Bandipora Fake Encounter: Innocence Murdered

 The cold blooded murder of a young man in a Bandipore hamlet is perhaps a metaphor for the Kashmiri condition. The young man in contention, Hilal Ahmed Dar, at the pinnacle of his life, was apparently a devout and a pious Muslim who was seduced by an army informant by the siren song of jihad and then murdered in cold blood in cahoots with the army. A classic counter insurgency tactic to inveigle and bamboozle, trap and then eliminate militant cadre, the murder of Hilal is copybook. However, what makes it macabre, devious and sinister is that Hilal was not a militant but a wannabe one. And the seeds of militancy had been planted in Hilal’s mind by the informant in exchange of monies. Why and what for was this gory and devious deed committed? Only impartial investigations will reveal the motive and the intention of the perpetrators of the crime. One can at this point in time merely speculate: a few medals on the shoulders and perhaps a promotion plus pecuniary reward on part of the perpetrators may have motivated the crime.

Can this be dismissed as an aberration, a one off gory event? No. It cannot. Numerous incidents like these have time and again reared their ugly head in Kashmir since the eruption of militancy. At the same time, in the interest of fairness, a pattern cannot be inferred from this incident. One premise of militants-again corresponding to classic copy book insurgent tactics- was to provoke the Indian security forces into lashing against civilians and catalyze massive disaffection against the Indian state. The Indian security forces, by and large, barring some egregious instances of police and army brutality and civilian killings have not randomly and wantonly killed civilians. This , however, does not exonerate the crimes and criminals like the one in contention. Human life is sacrosanct. No one has the right to snuff human life and kill.

The killing and the murder raises broader issues and questions that the powers that be in India should dwell on. What accounts for the brazen killing? What gives the armed forces license to kill? If a case is made that Hilal was a wannabe be militant and the circumstances leading to his killing are mere detail, what accounts for Hilal’s flirtation and dalliance with jihad? What motivated him? If a young , impressionable man was motivated by the Kashmir conflict and the siren songs of Jihad, are there numerous others like him waiting in the offing for the right moment and opportunity? Have the hearts and minds of Kashmiris then been really won? What lessons should the Indian political class draw from this?

The answer to the first set of questions is axiomatic: the crime was committed because of the infamous Armed Forces Special Powers Act(AFSPA). This act -provides cover for any atrocity committed by the Armed forces. The AFSPA gives a security personnel or officer innumerable powers-to kill and destroy with impunity. It was obviously under the cover of AFSPA that the conspiracy to inveigle, trap and kill Hilal was hatched. And if the powers that be in the Indian power structure are serious about winning the peace in Kashmir, removing AFSPA is the first step.

There are broader and wider lessons to be learned from the saga. The first is that insurgencies can be contained by the coercive power(s) of the state but containment  does not necessarily mean the end of the conflict. Prudent and long lasting conflict resolution entails and means taking the bull by the horns and addressing the clichéd root causes of the conflict. The Indian state could be held guilty of focusing on containment and conflict management and not addressing the real causes of the conflict. This manifests itself in the fact that the consciousness of young men like Hilal is animated by the conflict in Kashmir and their desire to take to arms and rather innocently force the issue by the force of arms and jihad. There must be countless Hilal’s in the offing in Kashmir. Can they or should they be eliminated and what inference should the Indian political class draw from this?

Eliminating merely reduces the body count. The impulse and idea behind that motivates wannabe Hilal’s is merely exacerbated. So what can and should be done? The answers are clear cut: the Indian political class should get over the politics of paranoia and address and remove the conflict in Kashmir for good. This means reaching out to Kashmiris and instituting both a bottoms up and top down political process in Kashmir. Specifically, this means granting either greater autonomy or self rule to Kashmiris and at the same time, the focus should be on improving the life chances of Kashmiris Or, in other words, human security.

Dilly dallying, obstructionism, the politics of paranoia and narrowly defined national and security interests should give way to an imaginative approach. Sincerity should inform this approach and then vigorous action taken to change the dynamic and paradigms in Kashmir. Till this new approach is conceived and then implemented, the Indian political class should expect the imagination of more Hilal’s to be fired by the conflict in Kashmir and jihad against India. Kashmiris have long suffered and are under the shadow of political uncertainty. It is about time that this be given short shrift. Let Hilal’s death not go in vain.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: the Pakistani Ambassador's take on Strategic Depth policy

Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Sherry Rahman, has asserted that Pakistan’s policy of ‘strategic depth’ has changed. So has the country’s ‘attitude’ toward India. Briefly, the policy of strategic depth meant that Pakistan would actively work toward building and cultivating a buffer against India on its western border. This buffer state would be Afghanistan and , in the strategic depth schema, a ‘friendly’ regime in Afghanistan would be in the interests of Pakistan. This strategy and formulation entailed cultivating and supporting the Taliban and playing the tribal fabric of Afghanistan against each other.

Whether this policy was assiduously adhered to or not is moot. The point is that this strategy is held to have held the power structure of Pakistan in thrall and certain ‘path dependence’ defined it. Or, in other words, it was institutionalized.  The same could be said about India’s orientation and approach towards India. Defined by hostility and animus, this approach is woven into the fabric of both the state and society of Pakistan. This too, it could be posited safely, has been institutionalized. The collective Pakistani reflex is hostility towards India.

Giving up the strategic depth formulation and the long held hostility towards India means and implies a comprehensive review of the Pakistani state, its power structure and the ideology that informs it. This review is revolutionary in import: it means tackling institutional forces head on, reviewing the ideology upon which Pakistan is predicated upon, taking on the vested interests and giving short shrift to the path dependence of Pakistan’s institutions. It is not a process that can be initiated and crystallized in smoke filled rooms with conspiratorial airs, so to speak and the ante chambers of the Pakistani establishment. In essence, this review and change implies bold and beautiful leadership that build a new Pakistan from the detritus of contemporary Pakistan. In sum, this much desired review is revolutionary and can perhaps only happen with blood on the streets and power corridors of Pakistan.

The question then is: Is the Pakistani ambassador lying? Is she playing to the gallery (The gallery in contention here is the United States). Or is Pakistan really in transition and a new international and orientation in the offing?

The cynicism and the skepticism that has been articulated in this piece perhaps answers the last question. It bears mention again. The outward orientation and the foreign policy of Pakistan, of which strategic depth is an important component flows and stems from the nature and the ideational premise of Pakistan. In this schema, gaining strategic depth and animus towards India is perhaps an existential question for Pakistan. And it is woven into the fabric and entrails of Pakistan. Reviewing this entails smashing the institutional superstructure of Pakistan, creating a new legitimizing ideology of Pakistan and its acceptance by the masses. This, as far as the eye can see, is not happening. The Pakistani ambassador then is out of touch with reality or is clearly lying. Why?

The answer may lie in Pakistan’s need to enjoy good and salubrious relations with the sole superpower, the United States. Despite the Pakistani elites’ protestations to the contrary, the country needs the United States more than the United States needs it. This accrues from the United States’ exit plans from Afghanistan, the winding down of the global war on terror paradigm, and the reversion of international politics to mean. That is , the quotidian , prosaic and ‘unsexy’ interstate politics. In this scheme, Pakistan has neither room for maneuver nor geopolitical space for itself. The choices it has are to either morph into a ‘spoiler state’ or pretend to be a normal state , peace with itself and the world. The former choice- a possible outcome- would not be in the long term interests of Pakistan. The latter accords and potentially offers it some honorable and credible space. The peace overtures to India and the invitation to the Indian prime minister are perhaps explained by this.

The international community and the United States then should not read too much into the ambassador’s statement. They should be read and interpreted for what they are: a desperate attempt to be in the good books of the United States. There is ,however, a silver lining to this. The ambassador’s statement should be held as the official stance of the Pakistani state and Pakistan should be held to these ostensible benchmarks. It should be made clear to Pakistan through the ambassador’s office that the United State’s is indeed taking seriously the alleged dropping of the strategic depth formulation and good relations with India. And that the quid pro quo for good relations with the United States and aid monies would the continuation of this new orientation and approach. While progress would not be expected overnight , the process would be monitored by the United States and aid monies and other aspects of the relationship reviewed only after real and substantive gains are made on the ground.

This may or may not bear fruit but is worth the attempt/effort. Mutation of Pakistan into a spoiler state is not in the interests of the United States or the international community. And in the final analysis, it is only the United States’ orientation and approach, whether by commission or omission, that potentially can determine the direction and trajectory of Pakistan. Let the United States humor ambassador Rehman , play the pretence game but render this pretence into a reality. The subcontinent’s future may depend upon this.

Assam Riots: the Precarious Idea of India?

India is no stranger to what are peculiarly called ‘communal’ riots. Be it the anti Sikh riots after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, the pogroms against Muslims in 1992 and later in 2002 where the state was complicit , India has historically been gripped by inter religious and ethnic conflict. The goriest instance of this was the violence that followed the partition and division of the Indian subcontinent. In different permutations and combinations, riots have been an indelible feature of both the pre and post independence India. This violence has reared its head again in Assam. According to official figures, these have till now consumed 45 lives. While this is really besides the point, the prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh has offered a generous financial package to the people hit by the these riots. And it is hoped that the riots do not have spillover and a ‘domino’effect in India.

‘Communal’ riots in India had, of late, been subsumed by concerns about/over terrorism. However, they are now back on the radar. These riots lead to a set of questions that the Indian political must answer and have a solid response to. The salient of these are: what accounts for these riots? Do these riots validate the two nation theory? Can multiculturalism obviate these? Or is multiculturalism in non western societies a non starter? Does the skewed economic growth and regional imbalances feed these riots? And, last but not the least, do these riots warrant a revisit of the idea of India? Is this idea, in the final analysis, a feeble and a precarious one?

The riots in contention may not accrue or stem from the generic reason for riots in India. That is, the animus and hostility between Muslims ad Hindus. Assam has a long history of illegal immigration and politics of secession by its tribals. The source of this illegal immigration is Bangladesh which has a long border with Assam. This illegal immigration into Assam and the settling down of these immigrants in Assam raised the hackles and ire of natives and culminated into a violent movement in the eighties. This changed the political coloration of the state. Fuelling this xenophobia was the economic backwardness of the state and it was complemented by the secessionist demands of its tribal community called the Bodo’s. Both issues were somewhat resolved. However, as the current riots demonstrate, not to everyone’s satisfaction. Dissatisfaction, frustration and discontent apparently simmered underneath the patina of calm, peace and amity. This latent anger and rage has now spilt out in the open and the result is rioting and violence. This then cannot held to be similar or in the same category of riots that usually stalk and bedevil India. As such they cannot really be held to be invalidating the Idea of India and validating the two nation theory.

What these riots do is call into the question the nature of multi culturalism in non western societies. It is often held and alleged that non western societies like India have enjoyed amicable and friendly inter ethnic and religious relations between different groups forming its mosaic and firmament. This , it is said, accrues from the philosophy that permeates and defines India. The riots that have been a defining feature of India and the riot in contention demonstrates this historiography is patently false. Inter group amity can perhaps , in the final analysis be upheld and maintained only by a liberal state that enjoins and upholds the rights of individuals. And this is a western concept and construct. This has implications on multiculturalism in non western societies. If these societies are to maintain inter group amity and peace, they may have to correspond to the notion and practice of multiculturalism as practiced in some western countries. Non western multi culturalism is then a chimera and a figment of the imagination of nativist and nationalist intellectuals.

This multiculturalism will come to naught if it is not buttressed and complemented by broad based and balanced economic growth and a reasonably equitable redistribution of resources and income. While India is stuck in its third generation economic reforms and much energy is dissipated over agonizing debates on this, it is curious that very little attention is paid to making this economic growth real for the teeming masses of India and its deprived regions. It is only balanced and equitable growth that can accord flesh to the notion and practice of multiculturalism in India and redeem the idea of India.

Till then, the idea of India will be a sophisticated academic construct and concept developed in safe and cozy confines of the western academy and validated by academics and intellectuals in the west. This is not to demean or discredit the idea of India. This idea is real and has withstood the test of time against the alarmist prognostications of India’s disintegration and demise as a coherent entity. It is about time then that substance be added to the layers that constitute the Idea of India and riots like the one in contention be pre-empted. The teeming , poor and underfed masses of India deserve this.

Is Peace between India and Pakistan Inevitable?

India’s foreign minister, S.M Krishna, asserted the other day that peace between India and Pakistan was inevitable. This exuberant statement has been followed by an invitation from Pakistan to the prime minister of India, for a visit to Pakistan later this year. What more can be salubrious for both the subcontinent and perhaps the world than peace between arch enemies and adversaries? The greatest beneficiary could well be Pakistan given that its national energies continue to be dissipated in Sisyphean endeavors, animosity and the attendant hostility against India. Needless to say, India too would be a beneficiary of comprehensive and long lasting peace between the two countries. And importantly, Kashmiris , the people who have perhaps suffered the most on account of the hostility between India and Pakistan would finally heave a sigh of relief and reap the attendant peace dividend.

The question is: is the Indian foreign minister’s remark a case of ‘irrational exuberance? Have not the two countries been there before? What is different this time? And finally what would catalyze real and lasting peace in the subcontinent?

The Indian foreign minister’s remarks can be read as reaching out to Pakistan and making this effort public. Incidentally, this remark and the ‘bonhomie in the offing’ come after President Obama’s clear cut assertion or disavowal of involvement in issues between India and Pakistan. This is all good. However, past history of the so called thaw between India and Pakistan and ‘the ‘breakthroughs’ or a new paradigm of relations have all come to naught. Be it the  Shimla Agreement, the lull between that and the diplomacy initiated after Operation Brass stacks, the various convolutions of the insurgency in Kashmir, the summitry after September 11 that came to known as the Agra Summit, all have, in the final analysis proven to be damp squibs. The status quo prevails till some incident-international or pertaining to the subcontinent-breaks the logjam and the saga of talks over talks begin once again. Is it different this time?

Yes and No. Yes, because Pakistan is in the midst of a structural and existential crisis and has no real leverage over the major sticking point between the two countries: the dispute over Kashmir. Second, the dispute in Kashmir has now transformed into a  conflict in Kashmir with separatism or more accurately the politics of separatism dying a rather natural death. (This does not mean that Kashmiris have accepted India’s sovereign remit over Kashmir and the separatist sentiment has died down). These two factors are the new structural conditions that obtain in Pakistan and Kashmir.

No, because Pakistan, the nation state that deems itself to be incomplete without Kashmir and sees incorporation of Kashmir into its sovereign remit as the ‘unfinished business of partition’ continues to be wedded to this ideology or formulation. Similarly, despite the patina or ostensible façade of democracy, Pakistan’s power structure comprising of the oligarhical praetorian elite continues to be the real power in Pakistan. These structural factors militate against a genuine détente between India and Pakistan.

Does this mean that the two antagonists will always be locked in perpetual hostility and animosity? And that real peace will never descend or crystallize in the subcontinent and it will always remain on the nuclear threshold?

Not necessarily. What could change the insalubrious and bleak dynamic in the subcontinent is real and lasting change in Pakistan. In this schema, Pakistan’s governing ideology will need to mutate into someth8ng salubrious. The major element and component of this paradigm shift has to be disavowing hostility against India and dropping the Kashmir obsession. This can only come about after a comprehensive review of Pakistan’s power structure and a consensus –both top down and bottoms up-on the nature of the naya(new) Pakistan, and the attendant change in Pakistan’s international orientation. Concomitant to this should be fresh approaches to the confict in Kashmir by powers that be in the Indian power structure. Sterile politics premised on paranoia and meanness, need to give way to fresh, approaches that smell of roses.

Whether Pakistan will change and mutate into a salubrious entity at peace with itself and the world is a billion dollar question. It may change or it may never change. Till this comes to pass, peace overtures between India and Pakistan will be like plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. And Mr. Krisha’s assertion could then be deemed as a case of irrational exuberance. This is the sad and prosaic reality of the relational dynamic between India and Pakistan. All the statement can elicit is a big yawn and yes, a sigh. Unfortunately.

Is Islam the West's Other? Identity and Conflict in the 21st Century and Beyond

 

It is commonly held that self definition requires the existence of an ‘other’. This, it is asserted, holds true for individuals and collectives like societies. Identity- a vague and a difficult to measure concept/notion- is informed by a dialectic akin to the Hegelian dialectic wherein identity formation takes place through interaction with either peoples from the same culture or others who differ significantly from oneself. This significant difference or significant ‘other’ accords coherence and a sense of structure to individuals and societies. Identity formation is then a complex process and game.

The Cold war accorded this coherence to the west and much of the western disarray and drift in the post Cold war, it is asserted, can be attributed to the absence of a significant ‘other’. Identity construction in this post Cold war world, in some quarters, constituted a quest ‘ in search of an enemy’. It was consequently asserted that Islam provided the perfect foil against which the west could define itself t. This assertion was premised upon the ‘bad blood’-the historical rivalry-between Islam and what constituted the west during the medieval ages.

 It was held that, even in their modern day avatars, the west and Islam stood in stark contradistinction to each other given their very different and fundamentally opposed outlooks and philosophies. This debate was lent credence after September 11 when a fringe Muslim group took upon itself to avenge the alleged ‘humiliations’ wrought upon the Islamic world by the west and attacked the United States. Both lay and sober opinion veered to this opinion in the west and the thesis propounded by that great political scientist, the scholar of scholars and the doyen of doyens, the late professor Huntington.

The thesis  titled, ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order’, basically held that the end of structural bipolarity, or the Cold War would , in the 21^ST century would give way to an all encompassing conflict between civilizations. It was asserted by the shy professor that the main axis of this civilizational conflict would be between Islam and the west. Islam and the west, in the good professor’s schema, were condemned to a primordial conflict and the result of this conflict would redound negatively to civilization.

This raises a set of questions, the salient of which are: Is Islam the West’s other? Are both foreordained and doomed to clash? Or can the current and contemporary phase of globalization give short shrift to this conflict? Is identity construction necessarily contingent on the significant other?

Both Islam and the west or the philosophies undergirding either are universalistic. Egocentrism and a sense of superiority which is held to be the prelude to ethnocentrism inhere in both. This, on the face of it, renders conflict and clash between these two value systems and philosophies rather inevitable. The reality, however, is more complex. Both are torchbearers and flag bearers of great civilizations and as the history of civilizations reminds us civilizations go through a cycle of rise, decline and fall. This may even constitute a historical truth and verity. And, it is very salient and poignant for the Islamic civilization- an entity and a force that reached its apogee sometime in the seventh/eighth century AD and this golden age lasted till the twelfth century AD(roughly speaking). After this, barring periods of revival (especially the Ottoman period) the overall story has been of decline and torpor.

 During this period of Islamic efflorescence and the attendant decline, the west was not a coherent entity. It was more or less congeries of principalities and kingdoms overlain by Christianity which acquired its impetus from Constantine. The ‘bad blood’ that accrued from the intermittent conflicts between the dar el Islam and what constituted the west, was premised upon what have famously been called the Crusades. The impulses behind these Crusades were multifarious: the need to maintain control by the ‘unholy alliance’ of ecclesiastical authorities and the monarchs and protecting their turf from the encroachments of the ever expanding forces of Islam. In short, this was not a civilizational conflict but multifarious conflicts which were more or less political and territorial in nature.

The world of Islam or the Islamicate, gradually lost its vigor and vitality. It retreated into itself and cocooned itself from the world.  In the meantime, the entity or the geographical zone which came to be known as the west began its rise. This rise was predicated upon the ideas and philosophies of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance- the results and fruits of painstaking work by brilliant philsophers. Essentially, this set the tone for modernity and its handmaiden, the scientific temper. The distilled essence of modernity was the questioning of dogma and tradition and quest for the mastery over nature. And the elements of modernity were ideas about man, society, government and economics. In sum, this was a triump of reason over dogma and superstition. This rendered the west west and since then these ideas have been ascendant. Yes, modernity and the ideas or impulses behind these came from a region termed as the west, but this does not necessarily mean that the west is a region or these ideas could only emanate from a certain race. Modernity, its principles and premises are universal and any civilization or culture can claim ownership of these.  The question of a clash between civilizations does not arise. It is then all about a clash or competition of/for ideas. And the ideas that emanated from what is called the west reign supreme. What, the question arises, should Islam’s reaction be to it?

Given the demonstrated success of the application of reason and the scientific method in organizing society, government, economic growth and state making, it behoves upon the world of Islam to  integrate reason with faith. It can do this by looking deep into the reservoirs of its philosophies and history and then dig out the conditions upon which reason was elevated or in the least deemed as almost integral to faith. This tradition needs to be revived and integrated into the mainstream of Islam. This does not entail frisson with the west; but fusion and synthesis. It is upon this synthesis that the Islamic world can emerge out of comprehensive decay and torpor. The salubrious news is that this is made eminently possible by globalization. Fluidity and elasticity  is inherent in globalization. And globalization stands in contradistinction to fixed ideas and entities like the state which has historically been the peg around which people hung their identities to. This means and implies that a range of identities that individuals have need not be in conflict. They can be in harmony. How is this relevant to the Muslim condition and the clash of civilizations?

The Muslim attitude of deeming the entire world as a a domain is salient here. Muslims need not align themselves to a state or a civilizational entity. They can be global citizens and deem the globe as their oyster; not to conquer but inhabit and co exist. Globalization renders this eminently possible.  The interaction with a whole host of ‘different’ peoples and the dialectic this entails will potentially lead to a different Muslim personality-at peace with itself and the world. This inevitably entails an open attitude and a temper that is in accord with modernity that emanated from the west. This is not a hypothetical condition. It is real. Other cultures not burdened with historical legacy have been globalized and become cosmopolitan in the process. It stands to reason , that Muslims too can mutate and morph.

Identities, given the fluidity that globalization entails, need not be fixed and frozen and they don’t need the existence of a significant other to fructify. Identity is malleable. And civilizations are porous entities. The osmosis that inheres in globalization can redound positively to the world and the world of Islam.   Globalization is modernity writ large and the forces of modernity are inexorable. They bring into their rubric any people or culture. The challenge for Islam is to take the bull by the horns and integrate modernity with faith lest the whirlwind of modernity engulf the world of Islam in a manner that is detrimental.

The overwhelming and powerful civilization life force is that of modernity. It may have emerged from the west. But this is serendipitous and an accident. There is no clash of civilizations on the anvil. What is happening is a clash between modernity, tradition and the forces of regression wrapped in a mantle of identity conflicts. Islam is not the west’s other. It can potentially be the west’s mirror. What needs to be done to crystallize this is to forge a world that continues to march to the drum beat of globalization. In this lies emancipation for all. Let us make haste slowly and make this world real.

Good Governance: the sine qua non for Peace, Development and Progress. A Dissenting Voice from the South;

 A comprehensive governance deficit is the defining condition of most if not all Third World countries and societies. It is the state or the nature of the state and its ancillary apparatii that is implicated in this. The harassment of the average citizen or denizen of Third World societies and countries begins from the bus ride to work, the abysmal and exploitative working conditions, and the demands that society exacts. In sum, both the state and to some extent, the society is predatory in these societies. This condition is all pervasive and structural. The systems-political, economic, administrative and cultural- in place in these societies are ossified, regressive, unwieldy and unresponsive.

The average person gets caught and trapped in a grind and a kind of a pincer movement from which it is next to impossible to extricate himself/herself. The results are insalubrious or unsalutary: simmering and latent anger underneath the patina of surface calm and peace- the kind that can get ignited and catalyzed into a revolution anytime- , over indignities and injustices that are all pervasive and structural. This leads to the politics of opportunism and system wide human rights violations, both by omission and commission. The options available to the denizens of these societies fall along the classic Hirschmanian formulation and continuum: exit, voice and loyalty.

 Given that the state and the political class of these societies is unresponsive, self serving and corrupt, loyalty to these is a far cry.  And because the political systems of these societies are primitive and ossified, there is no real scope for voice or interest aggregation through political systems. This leaves scope and room for exit: the victims of badly governed states make their exit by immigrating to where opportunity beckons. This is usually the west. If this exit is precluded, the result is all pervasive and structural violence and chaos in the societies and countries.

This raises a set of questions: what can be done to ameliorate the condition of the Third World? Can the impetus for change and reform come from within these polities and societies? Does the west have a moral responsibility to the denizens of these countries? If so, what form and shape should western assistance come in?

The condition of the Third World is abysmal. Ameliorating this condition does not lend itself to easy and facile solutions like aid or even trade. Profound structural factors, limitations and path dependence of ossified and moribund institutions militate against this. This and the fact the impetus for reform will never come from within can be said with certitude. Where the basics of life have to be fought over and the need for survival informs the life quest and aspiration and where politics is shambolic and predatory, reform can never crystallize save in the form of a revolution. And the tragedy of the Third World revolution is that it is, in the final analysis, a farce. This then leaves scope and room for Western intervention in these societies. This intervention is not predicated only upon moral grounds but is also premised on pragmatic reasons. The exports of the Third World to the west-terrorism and immigration, for instance, accrue from the conditions obtaining in these countries. These can be potentially obviated by prudent western intervention in the Third World.

What form and shape should this intervention come in? Despite the flak and harsh criticism that the twin sisters-the IMF and the World Bank-have come under from various quarters, their prescriptions of the gravamen of these prescriptions remain relevant. Be it the focus on ‘good governance’, structural reform or conditionality, these are and remain the best antidotes to resolving or obviating conditions in the Third World. However, these approaches need to en tweaked a little. Market fundamentalism which informed the much criticized ‘Washington Consensus’ should give way to a balanced approach to both the state and the market. Instead of a manic focus on a minimalist state, the emphasis should be on a better and a ‘good’ state-one that is responsive to the needs of its citizens. Or in other words, good governance with a remit and aim to improve the life chances of denizens of poor countries and enabling them to reach their potential, justice, provision and latitude for human rights should be the mantra of the institutions of global governance and western countries. It is a clear cut definition of the notion of good governance and its implementation that can potentially improve the condition of the denizens of the Third World. Structural adjustment and conditionality is but a concomitant to this and should thus not be given up or discarded.  The sovereignty of Third World nations is notional and in some cases even fictitious and this should not be allowed to come in the way of vigorous programs aimed at alleviating and improving the life chances and conditions of peoples comprising these nations.

These programs have come under considerable flak especially from the political left. Ensconced in some western universities and blowing hot air, lambasting the concept and notion of good governance and its corollaries has been a favorite past time of these academics. In the final analysis, this self indulgence is costly , more so given that these academics cannot and have not provided a viable alternative to improve the condition of the Third World. It is what exists that has to be improved upon , streamlined and made more efficient. Sleeping over the problem is fraught with peril given the implications and consequences of the continued degeneration of Third World polities and societies. This is made all the more salient and poignant by globalization. It is therefore about time that good governance be made a reality and a policy prop of western governments in their engagement with the Third World. It may not be an exaggeration to posit that , in the final analysis, world peace and stability may come to depend on this. Let haste me made slowly and efforts made to improve the human condition.

NOTE

Dear Readers:

Thank you for reading my blog posts. I have now enabled comments on my blog pieces. I would appreciate if my readers post their comments from now on.Many Thanks and Warm Regards.

Go West, Young Muslim!

We inhabit a  world  which is defined by what the eminent James Rosenau calls ‘fragmegration’ –the dialectical tension between the forces of integration and fragmentation-and one where the ‘clash of civilizations’ dynamic is allegedly panning out. Some assert that we live in a world where history has ended and by and large, mankind is, despite what can be called hiccups, marching towards progress. In this world, Muslims occupy an unenviable position: that of spoilers and losers. Muslims, in this schema, are on the side of the forces of disintegration.  Or, in other words, we, collectively, are on the wrong side of history, fighting battles that impede the world’s progress and redound negatively to us.

Be it any indicator or trend-globalization, mortality rates, economic growth, education, scientific progress-Muslims lag behind. The idiom we engage with the world or disengage from it is reactionary, regressive and harking back to centuries. The reasons for this are multifarious. However, what could be defined and averred as the most salient of these sets of reasons is our disengagement from the west and what a salubrious relationship with the west can potentially offer. The broad assertion will be denied vehemently by many Muslims and the counterargument made that our regression is explained by our collective abdication from the roots of Islam.

 The author’s insistence on the causes and roots of the Muslim malaise is premised upon what has been essentially missing from the modern Muslim consciousness: the sweet , bold and beautiful whiff of reason. The west or the nature of the west is premised upon reason and it stands as an epitome of reason. By making this broad assertion , faith is not meant to be decried and given up but instead  implied in engagement with the west is the synthesis of reason with faith. The question is how can this be arrived at?

The regimes that form and rule the Muslim world will deem this synthesis a threat to their very survival. They will then thwart and obstruct this. The systems-political, social , economic and cultural-in place in the Muslim world are so ossified and barren that these militate against Muslim efflorescence premised on a synthesis between faith and reason.  Real contact between the West and the Muslim world is elitist and the relationship is defined by reasons of state (narrowly defined) , the politics of oil and nowadays terrorism. The Muslim masses , in these scheme , are left out in the cold. In this environment, perceptions about the West are colored by negative stereotypes and false constructs- conditions not amenable to a fruitful, symbiotic learning process. So what can be done?

Globalization perhaps offers the redeeming solution. The mobility inherent in globalization entails may offer Muslims the opportunity of understanding and putting the west into perspective. Young Muslims should avail this opportunity and travel to the west and if possible get educated there. The critical method employed by the Western academy, the iconoclasm inherent in the west, the freedoms that the western edifice is built upon will rub onto Muslims and they can then integrate these into the corpus of their faith. An ancillary benefit would be disabusing themselves of the stereotypes prevalent in the Muslim world about the west, and disaggregating the west.

The west, if it is a geographical zone , is the Anglo Saxon west-the United States, Australia, Canada , New Zealand and the United Kingdom. It is this neo west that which is more tolerant, open and accepting and where Enlightenment and Renaissance principles are conformed to. The young Muslim is his/her travels across the west will learn of Europe’s regression, torpor , anomie and the hostility towards Islam and Muslims. And he/she will also learn and come to appreciate the beauty of the anglo saxon/ anglo phone west.

These travels across the neo west will be nothing short of self discovery and the discovery of the world. The young Muslim will then be the carrier of the finest traditions of the west and integrate them with the finest traditions and philosophies of Islam. Armed with reason and faith, he/she will then take on the forces of regression and torpor in the world of Islam and create and forge new conditions that will lead to progress and efflorescence.

The west is essentially a set of ideas about man, society, economics and government.  It is more than the sum of its parts and is not about hedonism. It is about freedom, liberty and choice. And, given the spread of the ideas of the west, these are successful and pragmatic ideas. The world of Islam needs these ideas to come out of the shell it is in. Integration, fusion and synthesis are the operative words here.

Our collective condition is bad, to say the least. There is no one to lead us out of our misery and torpor. It is then incumbent upon us to take the initiative and lead our societies out of despair, misery and deprivation. And it is only engagement with the west that can help and redeem us and render us on the side of the forces of integration and progress. It is about time that we internalize this and make the phrase,’ Go West, Young Muslim’, into a mantra. The time for this may be now.

Azadi(Freedom) for Kashmir: Pagah(Tommorrow)?

The word ‘pagah’ (tomorrow) is perhaps a metaphor for the Kashmiri condition- a condition defined by apathy, torpor  and insouciance, all overlain by a disconnect from the world. Be it the local corner store walla, the bank clerk, the post office walla, the all powerful, stalling and obstructionist afsar sahib (bureaucrat), the carpenter or the mason, or the minister sahib, the word pagah dribbles from their respective lips reflexively. Parallel to this is the very fluid notion of time here: nobody in Kashmir gives either a definitive datum or time for a meeting, appointment and so on.  The reflex here is fluid: if one asks for an appointment or a meeting, the response will invariably be 11-11:30, 2-2:30 or after a pausal pagah.  Never a definitive 3 pm or 4pm and one is lucky if the person does turn around the time he/she professes to turn up at. This pagah does not necessarily mean tomorrow. Its definition in the mind of the person articulating it is very fluid and open ended.

This condition is reflective of the conditions of life that obtain in Kashmir: languid, lazy and welfare state like. There is no sense of urgency and a  sense of drift pervades all walks of life. The question is: does this accrue from the political uncertainty afflicting Kashmir? Is the nature of public finance or the centre state financial relations and the attendant culture of subsidies responsible for this? Or does this accrue from more prosaic and mundane factors? Does it reflect the broader disconnect from the world, the global economy or even the Indian economy? Is this alarming? And can this be reversed? If so, how?

The condition of languidness, torpor and apathy that defines Kashmir is alarming. It clearly reflects Kashmir’s disconnect from both the wider Indian economy and the global economy. This means that Kashmir lives in a cocoon like environment or condition foisted upon it by the nature of Kashmir’s political economy. This economy or ecology sustains itself on centre state transfers and a culture of subsidies wherein Kashmiris do not really earn or work for the economic rewards accruing from these. Be it the employees of the bloated public sector or the so called entrepreneurs skimming of loans and the subsidies thereof, all are passive beneficiaries of this warped system. This is dangerous because it creates and leads to a culture of dependency on these transfers, stifles the mind and stultifies creativity and innovation. It, in the process, also creates a sense and culture of entitlement. This is reflected in the all pervasive Kashmiri yearning for a government job and dependence on the state and politicians and is incidentally then responsible for the politics of patronage. This then is dangerous and needs to be rectified on an urgent basis. The question is how?

Two parallel approaches and tacks need to be implemented in Kashmir for this mind set and culture to be given short shrift. One is vigorous Kashmiri nationalism and the other is Kashmir’s integration into the global economy. Kashmiri nationalism hitherto has been negative nationalism. That is, it has been a reaction to the injustices and indignities suffered by Kashmiris under the Maharaja’s rule and then a reaction against India’s sovereign remit over it. The form that this nationalism took was projection of Kashmiri aspirations and desires and transference of it to the personality of that great Kashmiri leader, Shaikh Muhammd Abdullah. This form of nationalism has passed its use date and the need of the hour is to create and nurture a new nationalism that is vigorous and intense and not based on a personality.

An imagined community of Kashmiris has to be forged and then yardsticks and benchmarks set for this nationalism that are vigorous and salubrious. This may mean resuscitating Kashmir’s legion of saints and forging an ethos and outlook on life that these saints propounded. This could also mean engendering and creating Kashmir’s soft power. That is, power which appeals on account of the inherent appeal of its values. This nationalism should not be at odds with the broader Indian nationalism and could be a sub set of Indian nationalism.  It should engender pride in being a Kashmiri, should not be exclusionary and should sublimate Kashmir’s collective energy towards salubrious ends.

This should then be followed by a comprehensive rehaul and rejigging of Kashmir’s political economy. Kashmiris have the oomph and gumption to hold their own and there is a plethora of talent here that can create a niche for itself in the ever expanding global economy. An imaginative approach , that integrates Kashmir with the global economy, should be employed. Kashmiris, if accorded the opportunity and armed with nouveau nationalism, can prove their mettle, disavow the culture of dependency on the Centre and create a niche for themselves in the global economy. All that is needed is the existence of an enabling environment, a state apparatus that is responsive and aligned to the latest trends in the global economy and a balance between the state and the market. And , of course, this has to be complemented by educating Kashmiris on globalization and the global economy.

 A concerted attempt and a dedicated focus on the ideational and policy orientation identified in this article can potentially lead to a naya( new) Kashmir. It is about time then that Kashmiris pledge to redeem and change their condition. The day when pagah will be replaced by vuni(now) will be that Kashmiris will stand liberated and real azadi(freedom) achieved. Till then, Kashmiris will continue to wallow in their apathy, torpor and lassitude and perhaps, in the long duree scheme of things wither as an ethnic group and entity. It is this potential scenario that needs to pre –empted. The time for this may be now.

The ‘Graveyard of Empires’ and the American Exit from Afghanistan: the End of the Great Game?

Rudyard Kipling, the prolific writer, prodigy and genius, brought to life the nature and experience of Empire in, what may be called his Magnus opus, Kim. The central character and main protagonist of the novel was Kimball O ‘Hara: an orphaned child of an Irish soldier and an English mother and the novel is built around his adventures. Kipling made the exotic accessible to his readers and weaved a narrative of India –its smells, sights, bazaars, superstitions and backwardness- against the backdrop of , what came to be known as the Great Game- the strategic and political rivalry between contending Imperiums: Great Britain and Tsarist Russia.  The premise of the ‘Great Game’ was the vying for spheres of influence in Central Asia by the British and the Russians respectively. The aim was to forestall Russian influence into what was believed to be the ‘jewel of the crown’ of the British Empire: India. From the convolutions of this Great Game emerged the formulation and what in retrospect is a myth. That is, deeming Afghanistan as the ‘graveyard of Empires.

 It was widely believed that Afghans would never countenance foreign rule and that any foreign venture in Afghanistan was doomed. This myth gained poignancy after the ignominious Soviet defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan in that momentous and historic year, 1989. Both the ‘Great Game’ formulation and the graveyard of empires myth entered into the political and media lexicon after the United States attacked and invaded Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 attacks. It was held that the United States and its allies had a similar agenda akin to the Great Game protagonists and would meet the same fate as their predecessors did. And now, given the United States, or broadly speaking, the West’s exit from Afghanistan, this prognostication is said to be coming true.

This raises a whole host of questions: Is the current condition of Afghanistan with an imminent American exit an eerie echo of the Great Game? Does the American exit validate the ‘graveyard of Empires’ formulation? Or does the exit forebode disinterest in a crucial state as Afghanistan by western powers? What implications would this have? And what impact would this have on world order, peace and stability?

Profound structural transformations in the international system, structure and world politics have occurred since the inception of the Great Game between Russia and Great Britain.  World War II, for instance,  led to the graveyard or break up of empires and a wave a decolonization that gave short shrift to the concept and practice of empire. It paved the way for structural bipolarity known as the Cold War wherein two superpowers, the United States and the erstwhile USSR , competed for influence and supremacy. This strategic rivalry could be said to have been an echo of the Great Game. However, with the dissolution of the USSR, and the advent of unipolarity,, with the United States at the apex and pinnacle of its power, ended this strategic rivalry. This led to the diminution of Afghanistan in the strategic and political calculus of the sole superpower, the United States. In the process was incubated the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Non state actors became a factot in world politics and Afghanistan morphed into a failed state: an incubatory laboratory for Al Qaeda and global jihad.

This period was characterized by the aberrant condition of unipolarity and western disarray. As such, there were no structural factors or conditions that could have led to the Great game. This then gives short shrift to the notion of the Great Game being played out in the so called ‘graveyard of empires’, Afghanistan. What then accounts for the American, or broadly speaking, Western exit from Afghanistan? Is the west caving into the resistance of the ‘intrepid’ Afghans?

The answer to the both questions is a resounding no. The west’s exit is premised on domestic compulsions, electoral cycle of the United States and fatigue accruing from factors other than attrition or the Afghan resistance. This is pregnant with danger and has immense negative consequences for Afghanistan, the region and the world. Why?

Afghanistan is a failed state and this status has led to insalubrious factors, the salient of which are Pakistan’s meddling into Afghanistan, premised on its ‘strategic depth’ formulation and the country’s morphing into a staging ground for global jihad. Western exit and the attendant disinterest in Afghanistan is likely to recrudescence and recidivism. Forces inimical to peace and Pakistan may , once again, decide to turn Afghanistan into an incubatory laboratory for Jihad nd Afghanistan will once again turn into a global security problem. The question that should be nagging the minds of western powers should be how to pre-empt this outcome.

This would mean continued interest and perhaps even military presence in Afghanistan, with pledges from Pakistan that it would review its strategic depth formulation and not meddle in Afghanistan. Concomitantly, this would also mean taking steps to democratize Afghanistan and enable its economy to stand on its own. The stakes are too high and the alternative too bleak to countenance. Let the hackneyed and in the final analysis, flawed and false ‘Great Game’ formulation give way to the Great Transformation. Afghans deserve this and it is contingent on continued western interest and engagement in Afghanistan.

Obviating Anti Americanism in the Muslim World: Now or Never?

Anti Americanism runs rife in the Muslim world. The sources of this negative feeling are deep and pervasive across the length and breadth of the Muslim world. Be it Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan, public opinion and ire is directed against America. Given that the United States is held to be the doyen of the west, this feeling sometimes morphs into anti westernism. Some have amplified this and deemed it as the pre cursor to a ‘clash of civilizations’. This anti Americanism has been  lent poignancy by America’s decision to go to war with Iraq, its ongoing war in Afghanistan and the drone strikes in Pakistan. The infamous Abu Ghuraib lent further acuity to this feeling. It is assumed and widely believed that America is at war against Islam in the Muslim world.

The veracity of this belief is open to question and anyone who really understand the nature of the United States will vouch against it. The country is , by and large an open society, where freedom of religion and belief is enshrined in its Constitution. The attitude of its people, barring pockets in the American South and the Mid West is enlightened, tolerant and the world view of its sophisticated gentry is exemplary. It is a settler cum immigrant nation and has a rich and proud history of openness to the outsider. The United States, despite the economic torpor , induced by the 2008 crisis continues to be a metaphor for opportunity and upward mobility and is a magnet for all types of immigrants- aspirational, economic and political. The daily plebiscite by millions of immigrants-legal or illegal- is testimony to this. So what explains the hostility and the negative feelings towards the United States in the Muslim world? Does Islam constitute the well spring of this hostility toward the Islam? Is the United States’ Foreign Policy the culprit? If so, would a review of the United States’ foreign policy toward the countries constituting the Islamic world obviate this anti Americanism? Should then America review its foreign policy and would this undercut anti Americanism in the Muslim world?

Much of anti Americanism prevalent in the Muslim world can be explained by stereotypes that prevail there about the United States. These stereotypes range from an image of the United States being rampantly hedonistic, ruthless, social Darwinist, greedy, violent and aggressive. These are lent credence by the United State’s war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the alliance system between the country and the ruling authoritarian and praetorian elite of the Muslim world. It is widely believed that the conditions-political, economic, and social- that obtain in the Muslim world accrue from the relationship between the United States and the ruling elites of these states. While there is some merit to this belief, given that one prop for the longevity of authoritarian regimes is outside support by a power patron, this is however, half the picture. Cumulatively, these conditions and stereotypes determine and explain anti Americanism in the Muslim world. The question is: how can this be obviated and given short shrift?

The answer lies in globalization, a more open world, free(r) trade and vigorous public diplomacy. All these can be brought to fruition and their momentum can be expanded by the United States. Globalization carried with the promise of emancipation and enlightenment , economic growth and amelioration of poverty and freer movement of peoples across borders and sovereign entities. And this can perhaps be made possibly only by a free(r) trade regime. The onus falls on the United States to make the world that corresponds to globalization and free(r) trade possible. This approach should be buttressed by vigorous public diplomacy that demystifies the nature of the United States to the Muslim world. Its open nature, the freedom it accords to religion and belief and the opportunities if offers to all and sundry , should be emphasized. All this would , fall on deaf ears, if the United States continues with and maintains its alliance system with the authoritarian regimes of the Arab Muslim middle east. This alliance system needs a review and the United States should make it clear to the authoritarians that its continued support and patronage will be contingent on the regimes’ openness, democratization and commitment to human rights.

In concert, these approaches and policies would go far in obviating anti Americanism in the Muslim world. This anti Americanism is not premised on religion or atavistic forces. It is a  rather novel feature and is not structural. As such, it is open to remedy.. The European Union or western Europe is ruled out here because it is , by and large a non entity in world politics and is perhaps irredeemably hostile to Muslims and Islam. It is the United States that is and will be peerless and powerful for years if not decades. It is then the policies and orientation of the United States that matter. It is , therefore, incumbent on Muslims to try to understand the United States  and reach out to it. It is almost certain that sober opinion in the United States will reciprocate. World peace and stability may come to depend upon good and salubrious relations between Islamic world’s and the United States. Let us make haste slowly and bring this state of affairs to fruition.