Forging a Naya(new) Pakistan from the Ashes: In Memoriam to Jinnah's Remarks

History is perhaps replete with ironies. One poignant irony that continues to impinge on the lives of the peoples of the subcontinent is the formation, ideological premise and the subsequent nature of the state of Pakistan. It is ironical because the tactical maneuvering of the founder of Pakistan, Ali Mohammad Jinnah, was at odds with the vision he had for Pakistan. This vision can be gleaned from the concluding remarks of his 11^th August, 1947, address to the Constituent Assembly. Jinnah asserted,

“You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State”

Clearly then Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan was that of a secular, liberal entity wherein people of different, creeds, religions and faith would co-exist. Or, in other words, he envisaged a secular, vibrant political community which had been accorded a state whose nature would be liberal, pluralist and liberal with equal citizenship rights to all. However, the subsequent trajectory and nature of Pakistan belies this vision and is at stark odds with this vision. Pakistan has inexorably drifted into a semi authoritarian entity with an Islamic tenor. This raises a set of questions:  What accounts for this discrepancy and dissonance? Does the fault lie in tactical maneuver of creating and crafting a polity as a homeland for South Asian Muslims and then articulating a vision that was at odds with this?  Is the condition that Pakistan finds itself in reversible? How can this political decay be reversed? And how can Pakistan morph into a normal entity?

It would perhaps be safe to posit that the tactical maneuvering and the slogan of Pakistan as a homeland for South Asian Muslims has laid the seeds of the mess that Pakistan is in.  There are multifarious reasons for this. One salient one is that the state, in the final analysis, cannot but be a secular and liberal entity. The state, in any form or shape, owes its genesis to the Treaty of Westphalia and the subsequent convolutions that gripped Europe. And it is the reification of the postulates and principles of secularism and liberalism (not in all cases though) that informs the state and its formation. As such, there can be no such thing as an ‘Islamic state’, a ‘Hindu state’ or a ‘Christian state-save in notional terms. Numerous groups comprise the state and they just cannot realistically be subsumed under an all encompassing rubric and citizenship, by its nature is secular. State society relations, by and large, have to be aligned and this can only happen in a liberal, democratic and secular state.

It is then the tension between the slogan of/for Pakistan and the nature of the state that explains the dissonance and the attendant confusion that defines Pakistan. The results of this dissonance are rife in Pakistan. Be it the Pakistani or sections of the Pakistani society at odds with the state(read Pakistani Taliban) or the praetorian-oligarchical nature of the Pakistani elite, different groups vying for the definition of Pakistan and the attendant morass, it can all be traced to the fundamental contradiction that lies at the heart of the Pakistani state. The nagging question then is: Can this be reversed?

This is a million dollar question. It can. Or it cannot. One reason for the latter assertion- a pessimistic one-is the path dependence of institutions and their ‘lock in’. This ‘lock in’ favors the status quo as interests-vested or otherwise, expectations and paradigms converge, get entrenched and are resistant to change. But this condition is not irreversible. Nations and paradigms and philosophies change and mutate. The same can possibly hold true for Pakistan. What would bring about the salubrious change that would redound positively to Pakistan and the world?

Bold and beautiful leadership is the answer. This would mean leadership by commission and omission and would entail introspection by the Pakistani power structure and reconsideration/ redefinition of its national interest. More specifically, this means that the praetorian elite of Pakistan, that is , the Army, in the interests of Pakistan’s longevity as a healthy nation state, withdraw from the politics of the nation. Concomitantly, it means the rejigging and reformulation of the governing ideology of Pakistan. This can be done by the emergence of a charismatic leader who works in sync with the power structure of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan in directions envisaged by its founder.

Or, in other words, somebody has to do a Chavez in Pakistan (sans the insalubrious aspects of Hugo Chavez’ approach). Populism that brings and aggregates the aspirations of Pakistan and guides them into salubrious directions along with the retreat of the army from politics is perhaps the only way out of the morass.  Someone has to rise from the masses and have an enlightened agenda for Pakistan and embark on a spree of creative destruction. A new Pakistan has to be forged from the ashes and a final consensus be arrived at over its nature and identity.

Killings on a quotidian basis, the pervasive political instability and economic torpor and an insalubrious foreign policy orientation all accrue from the contradictions that define Pakistan. This ,in turn,  is predicated upon the nature of the formation of the Pakistani state. It is about time that the political decay accruing from a mélange of these factors be reversed. Pakistan’s future is at stake here. Let the powers that be in Pakistan introspect, review and course correct. And let Jinnah’s remarks be taken as sacrosanct and form the grist and mill of the naya(new) Pakistan.

On Ramadan and the Muslim Condition: Time to Disengage or Engage with the World?

The Holy month of Ramadan has commenced in many parts of the Muslim world. Muslims in the subcontinent begin the compulsory fast tomorrow. Fasting in the month of Ramadan is enjoined upon every Muslim. The premise of the fasting is not merely abstinence and abstaining from eating, drinking and carnal desires/needs but a comprehensive re-orientation of the self. This re-orientation is supposed to make the Muslim self submit comprehensively to the enjoinments and commands of God, disavow worldly pleasures, have empathy for the poor and the deprived and re-orient thoughts toward the afterlife.

The Muslim world, on account of the comprehensive re-orientation inherent in the philosophy of Ramadan, by and large, has a different complexion and hue during this month. Muslims are more compassionate,  more devout, more attuned to the subtleties of religion and their energies are devoted to fulfilling this very important injunction of Islam. It is a time for making resolutions, charity and vigorous devotion. The aim is the cleansing of the soul and its catharsis.  Ramadan accords Muslims to obviate and cancel the focus on the duniya(worldly affairs) which allegedly implicates the soul and makes it impure. This raises a very important question: Is this retreat into a self that militates against worldly affairs good or prudent? Is this interlude in Muslim lives a metaphor for the Muslim condition? Should Muslims instead of treating life as a way station and a preparation of the other world aim and aspire for a balance? Would this balance which incorporates the worldly dimension improve the Muslim condition?

These questions are necessarily eschatological in nature and by way of a disclaimer; this article does not dwell on the eschatological dimensions. The focus is on what may be called the mundane and the prosaic.

The world of Islam, it is safe and perhaps accurate to posit, is gripped by torpor and political decay. The reasons for this decay are manifold and multifarious. A plethora of analysts and scholars-Muslim and non Muslim-have  tried to put a finger on and grappled with this and have come up with answers that pertain to the political, economic and cultural conditions that obtain in the world of Islam. The focus in this piece, however, is on one aspect that has not been accorded much attention. That is, the other worldly focus of Muslims and treating life as a way station and an opportunity to cleanse oneself and prepare for the afterlife. This approach and attitude may not be inherent in Islam given that the Holy Quran enjoins Muslims to be ‘God’s vicegerents on Earth’ and enjoins them to observe and understand nature or in Islamic terminology , the bounties and munificence of God. There is no clear cut injunction in either the Quran or the Ahadith(sayings attributed to the Prophet(SAW) to retreat from the world. In fact, an oft stated and quoted hadith clearly states that,’ a Muslim should tie his camel first and then do what he has to do’. The implication of these Quranic verses and the hadith appears to be some latitude for free will in Islam and a disavowal of fatalism. Or in other words, the emphasis is on the Muslim’s engagement with the world.

However, on account of perhaps accretions that have latched onto the corpus of Islamic theology and theosophy, this approach which could contain the seeds of modernity understood as attempting to attain mastery over nature is now almost moribund. The focus of the devout Muslim is on life after death and this life, to repeat is held as a way station- an opportunity to redeem the self by coming out clean through the vicissitudes, trials and tribulations of life. This approach leads to a crippling fatalism and acceptance one’s lot in life. As such, it is a status quo attitude. Latching onto this attitude means and implies torpor, decrepitude and political decay.

By retreating and withdrawing from the world, Muslims abdicate their responsibility toward making this world a better place to live in. The fortress like and besieged mentality that accrues from this then renders the collective Muslim self into a sullen, forlorn and reactive one. This leads to reaction and a reactionary attitude and goes against the gravamen of the philosophy that Islam is imbued with. This philosophy is confident and vibrant and the Golden Age of Islam is testimony to this. The question then is how can this attitude be reversed?

Introspection, Ijtehad(independent reasoning) and a resolve to engage with the world and nature is the answer. These ,incidentally , are the grist and mill of modernity and goes to show that Islam is not really antithetical to modernity. The condition of the Islamic world does not smell of roses. Political decay, torpor , poverty, and deprivation are the hall mark of the Muslim world. This condition is not foreordained. Neither is it punishment for abdicating the principles of Islam. It is man made and can be reversed. This is eminently possible. What needs to be done is to vigorously engage with the world and give short shrift to man made problems. This warrants and requires discarding shibboleths and vigorously trying to change the Muslim condition. Let us all make a pledge this Ramadan to balance the otherworldly approach with a ‘this worldly’ focus. The results will be salubrious and we owe this to Islam and the next generation of Muslims.

India's Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Pax Indica, Incredible India or Credible India?

The end of the Cold War that roughly coincided with India’s rather serendipitous opening up to the world has been salubrious for India. The country is now taken seriously in the halls of power. It is not (barring some hiccups) only seen as an investment destination but its range of power and capabilities are now widely appreciated. It appears that India is finally making its ‘tryst with destiny’- a phrase and slogan that rang hollow and was rather vacuous when India achieved its independence. While the pithy branding exercise that goes under the rubric of ‘Incredible India’ is somewhat ironical given the paradox that is India, it does not detract from the fact that India is well on the path of becoming a power to reckon with.

This raises a set of salient questions: what is India to do with this new found power and status? Is this power and status real? And what should India’s outward orientation and the nature of its foreign policy be in the 21^st century?

 Before dwelling on these questions, it may be pertinent to make a digression.Numerous commentators, pundits and analysts-ranging from smitten and irredeemable Indophiles to sober commentators and critics- have written tomes on India’s potential and it’s current. Most of this surge in commentary and analysis about/over India is unrealistic and glosses over the real and existing India and is meant as lip gloss to make India palatable to the western eye and ear. However, analysts and doyens like Stephen Cohen, able diplomats like David Malone (who goes native in his tome on Indian foreign policy) and the former UN official turned politician, Shashi Tharoor’s analyses offer a reasonably sober portrait and picture of India and its foreign policy orientation.

The consensus and the distilled essence of the works of these doyens is that India is and has changed. And that this is reflected in the respective domains of culture, identity and politics. Inevitably and naturally, these changes are having an impact on India’s outward orientation and foreign policy. India , in the words of one prominent scholar, Rajmohan Roy, has ‘crossed the Rubicon’ and if the analyses and recommendations offered by Dr. Tharoor are taken seriously and implemented , India may morph into ‘Pax Indica’- an entity that is ‘multi aligned’ and radiates influence through a prudent admixture of ‘soft’ and hard power.

Most analysts take their starting point India’s policy of non alignment wherein India disavowed power politics and did not take sides in the structural bipolarity that came to be known as the Cold War. They aver that non alignment was a bit of a sham and did not serve India well. And profound structural changes in the international system and structure and the global economy have entailed a paradigm shift in India’s power, capabilities and orientation. India then is on the cusp of momentous change and should grasp the opportunity that the current confluence of conditions. What does this mean? Does this imply and mean regional hegemony and the intermeshing of India’s neighborhood into the ‘complex interdependence’ paradigm with India at its apex? Or being a partner of ally of the United States in the evolving and fluid international system and structure? Or does this mean holding onto what has been called ‘strategic autonomy’ and maintaining a bit of a distance between the US and India? Or should India, to quote Dr. Tharoor, mean multi alignment in a networked world?

Radiating influence and projecting power is the concomitant of power and capabilities. This is an axiom or even a law of international relations and politics. So if India has finally emerged and is becoming a player in its own league, it will naturally project its power onto the states comprising its neighborhood. As much as Dr. Tharoor may try to gloss over this and offer a palliative analyses and projection, this will not detract from the fact that India will inevitably become a regional hegemon. Thucydides reminds us that rising powers inevitably raise suspicion and paranoia among smaller states. This development is then potentially alarming for India’s neighboring states. They can respond by either balancing or soft balancing. The question is how can India assuage their fears and pre-empt this outcome. This can be done not by glibness or smooth words but by assuring the lesser powers that the nature of India’s hegemony will be benign and then enmeshing the economies of these states into a complex interdependence paradigm. This may be most prudent given that a rough balance of power globally with regional hegemons propping up a world order may ensure peace and stability than the obverse. This is  insofar as, India’s near abroad is concerned. What about India’s global orientation especially its relations with the sole superpower, the United States?

The United State’s is and will remain peerless as far as the eye can see and it appears to be forging a policy paradigm which factors in the structural changes that are occurring in world politics. In this policy formulation, the United States appears to be reaching out to democracies like India and making them into partners or even allies. This is a historic opportunity that India should grasp. India should, normatively speaking, ‘warm up’ to the United States and even enter into a full fledged alliance with that United States –the kind that corresponds to a league of or Concert of democracies. This should be done while maintaining strategic autonomy and at the same time, India should make it clear to the United States that the country would not be the United State’s ‘deputy sheriff’ in the region. This means that India should have a large room for maneuver in its dealings with China and Iran.

The state, in spite of the transformations wrought on it by globalization is the fundamental unit of the international system and structure. Notwithstanding the prognostications of the state’s demise and the eminent, AnnMarie Slaughter’s conception of a networked world, the international system is comprised of discrete units called states. In this world of states, it is national interest that reigns supreme. Alliances, partnerships, and raison d’etat forms the grist and mill of this state centric world.  For India, this means that it have a clear cut and not a dreamy eyed approach to world politics. In essence, the country’s orientation should be realist sprinkled  with a dose of liberalism. This liberal realist approach would serve India well and may correspond to its purported nature: a liberal democratic nation. In this scheme, ‘multi alignment’ means no alignment or an approach that is ad hoc and surreal.

The challenges that the 21^st century brings with it are rare and unique. These require co-operation with other states on/at a range of levels. Multilateralism and issue linkages are the name of the game here. At the same time, India should understand that state interest of national interest is paramount. Given the nature of transnational problems, this may mean tweaking national interest a bit and incorporating these into India’s ‘grand strategy. This grand strategy should be informed by the principles and tenets of realism and liberalism. It is this synthesis that will serve India well and enable it to morph into a responsible power. The alternatives-mushy and dreamy eyed formulations- will merely confuse and befuddle. It is about time that India introspects and incorporates realism and liberalism into its foreign policy.  Pax Indica can wait. Let the inflated ‘Incredible India’ formulation give way to credible and sober India. 

Islamic Revivalism and its Contents: Can it be a force for good for the world and Islam?

Islamic Revivalism and its Contents: Can it be a force  good for the World and Islam?

From the historic city of Aleppo in Syria to the Swat valley in Pakistan, the world of Islam is defined by ferment, chaos and violence. Be it the insurgents traversing the border between Afghanistan and launching their jihad against western forces or even against the Pakistani state or the Syrian regime butchering its own citizens, the story and saga is the same: lands, nations and societies deemed and defined as Islamic are in the grips of a condition that can only be called political decay. Whilst some have termed this as the continuation of the legacy of ‘Islam’s bloody borders’ or even called it a putative ‘clash of civilizations’, the reality is perhaps best captured by the ‘clash within a civilization’.  That is, the once mighty, omnipotent and dynamic civilization of Islam has fallen into disrepair and the attendant decay. The violence, chaos, regression-political, social, cultural, that defines the dar el Islam (abode of Islam) are merely symptoms of this decline and decay.

The question is how can this decay be reversed? Can it be reversed? What form and shape should this reversal take? Will the ‘historic antagonists’ –the West and Islam – estranged from each other be reconciled? Would this reconciliation catalyze the much needed change in the Islamic world(s)? And is this possible?

The question and issue of the world of Islam’s decline and its possible rejuvenation is not new. It has perhaps become salient and poignant on account of globalization and the gory saga of September II. The reasons for the world of Islam’s decline and its rejuvenation and efflorescence has been exegetized and dwelt upon both by Islamic scholars, reformers and western scholars. While no overall consensus has been arrived at the reasons for/of decline, the response by the world of Islam has been as varied and as heterogeneous as the world of Islam itself. Some advocated a ‘return to root’s or Islam’s essence, while others like the Young Turks advocated and deemed nationalism and complete disavowal of Islam as the panacaea.  Some others advocated a synthesis of Islam and modernity or reason as the ultimate and ‘final’ solution.

The manifestation of these varied responses was naturally and axiomatically different in shape and form. The ‘return to root’s school labeled as Islamism or Islamic fundamentalism argued for a return to the Scripture-the Quran and the Ahadith’- and blind imitation of the Prophet (SAW) and his Companions. Be it Wahhabism or Salafism or even the Shi’ism pioneered by the clerics of Iran, the return to roots theme underpinned these in different permutations and combinations. The modern school, under the influence of the gale of ideas emanating from Europe, argued for disavowal of religion and coercive top down modernity. It manifested itself in the secular Attaturkian Turkey or the Bath experiment in Iraq and Syria and the secularized Iranian republic. These were, to repeat, top down coercive attempts at modernizing traditional societies imbued with an Islamic ethos and temper and in the final analysis comprehensive failures. In the list of failures is Islamism or political Islam –essentially a reaction to the world of Islam’s decline and torpor – as well. The chaos, violence, ferment and internecine wars or in a nutshell, political decay that defines the Islamic world is a result of these failed reactions and movements against modernity (defined as reason here).

This raises the question whether it is Islam that is antithetical to the premises undergirding modernity? And, given this, would it be perhaps prudent for the world of Islam to retreat into itself and not engage the world? Or is there a golden mean between modernity (reason) and Islam that could lead to the revival of Islam as a positive force in the world?

Islam, to belabor the point , is premised on the sovereignty of God and the centrality of the Prophet(SAW). All law and legislation flow from this and society should, in Islam’s schema, correspond to this. Modernity, au contraire, is premised on the sovereignty of man or the individual. Law, legislation and the nature of society is derived from reason and man’s reasoning faculties. In this sense , Islam is indeed at odds with modernity and the source of modernity-the west. This rendition then renders Islam and reason at odds with each other. However, the reality is more complex. Islamic history is resplendent with examples wherein reason has been integrated with faith. Be it Ijtihad(independent reasoning) or the movements that sought to view the Quran in the light of reason, examples galore exist wherein reason has been attempted to merge with faith. It is this legacy that needs to be revived and then implemented. What would this mean in the modern world?

This naturally means understanding , integrating and implementing the concomitant of reason, democracy into  Islamic philosophy and practice. The good news is that this is eminently possible and more importantly it does not mean or imply mimesis or plain mimicry.  It means integrating the postulates of Islam with reason and coming up with a synthesis that is salubrious and above all workable. This synthesis would mean borrowing the best western modernity has to offer and then integrating it with Islamic thought and philosophy in a manner that marries God with reason. The shape it may take will naturally differ from the pure democracy and modernity or the theoretical models of these found in the west. But it may suit the temper of the Islamic peoples and, in this sense be more durable and get implanted in Islamic consciousness in a way that would imply ownership of these ideas. This then may not lead to reaction.  Implicit in this is engagement with the world, especially the west. This too has a precedent in Islamic history: the Classical age of Islam held to be its Golden Age was an age where synthesis, borrowing, curiosity about and engagement with the world were the reigning paradigms in the world of Islam.

It is perhaps time to revisit these paradigms and revive these. Globalization which means and implies simultaneity makes this eminently possible. What is missing is the will and desire on part of those comprising the world of Islam to grasp this historic opportunity and understand what the west and its modernity has to offer. The first step in this direction would be to get rid of the accretions that have latched into Islam , open the clichéd gates of Ijtehad(independent reasoning), and reengage the world in a healthy, salubrious idiom. Given the stakes involved and the future of both the world of Islam and the world, it is exigent that this happens sooner than later.  This reengagement- as the term implies-by it very nature should not be reactionary, impulsive or Manichean. It should not mean a clash or an attempt to outdo the west and compete with it. Synthesis and engagement for the improvement of the human condition should be the by word of this process. Above al, the impetus for this should come from within the world of Islam. The west could just aid this process by being true to its principles and ethos. It is only through engagement with the principles and philosophy of engagement that political decay in the world of Islam can be reversed. And it is only democracy –the handmaiden of modernity- that can lead to the efflorescence of Islam in the modern world- the kind that makes Islam as a positive and salubrious force.  It is this revivalism that the world of Islam needs. Wahhabism, Salafism or top down attempts at modernization have failed Muslims. We do not need conflict or conflictual paradigms. What we need is progress and efflorescence. This can come about only if we integrate faith with modernity- a challenge that Muslims should accept with gusto and vigor. Let the world of Islam introspect deep and hard and come up with paradigms that redound positively to the world and Islam. The time for this is now.

President Obama's Take on the Indo Pak Dispute: Is Self Determination being Sacrificed at the Altar of Power Politics?

President Barack Obama, the United State’s president, has stated that the disputes between arch rivals, India and Pakistan should be resolved by the two countries. This coincides with what can be termed as ‘cricket diplomacy’ between India and Pakistan. Both have decided to resume cricketing ties suspended after tensions reached a peak between the two countries. The former would constitute a healthy development from the perspective of powers that be in India but would be viewed with a jaundiced eye by the Pakistani establishment. Pakistan, by encouraging and supporting a low intensity proxy war in Kashmir, has been assiduously trying to ‘internationalize’ the Kashmir issue and catalyze outside (read US) mediation over the issue. This hope now stands dashed given the United State’s clear cut stance on bilateral resolution of disputes between the two countries.

This raises a whole host of questions, the salient of which are: what accounts for this shift in the United State’s approach and perspective towards the subcontinent? Is the reorganization and reshuffling of the grand chessboard of international politics the reason for this shift? What are the implications? Where does this leave Kashmir, Kashmiris and their aspirations? Are lofty principles like self determination, pioneered by the United States being sacrificed at the altar of geopolitics and raison d’etat?

It would appear that a recognition of the structural shifts in world politics accounts for the United State’s new stance. That is to say, unipolarity-the aberrant condition and interlude in world politics- is giving way to what may be called ‘loose multipolarity’. In this new world, the United States appears to be cultivating India as partner or even an ally. This also is reflective of India’s putative shift from an emerging power to a power that has finally emerged. While one of the goals to facilitate India’s long awaited entry into the halls of power may to balance (not contain) China, the reasons for the warming up and deepening of ties between the United States and India are deeper. These relate and pertain to the shift from unipolarity to multipolarity and the democratic nature of India. It may, in the United State’s schema be more prudent to ally with a democracy than a non democracy and thus widening and deepening the arc of democracies. This may then explain, what will surely be seen in Pakistan , as the United State’s ‘tilt’ towards India.

Whether it constitutes a tilt or is the consequences of the shift in the distribution of power and system polarity, it should serve as a sober lesson for Pakistan. It’s ‘arch enemy’ India, is growing in stature and prominence-economically and politically, but it is in the midst of a profound structural and existential crisis. Pakistan’s value to the international community lies in its potential drift into a failed state, the status of its nukes and nuisance value. This denouement of the so called home of South Asian Muslims is sad. However, the good news is that it can be reversed. Bold and beautiful leadership by the power structure of Pakistan which leads to course correction and the review of the conceptual dynamic undergirding Pakistan could potentially morph Pakistan into a salubrious, healthy and valued member of the comity of nations. This would inevitably lead to peace, within and without.

 It is then the shifts in the international distribution of power that is catalyzing a fresh approach to South Asia. The power structure of Pakistan should read the fluid international political game as it is and eke out honorable space for itself in this new world. Whether Pakistan will re-orient itself or continue with its sterile policies is a million dollar question. What is pertinent and germane here is the fate of a people caught in the crucible of animus between India and Pakistan. The reference here is to Kashmir. Is the distribution of power and the attendant geopolitical reshuffling giving short shrift to their aspirations? Is the concept of self determination now passé?

 President Obama’s statement indicates that Kashmir or broadly speaking self determination of peoples is no longer on the agenda of the nation that introduced this concept. This is both good and perhaps bad. Good because while the concept is fine and great in theory and principle, it has in practice led to gratuitous murder and rapine. State power , in the final analysis wins out and states hardly cede their remit over territories which they deem their own.  It is bad because it leaves people’s aspirations out in the cold and sacrifices these on the altar of power politics.  Resolving the tension between self determination and raison d’etat is a poser. How can this be resolved? The trick perhaps  is to find the golden mean between people’s aspirations , geopolitical compulsions and reasons of state. What does this mean in the context of Kashmir?

India is craving validation and recognition as a great power and Pakistan maneuvering to eke out geopolitical space for itself. Both need the United States for these respective reasons. The sole superpower should recognize this and lean on both. In the context of India, it means talking privately and quietly to powers that be in India and asking them to focus on improving the life chances of Kashmiris, according them greater autonomy or self rule and focusing on a human security approach instead of the narrow national security one. Insofar, Pakistan is concerned; President Obama should ask Pakistan to focus on obviating the structural and existential problems that Pakistan is facing and strengthen its sovereign remit over territory it holds. He should discourage Pakistan from recidivism.

This means astute and sagacious diplomacy. The United States should dig deep into its reservoirs of diplomatic talent and impress upon the two antagonists that these are the only viable options that will bring peace and stability to the subcontinent. And that this is in the interests of both. It is, in the final analysis doable and constitutes a win win solution for all parties and stakeholders. The alternative or the politics of the status quo is fraught with danger and peril. It is about time then that the sole super power takes recourse to tact, diplomacy , creativity and imagination. It is only the United States that can make this happen. Let the sole superpower correspond to this role and make powers that be see sense and sensibility and draw that fine line between geo politics, international relations, raison d’etat and self determination. Let us play cricket in the meantime.

The Sources of the West's Vitality and Vigor: What can the Non West Learn from this?

It is now fashionable and faddish to pronounce the imminence of the West’s decline. This accrues from multifarious reasons-the most salient of which is the economic growth enjoyed by the non west over the past few decades. It is then inferred that the non west or the erstwhile colonized, on account of this economic growth, is‘re-discovering’ itself and posing a challenge to what has been called western ‘hegemony’. This non west is coming out of the torpor and lassitude induced by the injuries on its collective self by colonialism and presenting a frontal assault on the edifice that constitutes the west.

 By and large, it is the rise of China and India, or broadly speaking ‘Asia’ that is leading the pack and the‘re-emergence’ of the duo, it is held, will change the rules of the game-political, economic and cultural. This remarkable and extraordinary assertion and assessment raises a set of questions:  is it true? Is the non west really about to pose an insurmountable challenge to the west? Is the non western collective self viewing itself in a light informed by its very own principles and philosophies? Is this just another fad informed by ethereal and transient feeling of euphoria induced by stellar economic growth? Or is the west’s influence and legacy so deep and profound that its imprimatur on the world is indelible? If so, what accounts for this influence?

The answers to this question necessarily warrant a detour into the nature of the west. The west is not a geographical zone or a material entity with fixed demarcation lines and boundaries. Like Islam, it is very much a set of ideas and philosophies about the individual, society, economics and government. This set of ideas owes its genesis and provenance to that great intellectual ferment called the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. This ferment that underpinned the Renaissance set the tone for the primacy of reason over tradition and convention. This, in turn, led to the emergence of the scientific temper, the critical method and the attendant reorganization of society, state and the economy. The power of these ideas has been so compelling that these enveloped the entire globe over a time span that is very brief from a historian’s perspective.  This attests to the universalism inherent in these ideas. That these ideas emerged in a region of the world conventionally denoted as the ‘west,’ they are rather fallaciously held to the western ideas. The hegemony enjoyed by these ideas pioneered in the ‘west’ was later termed as western hegemony- an unfortunate legacy of imperialism and colonialism. The west is then not a geographical zone or a cluster of countries but an idea or a set of ideas. And it is this set of ideas that the world has been gyrating to since the past few centuries.  

The question of a challenge then does not arise. The region of the world designated and denoted as the non west is rising or emerging in the idiom and narrative framed by the west. Be it economic growth accruing from capitalism, the widespread acceptance of democracy as a legitimate form of political organization and government, the spread of the human rights , it is all ‘western’ in provenance. Further, the institutional setting in which the non west is framing the alleged challenge has been framed and established by the western idea. The rise of the non west is a tribute to the western idea. The ‘awakening’, in contradistinction to the west, attributed to the non west is then chimerical.  The non western collective self is not rediscovering itself. It is , to the contrary,  getting transformed. This transformation, at the risk of sounding tautological, is informed by the western idea. This attests to the strength, resilience and vitality of the western idea. The question is: what accounts for this?

The west’s resilience and the creative impulse underpinning it accrue from its philosophy. This philosophy is iconoclastic. It challenges. Innovation and the critical method are inherent to it. Seeking to transcend nature and its limitations, it goes beyond the obvious.  Doubt, a childlike curiosity about the world and how it works and an aversion to certainty are central to it.  Reason and logic are its arms and tour de force. And given the spread and success of this philosophy, it is eminently pragmatic.  The issue then is not of a challenge to the west and its alleged decline but its continued resilience, vigor and vitality. And the question is what can the non west glean and learn from this?

The ideas that inform the west are pragmatic and workable. The choice before the non west is how best to incorporate these into their systems not mimetically but in a creative synthesis and fusion. The diversity that defines the world is amazing and it would be a travesty if it were to dissolve under the ideational onslaught of the west. The trick is to arrive at a synthesis that maintains this diversity and at the same time is receptive to the ideas of the west. Success , ‘progress’ and efflorescence of the world may depend on this. Resistance to the ideas of the west is futile and counterproductive. It behooves on all to expend intellectual energy and arrive at a synthesis where both the west and the non west meet at a terrain informed by fusion. The alternatives are too bleak to countenance.

Governance and Alienation in Kashmir: the relevance of Professor Fukuyama to Kashmir

It has been asserted that the Kashmir ‘problem’ is all about governance (or misgovernance)and  the frustrations bred and engendered by pervasive unemployment  Some would add the ‘class factor’ or  in the Marxist jargon, ‘class struggle’ to the brew. The demand or quest for azadi( freedom) ,it is adduced from this, is held to be the manifestation of deeper anxieties and psychical disturbances accruing from material discomfort. In short, the problem is reduced to that of economics and deterministic materialism. The corollary and the implication is that if broad based economic growth is allowed to take root with a reasonable redistribution of income, the problem would go away.

  Kashmiri’s would be so enthralled and taken by this that their fixation on ‘freedom’ and ‘self determination’ would melt and dissolve. The Kashmir problem or issue would then go away with Kashmiri’s finally accepting India’s sovereign remit over Kashmir. This reduction of the Kashmiri as homo economicus is not only facile but also simplistic and goes against the gravamen of what constitutes history and the historical process.

History and the historical process , in contrast and contradistinction to the Marxist reading of history which deem and reduce both to dialectical materialism and the class struggle between owners of capital and labor, is the panning out and dénouement of the historical consciousness and is largely ideational in nature. That is to say, it is consciousness and ideational factors that render the world in their image. Or in other words, ideas are the animating motor of history.

  This rendering and reading of history is attributed to the Russian émigré Alexandre Kojeve and   the German philosopher George Frederich Hegel. Whether it was Hegel who resuscitated Kojeve’s thesis or whether Hegel’s insights were original is a moot point. (Obiter dictum, it was the eminent political philosopher , Francis Fukuyama, who  gave a new lease of life to both Kojeve and Hegel and came out with his path breaking and controversial End of History and the Last Man thesis).What is of significance here are the implications and consequences on human nature and behavior and the attendant impact on history and the historical process. That is,  what is it that drives human beings and is the motor of history?

Hegel’s central insight may provide the answer to this question. Hegel posited that besides  what has come to be known as the ‘hierarchy of needs’ ( a phrase developed by  and attributed to the organizational and business theorist Abraham Maslow) of food, security , safety and sex, man desires  and craves the recognition of other men. He/ she wants to be recognized as having inherent worth and dignity. ‘This worth, to quote Fukuyama,is related to his/her willingness to risk his/her life in a struggle over pure prestige. Only man is able to overcome his most basic animal instincts- chief among them his self preservation-for the sake of higher, abstract goals and principles’. This, according to Fukuyama, stems from Thymos -identified by the Greek philosopher Plato, as a part of the soul which makes people invest in their sense of worth. The attendant desire for recognition, accruing from thymotic pride, determines politics and drives the historical process. Fukuyama adduced from this thesis that history, understood as the struggle for recognition, had ended with liberal democracy sating this fundamental quest /desire of man. Determining the veracity of this bold claim is not in contention here. What is of pertinence here is the relevance of Hegel’s argument to Kashmir, Kashmiris and their politics.

If Hegel’s argument is true, then the struggle of Kashmiri’s framed and articulated in the idiom of nationalism, freedom and its corollary self determination corresponds to the archetypical struggle that defines the human condition and is the motor of history. This then gives short shrift to the theories that reduce the Kashmir conflict to economics and governance. Yes, unemployment, class divides that define Kashmiri society, frustrations accruing from lack of economic opportunities and advancement, an unresponsive state and governance apparatus play a role in crystallizing rage , anger against the state and the alienation thereof  but they are not pivotal. They are mere symptoms or catalyzing factors that bring to the fore the more profounder and elemental notions of prestige, thymotic pride and the struggle for recognition.  Once this is understood and put into perspective, the solution to the vexed dispute may become clearer. Policy paradigms that take account these powerful abstractions can be developed and then implemented.

 The question is what would constitute prudent and sophisticated policy paradigms that speak to the Kashmiri condition? This isa billion dollar condition and entails a complex interplay of politics, geopolitics and international relations.   For reasons of brevity, the focus here is only on the political dimension of the conflict. Given that the Indian state, against which the ire of Kashmiris is directed against, purports to be a liberal democracy, we have grounds for optimism. The Indian state should/could demonstrate its liberal democratic tenor and nature to Kashmiris and make the constitutional guarantees of rights-economic, cultural and political-real to/for Kashmiris. This may, in practice, mean greater autonomy or self rule for Kashmiris wherein Kashmiri’s feel masters of their own destiny and future. The politics of machinations, intrigue and opportunism need to be shelved and supplanted by sincerity and genuine politics. Kashmiris should feel confident that their aspirations for the ‘good life’ and the desire for recognition could be met and sated within the Indian firmament. It is perhaps then that the desire for recognition and thymotic pride would be sated and Kashmiri’s can attain closure and plenitude.

Men are moved by more than self preservation and material improvements.  Abstract principles like honor, rectitude, the desire for recognition, dignity and self worth animate them. This is universal and holds true for Kashmiris. Reducing them to homo economicus and deeming the conflict in Kashmir as governance and  an unemployment problem is perverse and ahistorical. Let the power structure ofIndian realize and then recognize this and let it then gird and brace itself for a paradigm shift. Kashmiris have long suffered from the myopia accruing from a misreading-willful or otherwise- of the conflict in Kashmir.It is about time then that history be ended in Kashmir. We all have a stake in it.