is the wont with these types of encounters, this set me thinking.

I arrived at two conclusions, the first one a banal and a platitudinous one and the other, even though very obvious, but with far reaching consequences for society and polity. In this part of the world or more broadly Asia, parents live their lives vicariously. They live life for and through their children. The second one was that opportunities for self- improvement and advancement through education put in place by the state can have far reaching ramifications and consequences for the society and thepolity. And that education can be the best solvent and antidote to traditional obstacles accruing from custom and tradition- caste, creed and colour.

Consider the case of India. A civilization state, the Indian firmament is comprised by dizzying diversity but unfortunately has historically been divided both horizontally and vertically on account of caste and creed.The case system freezes people in the social and economic hierarchy and renders upward mobility almost impossible. This is a social phenomenon. However, oncethe state which should be neutral towards its citizens enters the picture, and if it has an affirmative action program in place, the equations change. Thestate with its education policy and thrust transforms society. The taboos stemming from insalubrious aspects of society begin to melt and dissipate and people from the deprived sections of society enjoy the fruits of their labour. In short, meritocracy not ascriptive status in society becomes the arbiter of success and upward mobility.

This is the social aspect and is, given the path dependence of social and cultural institutions nothing short of a revolution. The state acts as a catalyst for social and cultural change and socializes people in values that are benign , forward looking and progressive. It has political ramifications and consequences too. Education not only empowers people but it also enlightens and emancipates them. They cannot, by and large, be made fools and are likely to be critical and more aware. An educated citizenry means then means an enlightened and aware citizenry. If this gets amplified and broad based, then this translates into a coherent , cohesive and aware middle class. A deep and wide middle class is good for democracy and the polity. National interest rather than narrow political and sectional interest takes precedence and people elect their representatives not on the lines of caste and creed but policies and political programs. And they also hold the political class accountable. People also, if they are educated, tend to resolve their disagreements through arguing and pleading rather than violence

In combination then, these two aspects and factors can only be salubrious and good for both society and the polity. It has and is working in India despite the immense structural changes and elsewhere. In the advanced West, where the right to education and education is an indelible part and parcel of people’s lives, education is taken for granted. However, in the less developed world, there are huge swathes of the population that continue be unfortunate in this regard. What then should the state , in these countries do?

It becomes exigent that the state deems education as a public good and on a war footing make education and the nurturing of human capital as a priority. This can only be an unalloyed good. The examples of most South East Asian countries are instructive here. These countries like Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia made nurturing human capital priority and have , in the least, reaped social and economic dividends. It is about time that these policies and approaches are replicated in India and broadly speaking thesubcontinent too. It is then that the demographic dividend can be reaped and people be given a chance to reach efflorescence and live their life to their potential without the encumbrances of caste, creed and colour. This much is owed to them.

What is in a Smile? Developing and Generating Social Capital

 

I have been meaning to tell you this since you came here, Sir. You are a great guy. You treat people with respect and exude warmth to all. This attitude spreads positive energy around and it is just fantastic, ‘an employee at my office told me. This startling and I daresay embarrassing revelation got me thinking: What was I doing? What made people at my work place walk up to me and offer nice, straight from the heart, sweet compliments? I was doing nothing extraordinary; neither was I going out of my to do anything that would require effort and energy.

All I was doing was acknowledging people, smiling, being courteous and offering salutations and enquiring about my colleagues and , for want of a better word, subordinates’ well- being. I see people as people and do not judge and evaluate unless I have to and I have compelling reasons to do so. I also see that every human being has an innate sense of dignity and self-worth that craves validation and recognition. This is not rocket science; however it has taken me years to appreciate and understand this and I do my best to see people for whatthey are and do the obvious.

If this attitude and approach spreads positive energy, warmth and good will, then this is a salubrious one. It can be said that if we all just do what we can do and respect people and recognize their inherent dignity and self-worth, then this can generate what social scientists have called ‘social capital’. Social capital, has been defined by sociologists as, ‘ the expected collective and economic benefits derived from the preferential treatment and cooperation between individuals and groups. (This definition is a verbatim citation from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital. I apologize to my readers for not citing a more vigorous resource).

I am no sociologist or anthropologist but what I can say and cite with some authority(based on experience and observation) is that social capital and the attendant co-operation between individuals and groups can lead to happy, good and productive societies. This is no insight but a trite observation that however has tremendous social and economic value. A happy and content society is a more productive society and this has implications for both the society and the economy. The generation and crystallization of social capital can obviate gratuitous and unwarranted conflicts, friction and frisson.

While it goes against the assessment of the great philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, who posited that,’ men lived in a kind of a jungle and that life was nasty, short and brutish’, it corresponds to some extent the assessment and nature of the social contract devised by that great philosopher , John Locke. And it corresponds to the nature and content of society that isprescribed by the Quran and the Ahadith(sayings attributed to the Holy Prophet(SAW)). I have not heard of and read of any other religion that states the contrary. So both the philosophers and the Prophets are on the same page on this.

Why then is social capital which has the sanction and approval of philosophes and religions difficult to generate and maintain? According primacy to feelings and emotions like anger, jealousy, envy may account for this. If and when these emotions are accorded primacy, then the baser instincts of human nature come to the fore and overwhelm the nobler, sanguine ones.

The question then is how can social capital be generated and maintained? The answer is easy but difficult to put into practice. Generating it lies in the domain of being true to our nature and not let ourselves be seduced by negative emotions. Acknowledging a colleague or subordinate, speaking kindly to all- parents, the poor and the deprived, offering empathy and sympathy, and charity are some of the things that can lead to the generation of social capital. No extraordinary effort is required for this; just an emphasis on the ordinary and the prosaic is all that is needed.

Once the dynamic is begun, this leads to a network effect and good and positive energy spreads; just like its converse: negative energy. This ambience and environment needs to be complemented by institutions which are designed and devised to promote public good. This means a state that isdesigned to respect and maintain human dignity and self-worth.

In combination then, this can lead to a state and society that are aligned in terms of values and the good life. The results and consequences can only be salubrious and redound positively to all. So let us make an effort to smile, be kind and generous, respect and acknowledge the inherent dignity and self-worth of all. It can only be an unalloyed good for us and society at large.

A Less Hungry World is a Better World

‘Talking about culture, cultural and societal difference is a luxury. An empty stomach gives short shrift to these considerations’. These were the concluding remarks of a conversation I was having with a dear friend and colleague of mine. My friend- a highly intelligent, urbane and sensitive guy-had a very valid point. It has a resonance in the world at large and the subcontinent in particular. Hunger, deprivation and poverty eviscerate the finer and higher sensibilities of men/women. This constitutes a tragedy and a travesty. The ultimate goal and aim for humans should, besides being one with the Creator and Creation, should be self and societal improvement. This can happen only when the basic needs of a person or peoples are met.

To take recourse to organizational theory, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs must be met and satisfied. Maslow built and developed a hierarchy of needs at the base of which was the very human need for food and shelter. The rest followed. The question is how can this condition or state of affairs be brought about?

I am no economist and development economists have been grappling with this question for decades if not more. What I have to offer are a set of observations based on my very sparse understanding of economics, political economy and political theory.

The way to provide a decent living standard for peoples constituting states, nations and the world at large may be to re-align the state in a manner that is responsive to the needs of the people. This naturally means good governance.(I am not going into the polemic over the nature of good governance. Suffice it to say that good governance should mean responsive and responsible governance). The premise behind good governance should and must be human security wherein the state or states reorient their thrust and focus on the dignity and welfare of their people. This must be complemented by a role for the markets. The state and the markets should neither be competing with each other nor work at cross purposes with each other. They should be aligned and in sync.

The state should provide an enabling environment; and the markets should be allowed to work within a reasonable regulatory framework. The delicate balance must be crafted in a way that is no room or scope for either ‘market failure’ or state failure. If this is too ideal a state, then the balance should be designed in a way where one compensates for the failings of the other.

Once the state gets this right, it should find for itself a niche in the global economy and get integrated into the sinews of globalization and the global economy. Autarky and import substitution –the mantras of the socialist model preferred by the erstwhile decolonized- must give way to an open or a mixed economy paradigm. The trajectory of the Asian Tigers is a classic example of this even though their economic model was premised on export led growth which naturally encounters diminishing returns. A small city state like Singapore or a state like Taiwan owes its success to this.

Once a reoriented, welfare enhancing and well governed state is in place, the political system of the state(s) should be aligned to democracy and pluralism. In this schema, people must be given a voice and each voice must be heard and respected, human rights should inform the thrust of the state and be elevated onto a pedestal and minorities should be treated as coeval with the majority. In sum, the state should be informed by a commitment to freedom.

This should be complemented by imparting vigour and dynamism into International organizations and global governance. The efforts of states should be aligned with that of international institutions and the famous mantra, trade not aid’ should be accorded substance and imparted impetus and momentum. Here the developed North may have to go the extra mile to be generous and open their markets to exports of the South and not subsidize their farming lobbies, for instance. Free® trade should be made real and substantive.

This is a very reductive and rough template of what could be done to resolve the problem of poverty and deprivation. Cumulatively and in combination, a dedicated focus on the prescriptions identified here may lead to a more prosperous and peaceful world. The problem of poverty while it will never be eradicated completely may be resolved to a large extent and people can then devote themselves to culture, the arts and other finer and higher aspects of life. It is then I can have a conversation with my friend without being out argued by a very valid point.

McDonalds and Peace: The Golden Arches Theory of Peace

McDonaldsand Peace: The Golden Arches Theory of Peace;

A couple of days ago, I was having dinner at the KC Residency hotel’s revolving restaurant in Jammu. As the revolving restaurant spun around, my eye caught the neon sign logo of the fast food chain, McDonalds. The golden arches of McDonalds gleamed and cast an eerie glow on the roof top of the building on which it was nested. I took a stroll down the memory lane and thought of Australia where I went almost a decade and a half ago as a student. Australia was, at that point in time, going through ferment. Its traditional assumptions about the state, nation , society and the economy were being integrated with the new and the novel. Anyway, this is beside the point here. My thought process went back in time and the controversial but highly astute New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman came to my mind. More accurately, a certain thesis that he propounded in his award winning book,’ The Lexus and the Olive Tree’ came to my mind.

Friedman had , in his book- an ode to globalization- posited and observed that no two dyads of countries or pairs of countries he had visited had gone to war if they had a McDonald’s chain operating in their territories. He did not mean to assert that there was a correlation between war,peace and McDonalds per se. The point was profound. Friedman meant that if a country had McDonalds in its territory, it meant and implied that the country was enmeshed in the sinews of globalization, trade and commerce. And because this redounded positively to the country or countries in contention, it was against the national interest of the country to disturb this and opt for conflict and war. This assertion or theory was the modern day rendition of a theory or thesis propounded by Norman Angell’s years ago. Angell’s theory was later modified toward the last phased of the Cold War and came to be known as complex interdependence. The thrust of complex interdependence was that conflict and war between countries became highly improbable if they were enmeshed and intertwined in commerce and trade. Conflict then became a high stakes game which countries enmeshed in the complex interdependence paradigm. This has been made poignant and salient by the contemporary phase of globalization.

The questions that nagged my mind at the KC Residency were: Would complex interdependence paradigm be applicable in the subcontinent? Would having McDonalds restaurants across the state of Jammu and Kashmir , India and Pakistan be the antidote to conflict between India and Pakistan? How could complex interdependence be made real in the subcontinent?

There is no doubt in my mind about the consequences of complex interdependence in the subcontinent. If the two historical antagonists-India and Pakistan- enter into a relation of complex interdependence, the entire subcontinent would be peaceful and prosperous. Yes, there will be conflicts but they would fall in the domain of low politics subject and amenable to resolution through negotiation and discussion. This has precedents especially in the form of the European Union where functionalism and spill over was taken recourse to. Both meant tying the respective economies of historical enemies and antagonists into the framework of commerce and trade. Or, in other words, complex interdependence. The results of this are for all to see. Western Europe, once defined by intra-European conflict and an orgy of killing and war is now a zone of peace and co-operation.(The EU’s contemporary travails and problems are a different matter altogether).

Trade and commerce sublimate negative energies and make people develop a stake in the society, polity and the economy. These, in combination (even though economists are divided over this), lead to economic growth and development- something that the peoples of the subcontinent badly need. If hostile Europeans defined by rivalry and animus towards each other could be reconciled to each other through the magic of complex interdependence, the probability of the same happening in the subcontinent is high. Complex interdependence can potentially obviate the conflict and animus that has held India and Pakistan in thrall.

The question then is how to make complex interdependence real in the subcontinent? This is no rocket science. The structural conditions that obtain in the world of today make the possibility of complex interdependence in the subcontinent eminently possible. The contemporary world is defined by an inexorable logic of globalization and is marked by expanded trade, commerce and crisscrossing capital flows. All that needs to be done is to open up to and embrace this world. India has already done so but Pakistan’s approach and orientation is wanting. If Pakistan opens up and then develops trade and commercial complementarities with India, this can redound positively to it and then the subcontinent can reap the dividends from trade and commerce. The results will be salubrious. The peoples of the subcontinent will benefit and their aspirations met. Intrastate conflict between India and Pakistan will be given short shrift and the shadow of conflict and war will not loom over these countries. This will, instead of being a zero sum game be a positive sum one where all will benefit.

What could bring about this scenario is astute and sagacious statecraft and diplomacy that looks beyond the zero sum frameworks that the two countries are locked in. It would also mean aligning the subcontinent with the trend and theme of the times. It would take a conceptual shift. And, it would, given the trend and forces of the times, sooner or later happen. However, wisdom dictates that the tea leaves be read and then vigorous action taken to enmesh the two countries in a framework of trade, commerce or complex interdependence. This would save precious lives and material and would allow the redirection of energies towards salubrious ends. It is about time then that powers that be in the subcontinent recognize the need and the trend and not go against it. Let the golden arches of McDonalds cast their glow on the dark corners and recesses in India, Pakistan and the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Globalization and the City

Globalizationand the City

The city is an age old phenomenon, concept and reality. And it never ceases to intrigue me. I have visited and lived in the major cities of the world- New York, Sydney, London, Dubai and New Delhi. The constant and the theme that defines cities is the variety of people they attract. Be it Sydney or New York or Delhi, a churn and a mass of different peoples defines the city. The city, in different permutations and combinations, nourishes and nurtures all. The city can be ruthless, Darwinian and benign at the same time. The citychanges, chops and alters the nature and orientation of its denizens or dwellers. It forces people into a certain comportment and behaviour. People of different natures, talents, orientations and worldviews inhabit and form thecity. This has been made salient and poignant by the forces of globalization or more accurately, this phase and wave of globalization.(Globalization is also an age old phenomenon).

The city or the major cities of the world are now nodal points in the global economy where an certain ecology that is supportive of the processes of globalization is incubated. Even cities that are not critical to the global economy have, in some way or the other, gone global. Walk or drive around Jammy city and you won’t be hard pressed to find a Pizza Hut outlet or the smiling visage of Ronald McDonald. Most major brands can also be found. Thecity then is the incubatory of capitalism. Truck, barter or exchange is one of the defining mottos of the city. And capitalism then is supportive of or even thrives on diversity and renders cultural and ethnic or religious differences rather mute. The Sikh, the Hindu, the Muslim and the Christian are all out there to truck , barter, and trade or just saunter. The Hindu may want to eat vegan but will not pass over a deal with a Muslim or vice versa. The city and capitalism then have a synergetic and mutually symbiotic relationship with each other.

Is this alarming? Would this lead to the so called homogeneity and airportization of the world? No is the clear cut answer. On the face of it, McDonalds may force people to eat in a certain way- buy burgers off the counter and then quickly eat the meal in its minimalist environs but people are not wired to be the same or adhere to a lifestyle and orientation is determined by mass consumption. People are unique and the cultural and value systems that animate people are deep rooted. And moreover, people are individuals with a unique worldview and orientation. So people, to use the cliché, will always be people. A paradox is in operation here: people are people-different, varied and unique but at the same time same. We are all defined by similar fears, aspirations and pleasures; at the same time, we are unique individuals with different views, orientations and lifestyles. The city has space for all of this. At any given moment in a day, the buzz and the energy of the city makes it seem like a hazy , inchoate mass with no character but probe deeper and thecity hides incredible diversity of outlook, worldviews and behaviours in it.

An enquiry and curiosity about the nature of the city is an experience in itself. It yields rich insights about people and how the citymakes people behave in a certain way. Cities are nurseries and incubatories. And despite the so called homogenization thesis, each city is unique. Cities can offer glimpses into a societies past and how that past interacts with the present. Take Srinagar, for instance. The Srinagar city offers a wealth of insight into origins and development. With a certain view and attitude, thecity offers trips into history, the remnants of the past are visible, the co-existence of different religions and ethnicities with mosques and shrines and temples butting each other as the river Jhelum meanders under the seven bridges.

Cities then should be nurtured. Every city has a unique character and theme to it. This should be enhanced. This can be done by a more or less market friendly policy wherein planning is in accord with market forces. Cities should not be tinkered with or socially engineered. They should be allowed to develop organically. Cities , in a way, can be both living museums and monuments to the future. Let the city be allowed to be a city and let us all savour and relish what the city has to offer.

The Turkish Conundrum: East, West or Both?

The Turkish Conundrum: East, West or both?

Turkey-that great nation or, it may not be far- fetched to assert, civilization state- is in the midst of a churn. The world is watching what direction the country will take. Turkey’s trajectory and direction will have global repercussions and reverberations. Condemned to a somewhat middle power status and beholden to the West on account of its top down modernization, Turkey may however be just on the cusp of being an important player in world and regional politics. This top down modernization may not have been all too salubrious for the Turkish state and nation. (Forced, coercive modernizations never are).

It led to what Huntington called a cleft country and a divided nation and society unsure of its moorings and identity. Politically, it led to a system which was a kind of a hybrid between authoritarianism and democracy. In terms of its international orientation, Turkey remained wedded to its hope(vain) of accession to the European Union. Cumulatively, all this had all sorts of consequences and ramifications for the Turkish nation and polity. In sum, the self –confidence of Turks ebbed and the county remained mired in a morass of its own making.

This , however, is now changing. Turkey is reaching out to its erstwhile antagonists with whom it remained estranged for years-the Arabs and is also reaching out to the Muslim world. This is very good. But it begs the question as what Turkey’s overall orientation should be? Should it hitch its wagon with the Arab Muslim and non -Arab Muslim world and jettison its relations with the west? Is this what the look East policy would mean? Or should Turkey choose the middle path and reorient itself in a direction wherein it becomes a real and not merely rhetorical bridge between Islam and the West?

These are very important and critical questions to which Turkey must have a substantive response. By way of aiding and helping Turkey to arrive at a response, it is the authors view that Turkey should and must choose the middle path. Why?

This is because the Muslim world cannot afford to be isolated and it needs a viable model and approach that synthesizes modernity with Islam. And it is only Turkey that can provide this model. The confidence in this assertion is premised on history , Turkey’s painful tryst with modernity, experience and its current experiment with integrating modernity with Islam that is in accord with the nature and temper of the Turkish people.

Historically, Turkey was the centre of gravity of the Islamic world for a long time and it left its imprimatur on the Islamic world and psyche. The rupture which took place after the eruption of Arab nationalism and political decay in Turkey has had deleterious consequences-both for Turkey and the world of Islam. The world of Islam lost a compass and , frankly speaking, lost its way. The consequences are for all to see. And Turkey retreated into itself caught in a modernizing impulse that was essentially alien to it.

However, to repeat, this is changing. This should not mean that Turkey jettison the political capital and other salubrious effects that its post caliphal orientation has had. While Turkey should drop its European Union obsession, it must not turn away from the West. The vain hope of accession in to the EU has been rather humiliating and, honestly speaking, instead of being helpful has divided and alienated the Turks further. Turkey, must summon its collective will, introspect and say NO to the Europeans. It must then turn its efforts and gaze to the west that is further afield- the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.

This approach must be complemented by a vigorous and substantive , ‘ Look East’ policy wherein Turkey asserts itself in the Arab Muslim East in an idiom that is not informed by historical memory or baggage. This new approach could mean expanded trade and economic relations with the Arab Muslim states and a graduable education and initiation of these states into modernity- democracy, the integration of reason with faith and other related aspects. Or, in other words, Turkey must evolve and devise a model and template of modernity that reflects its essence and integrates it with the salubrious aspects of the West’s modernity.

It is this evolved paradigm that may be taken up and emulated by others in the Muslim world. Nad it will also allow Turkey to be open to the west; not Europe though. Turkey is at a very delicate and sensitive moment of its history. It is essential and exigent that Turkey gets it right. The trajectory of the Muslim world may well be contingent on the path that Turkey adopts. We wish it all the best.

On Cufews, Desecration and Social Peace in Kashmir: A Conversation with our Collective Self

The latest incident of unspeakable desecration has prompted the government to impose curfew in parts of Srinagar. The desecration appears to be an attempt by nefarious forces to disturb the peace and amity that obtains in Kashmir. Lest the attendant outrage morph into an ugly situation, the government has imposed curfew as a pre-emptory measure. This is a prudent measure. However, it raises a set of questions: do we Kashmiris need to be under a curfew lest our arguments take a violent turn? Is our collective ego so fragile that we can be provoked my mischievous elements in a jiffy? What does all this tell us about the nature of our social and cultural ethos? Should we be taking recourse to the values that define us-tolerance, mutual respect and accommodation or should violence be the arbiter of all our arguments-social, religious and political?

Let us consider our social and cultural ethos first. Nurtured and nourished over centuries, our social and cultural ethos was and continues to be defined by tolerance, acceptance and respect for all. This is wired into the Kashmiri psyche. This then means that we are essentially a peace loving people and accommodative of diversity and plurality of opinion. What then explains the tendency to take our arguments-political, religious and cultural-on the streets?

This may be explained by the fact that our collective selves and sensibilities tend to be hurt by what are either slights or insults to what he hold dear and value. All is this well and good. We have the right to and should feel outraged to what are assaults on our values and what we hold dear. However, what is alarming is that this outrage take a violent turn. This is alien to our ethos and culture. If this constitutes an aberration and is alien to us, what could be done to obviate and negate this?

What we perhaps need to do is introspect. We need to delve deep into our collective self and have a conversation with our collective self. This means that we think through and thoroughly why we reach a tipping point and then take our arguments out on the street. This exercise will not only be cathartic but also revelatory. It may reveal that we have become overly sensitive and we vent out in ways that are alien to our nature and psyche.

It is not for one moment even implied here that we should not feel angry or outraged over scurrilous and outrageous incidents. What is meant here is that we should calmly see through the agendas and mischief behind these outrageous acts and then offer a calm, self- assured response that silences both our detractors and mischief makers. If we opt for violence then this means handing our enemies and mischief makers a victory on a plate- a gratifying victory which validates their cynical views about Kashmir and Kashmiris.

We are not a violent people. Violence is alien to use. We attracted the best of Sufis because of the beauty of the vale and our temperament and disposition. We evolved a unique syncretic dynamic where respect for human dignity, values and opinion was the norm. This has been a centuries old process and phenomenon. Islam was superimposed on this structure of values and beliefs very seamlessly and we became an example of peace and amity. It is this legacy that we are giving short shrift to by resolving arguments through violence. And it is against this that we must be eternally vigilant.

We are a capable, compassionate, intelligent, sensitive and kind people. It is these fine qualities that we must take recourse to when we feel outraged or when our decency is assaulted. Our collective self has been bruised by the violence of the past couple of decades. This self needs healing and it can only be healed when we become the paragons of peace, abstain from violence and answer our detractors, enemies and mischief makers with calm, rational argument; not violence. We would then be being true to our- selves and nature.

And it would do us a lot of good. Calm , dispassionate analysis of our problems and issues will lead to solutions that will redound positively to our society. Violence, to the contrary will only aggravate them. So let us with all sincerity and conscientiousness have this conversation with ourselves and then look each other squarely in the eye and ask: Is this really us? Do we need curfews to impose peace? The answer will be a resounding no.

Multiculturalism, state and the nation

On multiculturalism, the state and the nation

A few years ago, while strolling down the beautiful esplanades of Copenhagen, a group of young children noticed me, looked intensely and remarked,’ look, a painted man’. I had been travelling across Western Europe and had acquired a bit of a tan. I was amused. I smiled and waved and the children waved back bemused at having seen a brown skinned person who was very different from what they were exposed to. This did not come as a surprise to me: Western Europe, especially Scandinavia, was not (and is not) like the Anglophone multicultural countries where I had lived. The brown, black and yellow man was still a novelty and considered exotic. This was a far cry from Anglophone and Anglosaxon countries like the United States, Australia and Canada or neo wests where difference was no longer an issue and different peoples formed and comprised the respective firmaments of these countries. Respect for and even appreciation of difference and diversity was and is the norm in these countries.

The fact of difference being the defining feature of most societies dawned upon me again recently. This was driven home to me by the remarks of a Kashmiri friend and a colleague from Jammu. The Kashmiri friend , whilst travelling with me in my car remarked that there was nothing in common that Kashmiris had with the people of Jammu. Everything- customs, religion, language, mores and worldviews- was different. This observation was eerily echoed by a colleague of mine who is from Jammu. However, both set of peoples found themselves bound by a common state framework where they interacted on a functional and need based basis. Whilst there was reaction against multiculturalism by disgruntled elements in the Anglophone west, this was more or less cancelled by the broad acceptance, recognition and appreciation of difference and diversity in these countries.

What lessons does it hold for non -western cultures and societies like ours defined by tremendous diversity and difference as they are? Broadly speaking, what this mean for the state and the nation and nationalism? And how should the state everywhere respond?

Diversity and difference is not unique to the west. It is ubiquitous. Witness even a small, homogenous place like Kashmir: people of different shapes, sizes and features form the Kashmiri firmament. This difference is subsumed by a common language with different accents and dialects, common customs and culture. Or , broadly speaking, consider India. The country is many countries rolled into one. A Maharashtrian is as different from the Punjabi or the Assamese or the Tamilian as chalk from cheese in terms of culture, customs, mores or even religion. Yet they all comprise the firmament called India. However, while as the state recognizes difference and diversity, multiculturalism as a socially accepted concept and reality is not that strong. There is an element of distance –emotional and psychological-between various cultures and sub cultures. This must change. People must see people as people first and Punjabis, Kashmiris, Tamilians later. The same should and must hold true for other countries defined and marked by diversity and difference. This is the essence of humanism and human rights.

Broadly speaking, this means that the model of nationalism that animated countries – a model which saw the nation (a homogenous entity ) coterminous with the state should change. Assimilative straitjackets should not be foisted and forced upon people. It should be perfectly okay for different identities of a person- primary, secondary and tertiary- to be in harmony and in accord with each other. A Sindhi from Pakistan should be as comfortable with being a Sindhi as he/she is with being Pakistani. Or a Tamilian equally comfortable with being Tamil and Indian at the same time. The same should hold true for different peoples forming the western firmament. There is no reason tension between the various identities of a North African Muslim living in Australia. He/she can be Tunisian, North African, Muslim and Australian at the same time. This has practical and prudent effects: it can potentially obviate the estrangement and alienation that defines many immigrants in different societies. Consequently, then, to twist the Andersenian phrase, new communities have to be imagined.

Nationalism premised on homogeneity and sameness is passé: it does not speak to the contemporary condition. Multiculturalism has to be the new mantra. However, this should not lead to the narcissism of small difference where minor differences are amplified and magnified leading to deleterious consequences. The modern or post-modern state should respond by promoting multiculturalism and making it a reality. This should be followed by acceptance, recognition and appreciation of multiculturalism and its concomitants diversity and difference by society. It is perhaps only when the state and society are on the same page regarding difference and diversity that can lead to peaceful and prosperous societies. And it is then that I ‘wont be seen as a painted exotic species in Denmark and my friend from Kashmir and the colleague from Jammu will recognise and appreciate difference as well as the sameness inherent in all of us.

O Palestine!

Israel’s air offensive in Gaza has cost around 100 lives. The world is mute to this carnage and brazen assault. The regional bully-Israel- is preparing for a ground offensive which would drag the region into war. Its prime minister- Benjamin Netanyahu- the smooth talking , snake oil salesman like person who likes to charm the Americans with nonsense and hate filled bile has his eyes firmly on the impending elections and is using cynically the offensive to shore up support for himself. America has made some noises about the carnage but essentially dares not upset and offend its regional ally.

All this then leaves the trajectory and denouement of the conflict to the regional players like Turkey, Egypt and the mini statelet, Qatar. This is an interesting and a novel development. Saudi Arabia is not in the picture; neither is Iran. This then means that the region’s power equations and dynamic are changing and new configurations emerging. Turkey, hitherto the only Muslim ally of Israel has also made some interesting remarks which essentially put or deepen the distance and gulf between it and Israel. Turkey may not be entirely rooting for the Palestinians on account of altruism. It may be trying to insert and involve itself in Arab Muslim affairs and looking eastward; than westward. Egypt with whom Israel has a peace treaty is now governed by the Muslim Brotherhood. It may be Egypt and Turkey in combination that may exert diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop the invasion and the bloodshed. This is because both states are now important players and have or hold some leverage over Israel. Israel may not want to lose the only vestige of support it has in the Muslim world and it may be keen to keep the peace treaty between it and Egypt intact.

If Egypt and Turkey are successful in halting the orgy of violence, it is all well and good and will be welcomed by all. However, the essential question of Palestine and the conflict remains. The diplomatic flurry to stop the violence will then be in the nature of a palliative and a balm: it will stem the blood flow but not the rot within. It is this question and conflict that the international community should be devoting itself to. The latest flare up-whatever the immediate catalyst and reason- is just the symptom; not the disease. It then is irrational to merely attend to the symptoms.

So what should the international community be doing? First, we should disaggregate the international community. The international community is the United States and the regional Arab Muslim players insofar the Israel Arab dispute is concerned. There is no such thing as a European international presence or foreign policy. The European Union is a joke insofar international politics and relations are concerned. Yes: it makes noises on and off , but making noise just makes it feel good and assuage its collective ego. So essentially, it is the United States along with the new regional players that can, in the final analysis, lead to a final and lasting settlement of the Israel Palestinian dispute.

The United States should assert itself again and inject life into the now moribund peace process. This may even constitute America’s national interest given its low standing in the Arab and Muslim worlds and the widespread anti Americanism prevalent in the lands. It is not implied that here that the country bend its back backwards but rather it leans on its ally in the Middle East: Israel. The United States should essentially be telling Israel that it gets is act together and seriously negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians. The Israeli response will be usual: the old , sterile and hackneyed one that it has no one to talk to. Israel will point out to Hamas , call it a terror outfit bent on destroying the state of Israel. It will also cast Hamas as an anti -western entity and depict the conflict between Israel and Palestine in civilizational terms. The United States should call Israel’s bluff , see through it and insist on restarting the peace process.

Similarly, the United States should quietly open communications with Hamas and ask the organization to be open to negotiations. The country could use the good offices of Egypt to convey its desire to restart negotiations with Hamas. The issue here is more broader and wider than the Israel Palestinian conflict. It is , at some levels, a metaphor for the alleged conflict between the West and Islam. The United States unqualified and strong support for Israel’s policies is viewed in the Muslim world as an example of the country’s hostility towards Islam. This is untrue but perceptions matter. (Israel plays this up and presents itself as the West’s face and outpost in a hostile orientalist environment).

The United States would do well in discarding its assumptions about the Israel Palestinian dispute and give the peace process a shove. It should see the situation and the conflict objectively and then do the requisite. Both Hamas and Israel should reciprocate sincerely. This will not be palatable to many in the United States but prudent and sagacious statecraft is not about pandering or pleasing people or lobbies. It is about cold national interest and peace. It is with this in mind that the United States should approach the conflict and bring about a solution that is satisfiscing. A lot of good will come out of it.