The dramatic resignation of Kevin Rudd as the foreign minister of Australia, the attendant joust between him and the triumph of Julia Gillard stands as a metaphor for intraparty intrigue and the ultimate arbiter of power in multi party democracies. It is clear that Rudd’s tactics –reaching out to the voters over those who hold real power in the Labor caucus- in an attempt to wean the leadership of the Labor party and seize prime ministership failed. Chastened, the ex prime minister has perhaps no choice but to retreat in the shadows of the Labor party. And , Julia Gillard can preen in smug satisfaction.
However, the significance and import of the ruckus goes beyond the ego joust of the politicians in contention. It reflects the fact that individuals appear to matter little in the politics of democracies and that real power is usually held by a cabal of men who determine the fortunes of those who are the ostensible face of power. And that, elections, while they do serve as a mechanism for power rotation, do not merely reflect the will of the people in the strict sense of the term. They are more or less mechanisms or in the nature of a beauty contest where the best pageants, preening on stage win while those who hold real power are in the background.
At another level, the whole saga is indicative of the demise the Labor party as a force in Australian politics. Trailing behind in opinion polls and popularity graphs, the party is set to perhaps eclipse in the coming elections. A trail blazing party, in some senses, and differentiating itself from its peers in the rest of the western world, Australia’s labor party, under the dynamic leadership of the intense and mercurial Paul Keating, pioneered Australia’s opening up to the world and embracing globalization- a bold and beautiful move that only enriched Australia. However, after this initial impetus, the party lost momentum and this paved the way for the Liberals to gain power and control of Australia’s politics.
The Australian Labor Party came to power again on a wave of disaffection and discontent on part of the Australian populace. They cobbled together a coalition with the Greens and some independents and managed an uneasy coalition. This coming to power of Labor and an assortment of others was not a vote for labor but more or less an anti incumbency vote and a general discontent and disaffection among the populace. Given the coalition dynamic and the fragmentary nature of politics, governance was impacted and legislation on key issues stalled. As a result, the Labor party was unable to capitalize on ins electoral victory and Australian politics became prosaic and rather boring. This registered with the voters and ratings and opinion polls reflect this abundantly with Labor performing dismally.
Now the question is whether this bodes good for Australia. Given Labor’s dismal performance, it would appear that the eclipse of the Labor party may not be a bad thing for Australia and its national interest. The ‘ New Left’ agenda adopted by the Labor party in some measure is not really reflective of the Left and ends up as a set of half hearted measures to embrace policy and political paradigms that are the need of the hour. This may , to an extent, explain Labor’s drift and the decrepitude that Australian politics has sunk into. A rejuvenated politics means showing the door to the Labor party and giving the Liberal’s another chance or in the Australian lexicon, ‘a fair go’. A majority by the Liberals would get rid of the coalition government and give them a free hand in connecting to voter aspirations and goading Australia in healthy and salubrious directions. A reformulated and rejuvenated Liberal party under youthful leadership may just be what Australia needs. It is therefore about time that the Australian electorate mulls hard and gives Tony Abbott the chance to prove his mettle. This , in the scheme of things , may be good for Australia, democracy in Australia and even the Labor party.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Eclipse of the Indian National Congress and its Implications for India
The dismal electoral performance of the Congress party-once an indomitable force in Indian politics- in the Hindu heartland and other states points out towards an ineluctable trend in the political firmament of India: regionalization of politics and the hold of regional political parties over India’s politics. This trend has many implications at a range of levels- political, economic, governmental, governance and the nature of politicking in India. Potentially and cumulatively, it could either portend broader political instability, governance and policy paralysis at the Centre.
This naturally and inevitably bodes ill for India’s national interest and democracy as aggregation of interests by a plethora of political parties would lead to stresses and strains that the political system may not bear. The need of the hour perhaps is introspection by the Indian political class and the powers that be in the power structure of India to review, course correct and introspect over the nature of India’s political, federal and party structure. This is made exigent by the reasons delineated here.
All is not gloom and doom here. The disaggregation of the Indian political and party structure may also reflect the fact that Indian secularism is rather robust. And that the ‘creeping Hindutvization’ of the polity stands negated given that the Indian electorate save in some pockets has rejected the politics of Hindutva and has instead opted for parties that are either populist or have local and in some cases parochial interests on the agenda. As such, in a curious twist, the Idea of India stands validated.
What the elections may also reflect is a structural trend: the eclipse or in a more prosaic formulation the diminishing of the Congress party as a significant force in Indian politics. The party , once held to be synonymous with the power structure of India , so much so that India almost came to be recognized as a one party democracy, has indubitably lost momentum and its hold on Indian politics. This accrues from a set of reasons, the most salient of which may be the rise of regional political parties with local and localized agenda’s, the nature of Centre State relations in India and the disconnect of the Congress party from both Bharat, that is, the rural India and the aspirations of modern India.
This disconnect along with a party apparatus and structure that favored patronage over policy, cronyism, favoritism , lack of intra party democracy , ossification of the structure of leadership at a range of levels spawning a critical mass of yes men may constitute the real reasons for the party’s decline. Add to this taking for granted the Muslim vote and indulging in vote bank politics wherein Muslims felt used and abused, the decline is not only inevitable but also obvious to note. This is, in some senses, a travesty given that the Congress party was the torchbearer of Indian secularism, surely its vanguard and the upholder of the Idea of India. Moreover, its dominance of Indian politics ensured a reasonably less obstructionist governance process.
This trend is structural and more likely than not is unlikely to be reversed. The Congress party will probably never regain its luster and dominance of Indian politics. It may have to contend in an increasingly cluttered and chaotic structure or scene as one of the parties with some vote share of the Indian electorate. However, what the party could do, in the future is to course correct and review its assumptions about the Indian electorate in an attempt to gain mindshare of those who constitute the Indian electorate. This may allow it to regain momentum and reconnect, de nouveau, to both India’s.
What should be alarming and disconcerting to those forming the Indian political class and powers that be in India is the disaggregation of the political and party political structure of India. That is, an increasingly fragmented polity with regional parties having localized agenda’s most of the vote share of the Indian electorate. This would naturally and inevitably impact India’s governance, Centre State relations, India’s federalism and lead to policy paralysis perhaps both at the Centre and the State. These regional parties could hold the Centre at ransom and parliamentary democracy may be impacted negatively. As such, it becomes exigent to review and introspect on part of the Indian political class.
This class could attempt to revamp nature of power and wielding power in India and gradually and but inexorably work and direct India’s political system towards a presidential system. The French model may be germane for India and India could look towards France and other countries with a presidential system in place for pointers. Even the US model may be germane. This is naturally a long term process. However, given the drift in Indian politics, considering this option may be desirable. A powerful president curtailed and checked by balances could potentially restore equilibrium to Indian politics and set India onto a salubrious trajectory wherein the policy formation and process could be set free. Even intractable problems like Kashmir may be accorded some closure. The need of the hour therefore is to introspect and review and then gradually work towards a solution that overcomes the policy and political gridlock accruing from fragmentation of the political and party political scene. It is none other than the Idea of India that needs this.
This naturally and inevitably bodes ill for India’s national interest and democracy as aggregation of interests by a plethora of political parties would lead to stresses and strains that the political system may not bear. The need of the hour perhaps is introspection by the Indian political class and the powers that be in the power structure of India to review, course correct and introspect over the nature of India’s political, federal and party structure. This is made exigent by the reasons delineated here.
All is not gloom and doom here. The disaggregation of the Indian political and party structure may also reflect the fact that Indian secularism is rather robust. And that the ‘creeping Hindutvization’ of the polity stands negated given that the Indian electorate save in some pockets has rejected the politics of Hindutva and has instead opted for parties that are either populist or have local and in some cases parochial interests on the agenda. As such, in a curious twist, the Idea of India stands validated.
What the elections may also reflect is a structural trend: the eclipse or in a more prosaic formulation the diminishing of the Congress party as a significant force in Indian politics. The party , once held to be synonymous with the power structure of India , so much so that India almost came to be recognized as a one party democracy, has indubitably lost momentum and its hold on Indian politics. This accrues from a set of reasons, the most salient of which may be the rise of regional political parties with local and localized agenda’s, the nature of Centre State relations in India and the disconnect of the Congress party from both Bharat, that is, the rural India and the aspirations of modern India.
This disconnect along with a party apparatus and structure that favored patronage over policy, cronyism, favoritism , lack of intra party democracy , ossification of the structure of leadership at a range of levels spawning a critical mass of yes men may constitute the real reasons for the party’s decline. Add to this taking for granted the Muslim vote and indulging in vote bank politics wherein Muslims felt used and abused, the decline is not only inevitable but also obvious to note. This is, in some senses, a travesty given that the Congress party was the torchbearer of Indian secularism, surely its vanguard and the upholder of the Idea of India. Moreover, its dominance of Indian politics ensured a reasonably less obstructionist governance process.
This trend is structural and more likely than not is unlikely to be reversed. The Congress party will probably never regain its luster and dominance of Indian politics. It may have to contend in an increasingly cluttered and chaotic structure or scene as one of the parties with some vote share of the Indian electorate. However, what the party could do, in the future is to course correct and review its assumptions about the Indian electorate in an attempt to gain mindshare of those who constitute the Indian electorate. This may allow it to regain momentum and reconnect, de nouveau, to both India’s.
What should be alarming and disconcerting to those forming the Indian political class and powers that be in India is the disaggregation of the political and party political structure of India. That is, an increasingly fragmented polity with regional parties having localized agenda’s most of the vote share of the Indian electorate. This would naturally and inevitably impact India’s governance, Centre State relations, India’s federalism and lead to policy paralysis perhaps both at the Centre and the State. These regional parties could hold the Centre at ransom and parliamentary democracy may be impacted negatively. As such, it becomes exigent to review and introspect on part of the Indian political class.
This class could attempt to revamp nature of power and wielding power in India and gradually and but inexorably work and direct India’s political system towards a presidential system. The French model may be germane for India and India could look towards France and other countries with a presidential system in place for pointers. Even the US model may be germane. This is naturally a long term process. However, given the drift in Indian politics, considering this option may be desirable. A powerful president curtailed and checked by balances could potentially restore equilibrium to Indian politics and set India onto a salubrious trajectory wherein the policy formation and process could be set free. Even intractable problems like Kashmir may be accorded some closure. The need of the hour therefore is to introspect and review and then gradually work towards a solution that overcomes the policy and political gridlock accruing from fragmentation of the political and party political scene. It is none other than the Idea of India that needs this.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Post Osama Blues: Reflections on the US Pakistani Relationship
Post Osama Assassination Blues: Reflections on the US Pakistani Relationship
A theme that cuts across Pakistan’s trajectory as an independent and a small nation state is its attempts to keep the west (or the United States) engaged. The means that it has chosen to do so have been to play up its geo strategic position and as a bulwark of Islam. During the Cold war, this entailed playing up the Cold war and being on the side of the west. Lately this has meant positioning itself as a ‘frontline ally against the ‘global war on terrorism. This posture has naturally entailed twists and turns and implied a ‘double game’ in the eyes of many in the west. Lent credence by the presence of Bin Laden in Pakistani territory allegedly shielded by a section of the power structure of Pakistan, this posture is now redounding against Pakistan. And it has serious implications for Pakistan’s relations with the United States.
What are the options available to the United States in ‘dealing’ with Pakistan? The gut and reflexive reaction following Bin Laden’s assassination would be to ‘punish’ Pakistan. Or in other words disavow relations with Pakistan and leave it in the lurch as punishment for playing a double game. While it may sate the emotional needs and revanchist or retributive impulses of many in the US, it, as a policy posture is rife with disaster. Pakistan can potentially retreat into itself and this condition given its nukes and geo strategic position can have negative fallouts in other dimensions. Pakistan, for instance, can play a spoiler in Afghanistan or even in Kashmir , where despite the success of the Indian Counter Insurgency, Pakistan still retains some clout and can, one, draw out the ‘peace process’ for as long as it can or, second, send its youth bulge to fight a Jihad against India. It is the author’s understanding that Pakistani restraint in not pushing armed irregulars into Indian Administered Kashmir is premised upon an understanding arrived with the United States after September 11 and the linkages of the issue with Afghanistan.
A ‘spoiler’ state in a dangerous and unstable neighborhood or what has been termed as the ‘arc of instability’ is not something that the United States or the west should bring about by a policy of either omission or commission. The stakes, to paraphrase the eminent Dr. Kissinger, are too high. Deserting it and leaving it to the vagaries of the neighborhood and to its own devices would be a disaster. It will, to repeat, retreat into itself and its fears about western ‘duplicity’ will be validated. And it will then naturally be either an obstructionist entity at odds with itself and the world or a spoiler state that throws a spanner into peace and stability in the neighborhood and perhaps even abroad. The latter may entail proliferation of nuclear weapons and exporting nuclear technology to an already volatile middle east where Iran appears to be on the verge of the nuclear break out option. And where other states may not trust the ‘extended deterrence’ offered by the United States and may seek nuclear weapons. A churlish and isolated Pakistan may be a willing partner to ‘help’ these states in their quest for nukes.
So what policy options or recourse does the United State have? Continued engagement with the country should be the policy mantra as well as premise. However, a caveat is in order here. Short termism should, at all costs, be avoided. The tenor of the new engagement with Pakistan should go beyond the ‘war on terrorism’ and the security needs of the United States and the west. It should be demonstrated to Pakistan it is a valued and a long term ally. And that its salubrious path would be, ipso facto, goof and salubrious for world order and given its nukes, for the international system as well. The engagement should go beyond aid and also focus on trade. The benefits of an open market economy and free trade should be extended to Pakistan and its political economy be gradually opened up and linked to the global economy. The focus of both the aid and trade should be the people of Pakistan and not its elite. As such, the thrust of this policy should be on human security or a combination of national and human security. The long term thrust of the policy should be to translate what has long been western rhetoric towards Pakistan- Pakistan’s transformation into a modern and democratic nation state-into reality. This can only happen through engagement and not dissociation. Pakistan is too important both strategically and in terms of humanity to be discarded and disengaged from. The onus lies on the United States to continue engagement with Pakistan.
A theme that cuts across Pakistan’s trajectory as an independent and a small nation state is its attempts to keep the west (or the United States) engaged. The means that it has chosen to do so have been to play up its geo strategic position and as a bulwark of Islam. During the Cold war, this entailed playing up the Cold war and being on the side of the west. Lately this has meant positioning itself as a ‘frontline ally against the ‘global war on terrorism. This posture has naturally entailed twists and turns and implied a ‘double game’ in the eyes of many in the west. Lent credence by the presence of Bin Laden in Pakistani territory allegedly shielded by a section of the power structure of Pakistan, this posture is now redounding against Pakistan. And it has serious implications for Pakistan’s relations with the United States.
What are the options available to the United States in ‘dealing’ with Pakistan? The gut and reflexive reaction following Bin Laden’s assassination would be to ‘punish’ Pakistan. Or in other words disavow relations with Pakistan and leave it in the lurch as punishment for playing a double game. While it may sate the emotional needs and revanchist or retributive impulses of many in the US, it, as a policy posture is rife with disaster. Pakistan can potentially retreat into itself and this condition given its nukes and geo strategic position can have negative fallouts in other dimensions. Pakistan, for instance, can play a spoiler in Afghanistan or even in Kashmir , where despite the success of the Indian Counter Insurgency, Pakistan still retains some clout and can, one, draw out the ‘peace process’ for as long as it can or, second, send its youth bulge to fight a Jihad against India. It is the author’s understanding that Pakistani restraint in not pushing armed irregulars into Indian Administered Kashmir is premised upon an understanding arrived with the United States after September 11 and the linkages of the issue with Afghanistan.
A ‘spoiler’ state in a dangerous and unstable neighborhood or what has been termed as the ‘arc of instability’ is not something that the United States or the west should bring about by a policy of either omission or commission. The stakes, to paraphrase the eminent Dr. Kissinger, are too high. Deserting it and leaving it to the vagaries of the neighborhood and to its own devices would be a disaster. It will, to repeat, retreat into itself and its fears about western ‘duplicity’ will be validated. And it will then naturally be either an obstructionist entity at odds with itself and the world or a spoiler state that throws a spanner into peace and stability in the neighborhood and perhaps even abroad. The latter may entail proliferation of nuclear weapons and exporting nuclear technology to an already volatile middle east where Iran appears to be on the verge of the nuclear break out option. And where other states may not trust the ‘extended deterrence’ offered by the United States and may seek nuclear weapons. A churlish and isolated Pakistan may be a willing partner to ‘help’ these states in their quest for nukes.
So what policy options or recourse does the United State have? Continued engagement with the country should be the policy mantra as well as premise. However, a caveat is in order here. Short termism should, at all costs, be avoided. The tenor of the new engagement with Pakistan should go beyond the ‘war on terrorism’ and the security needs of the United States and the west. It should be demonstrated to Pakistan it is a valued and a long term ally. And that its salubrious path would be, ipso facto, goof and salubrious for world order and given its nukes, for the international system as well. The engagement should go beyond aid and also focus on trade. The benefits of an open market economy and free trade should be extended to Pakistan and its political economy be gradually opened up and linked to the global economy. The focus of both the aid and trade should be the people of Pakistan and not its elite. As such, the thrust of this policy should be on human security or a combination of national and human security. The long term thrust of the policy should be to translate what has long been western rhetoric towards Pakistan- Pakistan’s transformation into a modern and democratic nation state-into reality. This can only happen through engagement and not dissociation. Pakistan is too important both strategically and in terms of humanity to be discarded and disengaged from. The onus lies on the United States to continue engagement with Pakistan.
Is the Conflict Over Kashmir Overssadowing Environmental Degradation?
The gory murder of an environmental activist in Kashmir by an alleged cabal involving the Army, timber smugglers and some Forest department functionaries is a metaphor for contemporary Kashmir. The conflict has spawned a cottage industry of or a cabal of vested interests that are making hay out of the conflict. In the process are lost precious lives like the one in contention here. The larger point-with due respect to the brave soul that resisted this plunder- is that irreparable damage is done to the environment in Kashmir. And with the focus only on the dimensions on the conflict, the very important environmental aspect is ignored. This is something that Kashmiri’s can ignore at their peril. There is, to state the obvious an indelible and organic relationship between the natural environment and living conditions. If the current state of affairs if allowed to continue, harrowing conditions of life may accrue. Life may then be not as tolerable as it is for future generations.
What can be done about the environmental degradation occurring in Kashmir? First and foremost, a vigorous campaign to make people aware of the consequences of environmental degradation needs to be launched. It is a shame that the non governmental organizations (NGO’s) operating in or concerned about Kashmir only have a very narrow focus. That is, on the ramifications of the conflict and the victims that it exacts. These organizations with the funding they receive should expand their agenda and focus also on the environmental degradation the conflict has spawned. Naming an shaming works in that part of the world too and if NGO’s with clout can take recourse to this, a degree of restraint by the environmental criminals is to be expected.
Complementing this approach may be educating the people about the perils of environmental degradation and how it can affect their lives and progeny. This may help in creating bottoms up pressure and make the environmental criminals cringe and make their lives difficult.However, in the final scheme of things, the onus of protecting and enhancing the natural environment of Kashmir may lie with the government of Jammu and Kashmir. It is the author’s contention that nothing beats state power and its bearing on issues than the state and its various apparatii. As such, a clear cut message sent out by the state government to the perpetrators and potential perpetrators underlined by vigorous threats of action against them may be the best option available. A combined effort by the state and the NGO’s complemented by people power on this issue area may lead to such pressures on environmental criminals that they cease to ‘tread on grounds where even the devil fears’ so to speak.
The alternatives are too bleak to countenance. Gradual environmental degradation coupled with global warming may lead to a situation that no one wants. This would be a bleak situation where Kashmir will gradually lose its forest cover. Bizarre weather and climactic patterns would follow. And in the process, Kashmir would lose much of its pristine beauty and would become a shell. This is a situation that , to repeat, no one wants.
Now a word on our environmental martyr: his death should not go in vain. And it is pertinent and important that criminals complicit in his murder be brought to the book. This is important for two major reasons. One, it is in the interests of justice important for the departed soul’s family to have and attain closure. Second, bringing the criminal is important in terms of setting a precedent. If his murder goes the way of other unexplained murders in Kashmir, environmental criminals and other assorted criminals may feel emboldened and audacious to commit crimes with impunity in the future. However, if his murderers and those behind the murder are brought to book, then this may act as a deterrent and prevent such ungainly acts in the future.
The onus again is on the government to demonstrate its resolve and commitment to protect the environment in Kashmir and send a strong message to criminals. It should create multi stakeholders as identified in this piece and bring them on board to stop something that has a crucial bearing on the future of Kashmir. In the governments’ scheme, the focus on the environment should be part of its good governance. A concerted effort to halt the environmental degradation now would mean damage limitation and conserving whatever is left. It is about time to be serious on this issue. We owe it to our future generations.
What can be done about the environmental degradation occurring in Kashmir? First and foremost, a vigorous campaign to make people aware of the consequences of environmental degradation needs to be launched. It is a shame that the non governmental organizations (NGO’s) operating in or concerned about Kashmir only have a very narrow focus. That is, on the ramifications of the conflict and the victims that it exacts. These organizations with the funding they receive should expand their agenda and focus also on the environmental degradation the conflict has spawned. Naming an shaming works in that part of the world too and if NGO’s with clout can take recourse to this, a degree of restraint by the environmental criminals is to be expected.
Complementing this approach may be educating the people about the perils of environmental degradation and how it can affect their lives and progeny. This may help in creating bottoms up pressure and make the environmental criminals cringe and make their lives difficult.However, in the final scheme of things, the onus of protecting and enhancing the natural environment of Kashmir may lie with the government of Jammu and Kashmir. It is the author’s contention that nothing beats state power and its bearing on issues than the state and its various apparatii. As such, a clear cut message sent out by the state government to the perpetrators and potential perpetrators underlined by vigorous threats of action against them may be the best option available. A combined effort by the state and the NGO’s complemented by people power on this issue area may lead to such pressures on environmental criminals that they cease to ‘tread on grounds where even the devil fears’ so to speak.
The alternatives are too bleak to countenance. Gradual environmental degradation coupled with global warming may lead to a situation that no one wants. This would be a bleak situation where Kashmir will gradually lose its forest cover. Bizarre weather and climactic patterns would follow. And in the process, Kashmir would lose much of its pristine beauty and would become a shell. This is a situation that , to repeat, no one wants.
Now a word on our environmental martyr: his death should not go in vain. And it is pertinent and important that criminals complicit in his murder be brought to the book. This is important for two major reasons. One, it is in the interests of justice important for the departed soul’s family to have and attain closure. Second, bringing the criminal is important in terms of setting a precedent. If his murder goes the way of other unexplained murders in Kashmir, environmental criminals and other assorted criminals may feel emboldened and audacious to commit crimes with impunity in the future. However, if his murderers and those behind the murder are brought to book, then this may act as a deterrent and prevent such ungainly acts in the future.
The onus again is on the government to demonstrate its resolve and commitment to protect the environment in Kashmir and send a strong message to criminals. It should create multi stakeholders as identified in this piece and bring them on board to stop something that has a crucial bearing on the future of Kashmir. In the governments’ scheme, the focus on the environment should be part of its good governance. A concerted effort to halt the environmental degradation now would mean damage limitation and conserving whatever is left. It is about time to be serious on this issue. We owe it to our future generations.
How Not to Lose Pakistan?
The United States’ threat to withhold a tranche of aid monies to Pakistan comes at a delicate moment: the downward spiral of bilateral relations. The backdrop to this is the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, the killing of Pakistani youth by an alleged CIA operative and other small things that have over time built up cumulatively. The US decision appears to stem from pique and appears to be aimed at punishing Pakistan or in the least the threat of punishment is implicit in it. Pakistan’s predictable reaction of threatening to stop cooperating with the United States in the border areas and looking to its ‘fair weather friend’, China is ominous and rife with negative consequences. The implication of the latter statement is the validation of the worst fears of the Pakistani establishment: the United States is an unreliable ally. And that of the former, Pakistan’s turn to China. (This, obiter dictum, from a macro perspective, in a curious twist validates the Clash of Civilizations theory)
The most salient question that should be nagging the minds of sober policy makers on both sides should be how to salvage the relationship. And set it onto a salubrious path. This is important for both the United States and Pakistan. The United States should not lose interest in Pakistan and think of abandoning it in the wake of Osama’s assassination. Osama’s end, even for one moment does not mean that the ‘war on terror’ is over. Osama, if anything, was a brand and Al Qaeda the franchise that latched onto failed states like Afghanistan to pursue its ends. The equity of this brand may be enduring and while the franchise may be weak, it is by no means dead. So the United States should not be complacent and smug about it and deem Pakistan’s utility to it as flagging.
The real prize in the ‘arc of instability’ is a stable, prosperous and democratic Pakistan and Afghanistan. The former on account of the nature of its conceptual underpinnings and convoluted trajectory is the, in the jargon of international relations, a pivotal state in the region. And its health, focus and orientation will determine the health of the latter, that is, Afghanistan. The United States should not lose sight of this. The only way to bring about a salubrious Pakistan at ease with itself and the world is to keep on engaging it. It is all about means and ends. That is to say, the nature , tone and tenor of engagement with Pakistan should not premised on mutual predation or the , you scratch my back while I scratch your, short term self defeating formulation. It should be the national interest of the United States to see a healthy Pakistan that can hold its own and stand up as a valued member in the comity of nations.
It is equally important for Pakistan to introspect deep and hard and review some of its policy postures and orientations. It may do well to disengage from Afghanistan and reach a modus vivendi with India over some kind of settlement over Kashmir. While it may not afford to completely or comprehensively disengage from Afghanistan for security reasons, it could opt for a minimal engagement and assist in stabilizing the country. This would far in the overall stability of the region and might even lead to a new security order in South Asia. It would among other things allow Pakistan to refocus its energies and direct them to areas where most needed: education, consolidation of its sovereignty and nationalism, health and other like such areas. Gradually, a focus on these areas or domains with assistance from the west, especially the United States, Pakistan may morph into a well functioning Muslim democratic state. It is by focusing on these salubrious ends mentioned here that Pakistan can not only become a confident entity but also reclaim the mantle of moral and political leadership in the Islamic worlds. And in the process correspond to the original vision of its founder.
In short, instead of mutual recrimination and an ungainly relationship, the whole tenor of the alliance between Pakistan and the United States should be revamped. The kind of revamp that is needed is one that disavows short termism and is premised on mutual respect, understanding and esteem. The stakes are too high to take recourse to rhetoric, threats and tit for tats of the sort we are witnessing. Not all is lost. Prudent statesmanship on both sides can set the relationship on an even keel and healthy trajectory. Both the United States and Pakistan owe this to the world.
The most salient question that should be nagging the minds of sober policy makers on both sides should be how to salvage the relationship. And set it onto a salubrious path. This is important for both the United States and Pakistan. The United States should not lose interest in Pakistan and think of abandoning it in the wake of Osama’s assassination. Osama’s end, even for one moment does not mean that the ‘war on terror’ is over. Osama, if anything, was a brand and Al Qaeda the franchise that latched onto failed states like Afghanistan to pursue its ends. The equity of this brand may be enduring and while the franchise may be weak, it is by no means dead. So the United States should not be complacent and smug about it and deem Pakistan’s utility to it as flagging.
The real prize in the ‘arc of instability’ is a stable, prosperous and democratic Pakistan and Afghanistan. The former on account of the nature of its conceptual underpinnings and convoluted trajectory is the, in the jargon of international relations, a pivotal state in the region. And its health, focus and orientation will determine the health of the latter, that is, Afghanistan. The United States should not lose sight of this. The only way to bring about a salubrious Pakistan at ease with itself and the world is to keep on engaging it. It is all about means and ends. That is to say, the nature , tone and tenor of engagement with Pakistan should not premised on mutual predation or the , you scratch my back while I scratch your, short term self defeating formulation. It should be the national interest of the United States to see a healthy Pakistan that can hold its own and stand up as a valued member in the comity of nations.
It is equally important for Pakistan to introspect deep and hard and review some of its policy postures and orientations. It may do well to disengage from Afghanistan and reach a modus vivendi with India over some kind of settlement over Kashmir. While it may not afford to completely or comprehensively disengage from Afghanistan for security reasons, it could opt for a minimal engagement and assist in stabilizing the country. This would far in the overall stability of the region and might even lead to a new security order in South Asia. It would among other things allow Pakistan to refocus its energies and direct them to areas where most needed: education, consolidation of its sovereignty and nationalism, health and other like such areas. Gradually, a focus on these areas or domains with assistance from the west, especially the United States, Pakistan may morph into a well functioning Muslim democratic state. It is by focusing on these salubrious ends mentioned here that Pakistan can not only become a confident entity but also reclaim the mantle of moral and political leadership in the Islamic worlds. And in the process correspond to the original vision of its founder.
In short, instead of mutual recrimination and an ungainly relationship, the whole tenor of the alliance between Pakistan and the United States should be revamped. The kind of revamp that is needed is one that disavows short termism and is premised on mutual respect, understanding and esteem. The stakes are too high to take recourse to rhetoric, threats and tit for tats of the sort we are witnessing. Not all is lost. Prudent statesmanship on both sides can set the relationship on an even keel and healthy trajectory. Both the United States and Pakistan owe this to the world.
Mumbai Blasts: A Sense of Deja Vu?
The serial bomb blasts in Mumbai-the financial capital of India and the erstwhile gateway to India -are ominous. These come in the wake of the foreign secretary level talks between India and Pakistan. Terrorism apparently had not figured much in the talks. The reflex of most denizens of India and in particular Mumbai would be to apportion blame on Pakistan or Pakistani inspired and supported proxies like the Lashkar e Toiba(Let) and their native supporters. However, it may be too soon to apportion blame onto the known terror groups. In the murky atmosphere that unfortunately defines both India and Pakistani politics; the real culprits may not be the usual suspects. However, speculating on the real culprits detracts from the real and the larger issues. The salient among which are , one , the relationship or the tenor of relationship between India and Pakistan, the relationship of the Muslim minority to the dominant Hindu majority and last but not the least Kashmir.
The clear cut and manifold agendas of the perpetrators appears to drive a wedge between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority of the state, crystallize mutual antagonisms and suspicions between them and also widen the gulf between India and Pakistan. Sobriety thus demands that knee jerk responses should not be taken recourse to and a calm but firm attitude be held and then deal with the fallout accordingly. The broader set of issue and themes that the terror attacks raise are that terrorism is now to stay with the world and may even become a fixture, no security system is foolproof, and that there are entrenched elements in both Pakistan and India to whom a hint of peace and amity between the two traditional antagonists is anathema.
Coming to agenda number one, it would appear that the perpetrators are bound to be disappointed. India or the idea of India-pluralism, tolerance and secularism- and the concomitant-consolidation of Indian nationalism –are now so entrenched and woven into the fabric of India that even the most appalling and garish acts of depravity cannot bring about a communal conflagration and division of the country. Post 2008 Mumbai and Mumbai’s attitude and reaction to it is one example of this phenomenon. However, insofar agenda number two is concerned, it would appear that the perpetrators may be said to be successful. Regardless of the nature of the perpetrators, the finger of blame is most likely to fall on Pakistan. If it comes to light that the perpetrators were members of the Let, then there will be bottoms up pressure on the India polity and government to do something about it. The demands may take the form of demanding action along the lines of Operation Geromino and ask for the scalp of Let leaders who apparently are shielded by the Pakistani power structure. This will unfortunately be exploited by the India’s major opposition party who will paint the Congress led dispensation as weak and wobbly in the face of consistent and constant acts of terrorism by Pakistan or Pakistan inspired groups. While an operation like Geromino may be unlikely given that it may constitute and act of war on Pakistan and Pakistan, which while facing structural weaknesses, is no a pushover, the relations between the two countries will go on a down ward spiral. And this will manifest and get reflected in the Kashmir imbroglio where India as the status quo power will , more likely for domestic reasons mentioned in the piece, become obstructionist and unyielding. All in all a scenario laden with gloom and doom.
So what does prudence-the kind that defeats the agendas of the perpetrators- dictate at this hour? First, a calm and rational response is required in dealing with the immediate fallout of the attacks. Second, the Indian establishment should reach out to its Muslim minority and reassure them that they are a much appreciates and wanted part of the Indian nation. Measures-economic, political and social- should be taken to make them as part of project India. Last, and counter intuitively India should thank Pakistan for the condolences that it has sent and elicit a statement from the highest echelons in the Pakistan power structure that India and Pakistan will jointly work against terrorism.
Acting on these pointers and suggestions may be the antidote to this nefarious and cowardly act of terrorism. It will send a strong message to the perpetrators that come what may, the state will not act disproportionately to the gravest of provocations and that their nefarious agendas will be defeated. It will also validate and consolidate the idea of India wherein peoples of different communities have potentially an equal stake in the polity and the nation. A knee jerk , reflexive and a populist response, on the contrary will play right into the hands of the perpetrators. It is time that sobriety and rationality takes over atavism and irrational passion. Both India and Pakistan owe it to their citizens.
The clear cut and manifold agendas of the perpetrators appears to drive a wedge between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority of the state, crystallize mutual antagonisms and suspicions between them and also widen the gulf between India and Pakistan. Sobriety thus demands that knee jerk responses should not be taken recourse to and a calm but firm attitude be held and then deal with the fallout accordingly. The broader set of issue and themes that the terror attacks raise are that terrorism is now to stay with the world and may even become a fixture, no security system is foolproof, and that there are entrenched elements in both Pakistan and India to whom a hint of peace and amity between the two traditional antagonists is anathema.
Coming to agenda number one, it would appear that the perpetrators are bound to be disappointed. India or the idea of India-pluralism, tolerance and secularism- and the concomitant-consolidation of Indian nationalism –are now so entrenched and woven into the fabric of India that even the most appalling and garish acts of depravity cannot bring about a communal conflagration and division of the country. Post 2008 Mumbai and Mumbai’s attitude and reaction to it is one example of this phenomenon. However, insofar agenda number two is concerned, it would appear that the perpetrators may be said to be successful. Regardless of the nature of the perpetrators, the finger of blame is most likely to fall on Pakistan. If it comes to light that the perpetrators were members of the Let, then there will be bottoms up pressure on the India polity and government to do something about it. The demands may take the form of demanding action along the lines of Operation Geromino and ask for the scalp of Let leaders who apparently are shielded by the Pakistani power structure. This will unfortunately be exploited by the India’s major opposition party who will paint the Congress led dispensation as weak and wobbly in the face of consistent and constant acts of terrorism by Pakistan or Pakistan inspired groups. While an operation like Geromino may be unlikely given that it may constitute and act of war on Pakistan and Pakistan, which while facing structural weaknesses, is no a pushover, the relations between the two countries will go on a down ward spiral. And this will manifest and get reflected in the Kashmir imbroglio where India as the status quo power will , more likely for domestic reasons mentioned in the piece, become obstructionist and unyielding. All in all a scenario laden with gloom and doom.
So what does prudence-the kind that defeats the agendas of the perpetrators- dictate at this hour? First, a calm and rational response is required in dealing with the immediate fallout of the attacks. Second, the Indian establishment should reach out to its Muslim minority and reassure them that they are a much appreciates and wanted part of the Indian nation. Measures-economic, political and social- should be taken to make them as part of project India. Last, and counter intuitively India should thank Pakistan for the condolences that it has sent and elicit a statement from the highest echelons in the Pakistan power structure that India and Pakistan will jointly work against terrorism.
Acting on these pointers and suggestions may be the antidote to this nefarious and cowardly act of terrorism. It will send a strong message to the perpetrators that come what may, the state will not act disproportionately to the gravest of provocations and that their nefarious agendas will be defeated. It will also validate and consolidate the idea of India wherein peoples of different communities have potentially an equal stake in the polity and the nation. A knee jerk , reflexive and a populist response, on the contrary will play right into the hands of the perpetrators. It is time that sobriety and rationality takes over atavism and irrational passion. Both India and Pakistan owe it to their citizens.
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Idea of India and Greater Autonomy for Kashmir
The obvious conclusion to draw from the US ambassador, Timothy Roemer’s visit to Kashmir and choosing to meet its elected representative, Omar Abdullah, and snub the entire spectrum of the separatist leadership is that the United States, through the prestige of the Ambassador’s office, is lending its weight onto Greater Autonomy for Kashmir. This sensible approach accrues, at a macro level, from the overall and broader situation in the region-Pakistan’s inexorable drift into quasi anarchy and a fragile state, the structural problems of Afghanistan and the attendant implications and spillover for Kashmir or the inverse. It also means explicit recognition of the fact that ethno nationalism in this day and age is passé and the formation of new micro states premised on ethno nationalism is a non starter and that the international system cannot bear the burden of new states especially after the drift of some decolonized states into state failure. And that disputes arising from ethnic mismatches and incongruent borders that went under the rubric of self determination are better resolved within the state paradigm. While this realism may go against the principle of self determination articulated by Wilson, it is, in this day age, perhaps the only antidote to problems engendered by ethno nationalism and the self determination conundrum or paradox.
Insofar Kashmir is concerned and at a micro level the Greater Autonomy plank or stance has been held by the ruling party, the National Conference since its inception and more poignantly since its towering leader, the late Shaikh Abdullah, entered into an Accord over Kashmir with the Government of India, in 1975. Resisted by powers that be in the Centre, greater autonomy also came to be sidelined during the heyday of insurgency in Kashmir. The separatist leadership would settle for nothing less than maximalist demands-secession from the Indian union freedom for Kashmir which was , at least for a substantial chunk of the separatists a Trojan horse for eventual merger with Pakistan. However, gradually and inexorably, on account of attrition, the changed extraneous political environment after September 11 and the structural problems that Pakistan faced, the insurgency could not be sustained and it gradually ebbed. Followed by a lull and an interlude of relative calm, the people of Kashmir, in a sense, fed up with political impasse and gridlock, took to the streets and rearticulated their grievances against the Indian state in the idiom of freedom. This maximalist demand obscured the real problems, that is , a political gridlock and foot dragging by the Government of India over resolving the Kashmir problem for good and its preference for a precarious status quo where the GoI took the defeat of the insurgency by the Indian state as validation for its approach towards Kashmir. The result was that the street became the theater of politics where the alienated youth bulge of Kashmir spewed their rage and angst at the Indian state, de nouveau. So in a sense, the situation in Kashmir reverted to square one in terms of the alienation of people and their demands. This is the micro backdrop to the Roemer visit and the US preference for greater autonomy for Kashmir- a sane and the only practical solution to the vexed problems
Now the question is what impediments could the greater autonomy paradigm or formulation face in India and second what would it mean in practice for Kashmiris? The resistance to greater autonomy is more likely than not to come from the Hindu Right smitten by the Hindutva bug. The Hindu Right in the past has tried to make political mileage from the special status bestowed to Kashmir, Article 370 of the Indian constitution and ,by twisting and putting a spin on it, has presented it to the people of India as a blot on India and accused its proponents of pandering to the minorities and ‘pseudo secularism’. However, real issue is larger than this one. Greater Autonomy for Kashmir is about the Idea of India: the idea that Nehru had in mind and the one that is making the world notice India: its deeply entrenched secularism and liberal democratic nature. Greater autonomy for Kashmir, in effect, validates this Idea of India: a confident, vibrant and plural India at peace with itself and not squeamish about its sovereignty. It is about an India that nurtures and respects its minorities and places them at a pedestal that in the final scheme of things can only enrich India. Au contraire, the alternative idea of India put forth by the Hindu Right and its schemes for Kashmir only negate this idea of India and condemns India to what is essentially alien to it: regression, distrust, and a monofocal view of India. It is to the former idea of India that the powers that be in India should revert to and crystallize and Greater autonomy in this schema becomes central to it. One implication pregnant and rife with positive consequences is that this idea of India makes Kashmir the part of India on account of soft power and not the hard variety: an approach that is in the final analysis help India achieve what it has hitherto failed in: winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiri’s for good.
What would this autonomy mean in practice for Kashmiri’s? It should, first mean an expansive identity that does not need the abstract state to fructify and reach efflorescence and second, it should mean real and significant empowerment of all Kashmiri’s. This can only happen when the terrain of the struggle shifts on the domain of rights and entitlements-political, economic and social. Rendering tangible these sets of rights should, in the final analysis, render Kashmiri’s empowered and confident and this can only happen if flesh and substance is accorded to Greater Autonomy for Kashmir and it is not merely a shift in nomenclature and a glorified name for the same old politics. In today’s globalized world, where the state, while remaining the basic unit of politics, has however in some areas transformed itself and shed its queasiness and squeamishness about some attributes of sovereignty , devolving chunks of power to constituent states just means being aligned with significant global trends and not going against their gravamen. And it should, for a state like India, which has positioned itself in the arterial system of globalization not be difficult. In a rather counterintuitive way, Greater Autonomy for Kashmir also means validation of being a Great Power-an aspiration that India holds. Rightfully. The US ambassador’s visit is confirmation of the factors enumerated in this article. So for a better future for all , peace within and without, let us make haste slowly and grasp the opportunity
Insofar Kashmir is concerned and at a micro level the Greater Autonomy plank or stance has been held by the ruling party, the National Conference since its inception and more poignantly since its towering leader, the late Shaikh Abdullah, entered into an Accord over Kashmir with the Government of India, in 1975. Resisted by powers that be in the Centre, greater autonomy also came to be sidelined during the heyday of insurgency in Kashmir. The separatist leadership would settle for nothing less than maximalist demands-secession from the Indian union freedom for Kashmir which was , at least for a substantial chunk of the separatists a Trojan horse for eventual merger with Pakistan. However, gradually and inexorably, on account of attrition, the changed extraneous political environment after September 11 and the structural problems that Pakistan faced, the insurgency could not be sustained and it gradually ebbed. Followed by a lull and an interlude of relative calm, the people of Kashmir, in a sense, fed up with political impasse and gridlock, took to the streets and rearticulated their grievances against the Indian state in the idiom of freedom. This maximalist demand obscured the real problems, that is , a political gridlock and foot dragging by the Government of India over resolving the Kashmir problem for good and its preference for a precarious status quo where the GoI took the defeat of the insurgency by the Indian state as validation for its approach towards Kashmir. The result was that the street became the theater of politics where the alienated youth bulge of Kashmir spewed their rage and angst at the Indian state, de nouveau. So in a sense, the situation in Kashmir reverted to square one in terms of the alienation of people and their demands. This is the micro backdrop to the Roemer visit and the US preference for greater autonomy for Kashmir- a sane and the only practical solution to the vexed problems
Now the question is what impediments could the greater autonomy paradigm or formulation face in India and second what would it mean in practice for Kashmiris? The resistance to greater autonomy is more likely than not to come from the Hindu Right smitten by the Hindutva bug. The Hindu Right in the past has tried to make political mileage from the special status bestowed to Kashmir, Article 370 of the Indian constitution and ,by twisting and putting a spin on it, has presented it to the people of India as a blot on India and accused its proponents of pandering to the minorities and ‘pseudo secularism’. However, real issue is larger than this one. Greater Autonomy for Kashmir is about the Idea of India: the idea that Nehru had in mind and the one that is making the world notice India: its deeply entrenched secularism and liberal democratic nature. Greater autonomy for Kashmir, in effect, validates this Idea of India: a confident, vibrant and plural India at peace with itself and not squeamish about its sovereignty. It is about an India that nurtures and respects its minorities and places them at a pedestal that in the final scheme of things can only enrich India. Au contraire, the alternative idea of India put forth by the Hindu Right and its schemes for Kashmir only negate this idea of India and condemns India to what is essentially alien to it: regression, distrust, and a monofocal view of India. It is to the former idea of India that the powers that be in India should revert to and crystallize and Greater autonomy in this schema becomes central to it. One implication pregnant and rife with positive consequences is that this idea of India makes Kashmir the part of India on account of soft power and not the hard variety: an approach that is in the final analysis help India achieve what it has hitherto failed in: winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiri’s for good.
What would this autonomy mean in practice for Kashmiri’s? It should, first mean an expansive identity that does not need the abstract state to fructify and reach efflorescence and second, it should mean real and significant empowerment of all Kashmiri’s. This can only happen when the terrain of the struggle shifts on the domain of rights and entitlements-political, economic and social. Rendering tangible these sets of rights should, in the final analysis, render Kashmiri’s empowered and confident and this can only happen if flesh and substance is accorded to Greater Autonomy for Kashmir and it is not merely a shift in nomenclature and a glorified name for the same old politics. In today’s globalized world, where the state, while remaining the basic unit of politics, has however in some areas transformed itself and shed its queasiness and squeamishness about some attributes of sovereignty , devolving chunks of power to constituent states just means being aligned with significant global trends and not going against their gravamen. And it should, for a state like India, which has positioned itself in the arterial system of globalization not be difficult. In a rather counterintuitive way, Greater Autonomy for Kashmir also means validation of being a Great Power-an aspiration that India holds. Rightfully. The US ambassador’s visit is confirmation of the factors enumerated in this article. So for a better future for all , peace within and without, let us make haste slowly and grasp the opportunity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)