The rise and fall of Infosys: Is Indian capitalism flawed?

Infosys-the IT bellwether firm- which could be said to have been the face of Indian capitalism and the visage of the New India is in trouble. The pioneering firm took advantage of globalization , India’s meshing into the global economy and other germane structural factors is no longer the firm which animates and captivates the market. What accounts for this? Has the law of diminishing returns set in? Did the firm merely ride the tide of reforms that swept India after 1991 and given this, does this mean that it was destined to be second class? Has the firm reached its ‘strategic inflection point? Have its competitors been more nimble? Do cultural and sociological factors account for this?Or is it the Scumpeterian creative destruction kicking in?



It would appear that the catch all explanations that may explain the plight of Infosys are a combination of cultural and sociological explanations coupled with creative destruction. What does this mean?



Pared down, these assertions mean that India, sociologically and culturally, may not have capitalism wired into its DNA. As a corollary, dynamic risk taking and entrepreneurship may be missing in India. The reasons for this are manifold: the socialist legacy bears down heavily on the Indian psyche. However, more poignant reasons may be nature of Indian society and culture. That is to say that given that India is what may be called a communitarian society, the nature of society and its dynamic revolves around the group. This stifles creativity and the thrust of the group’s approach is toward seeking security and overall, in the main, the group is risk averse. Was Infosys an aberration then? Are Indian firms and potential entrepreneurs condemned to mediocrity?

No. Neither. The percolation of capitalism to India and India’s intermeshing into the global economy means that the country made its tryst with an altogether different, hypercompetitive, turbocharged capitalism. Infosys benefited and profited from this initial foray but may have reached or hit the law of diminishing returns. Can it recover?



The answer lies in creative destruction. By creative destruction, the reference here is not to apocalyptical , Marxian visions and prognoses of capitalism’s ultimate demise but the dynamism inherent in capitalism. The phrase creative destruction was popularized by the genius of geniuses, Joseph Alois Schumpeter. In Schumpeter’s schema, capitalism was defined by an inherent dynamism that destroyed the old and created the new. It is worth quoting Schumpeter here:



“Capitalism [...] is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary. [...] The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates. [...] The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation [...] that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in”( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction).

This is what may have happened to Infosys. That is, while the firm itself was beneficiary of the creative destruction process, it too may have been overtaken by the same dynamic. Infosys may or may not recover its pivotal position. Whether it does or whether some other Indian firm takes its place or even goes beyond, the principles to bear in mind are that in the contemporary world, capitalism is turbocharged and hypercompetitive. Creative destruction them takes at a faster pace and speed. No firm can rest on its laurels and continue to survive let alone thrive.

To recover then, Infosys needs to rejig itself. This rejigging cannot and should not merely mean tinkering revamping its business model but realigning the entire concepts upon which it was premised upon. This means more entrepreneurial verve and risk taking which in turn means reviewing cultural assumptions and even creating new ones instead in the new Infosys culture. Once this is done, the rest-creating and crafting a new business model, and other issues of business structure and strategy- become mere detail.



India has made its tryst with capitalism. This is irreversible. To reach a level that is coeval or commensurate with the developed world, it is imperative that the country develops a culture that is aligned with the needs of capitalism. It is then that the country can boast of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Till then, the country and its firms can go only so far. Infosys demonstrated that India and Indians could compete. Now it’s time to demonstrate that India stands prepared for any challenge that capitalism throws at it.

The Iranian Sisyphus: Would nuclear proliferation in the region lead to peace?

Nobody can fault the Iranians for lack of subtlety. Be it the delicate dance over its alleged nuclear program or gradually and inexorably building a position of power and strength in the region or maneuvering deftly through the maze of international politics, Iran has done it all with adroitness. It amplified and intensified its nuclear program soon after the George Bush administration labeled it as a component of the ‘ axis of evil’, resisted pressure by the international community over its alleged program, and maneuvered deftly and adroitly in the changing equations and changed balance of power in the Middle East, post Gulf War II.



More recently, it held elections and elected Hassan Rohani with a landslide margin as the president of Iran. What is remarkable about the election of Rohani is that neither the reformists nor the hardliners murmured a word of protest or mumbled against his elections. Iran apparently is unified over his election. What all this tell about Iran, regional politics and Iran’s status?



First and foremost, despite numbers and statistics, that indicate a worrying state of the economy for Iran-30% inflation and over 40% of Iranians living under the poverty line- sanctions have not had the intended effect of splitting Iranians and making them rebel against the regime. To the contrary, Iranians seem to have become more unified with no major differences or splits emerging. What explains this apparent contradiction and counterintuitive theme?



Nuclear nationalism and Iranian pride may be the answers. Both go together. Nuclear weapons not only are the only security guarantors but can potentially- especially in the volatile Middle East region- provide and accord hegemonic status to a state that has a nuclear arsenal. Acquisition of nuclear weapons accord Iran hegemonic status in the region- a status it could never have despite being an Islamic Republic. (Being Shi’ite coupled with the fact that the centre of gravity of Islam remained Saudi Arabia on account of its custodianship of Islam’s holiest places- Mecca and Medina, Iran could not sate this aspiration). Nukes potentially give Iran the much coveted regional hegemonic status albeit in a convoluted way and not at the same level as Saudi Arabia in terms of prestige and standing in the Islamic world.



This along with the squeeze induced by sanctions and the occasional rhetoric of a pre-emptive strike against Iran appears to have unified the Iranians. A new nationalism overlain by Islam appears to be developing in Iran. This is ominous. How can this nationalism approximating what may be called Islamo-nationalism be accommodated by the world and above all what can be done about Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons capability?



Instead of viewing Iran’s emerging combination of Islam and nationalism as a threat, the international community(read the United States) should view it as an opportunity albeit in a qualified manner. Why? A rigid confrontationalist approach would only harden and solidify angst against the west. Moreover, a qualified acceptance of Iran as one of the regional powers would sate the grandiosity complex that Iran collectively suffers from. This may mean accepting Iran’s nuclear quest. This counterintuitive option that will appear bizarre to many in the west may be most prudent. The reasons are manifold: a pre-emptive strike is a non starter, war is a mugs game and continued sanctions useless.



The question now is what would prevent Iran from being an aggressor and a dominating force in the Middle East? Nuclear proliferation in the region may be the answer. Again, this is counterintuitive but may be the most prudent answer. Extended deterrence provided by the US nuclear umbrella in the region would not suffice in this schema. What may be needed is allowing Saudis to go nuclear and deepening the alliance structure with the mini Gulf statelets. This makes the balance of power in the region more even and also leads to a balance of force(s) in the region. Nuclear parity- as the Indo Pak deterrence paradigm so eloquently demonstrates- can lead to over improvement and increase in security. The same may hold true for Iran. What needs to be guarded against is the lapse into proxy wars under the shield of nukes. This can potentially be cancelled out again by engendering a balance of power in the region(this means arms racing) and removing the props for conflict in the region. The reference here is to the Palestianian-Israeli dispute and its resolution. The moribund peace process needs to be revived and a satisfiscing solution arrived at.



In combination, a focus on these factors and elements may lead to a more peaceful Middle East and may keep Iran in check. The price to be paid is proliferation in the region which , on balance, may not be a bad option. The world or the region cannot afford recrudescence into irredentist conflict with nuclear overtones. It is about time a new Iran strategy is formulated and implemented.

Digitization. Miniaturization and the Economy: the story of an MP3 Player

To lighten up and relax, or to use the contemporary slang, that is, the ‘in thing, chillax, I scoured a list of items. A friend suggested that I buy an MP3 player. Being a technophobe and a technological neophyte, I did not know what an MP3 player was. Overcoming my embarrassment, I asked the friend to explain to me the device. He said that it was small device on which music could be uploaded and then conveniently listened to. I formed a mental image of the device and held it to be akin to what I was used to in my younger days: a Walkman. In the evening, I ambled into a store and asked for an MP3 player. I pretended to be a knowledgeable person in terms of technology and technological gadgets and asked for an MP3 player. The sales assistant, could barely, hide his surprise, when he handed me the device. I asked,’ Is this it?’.I was referring to the size of the device and was surprised that an MP3 player was the size of a pen drive.

I took a trip down the memory lane and thought once again about the path breaking book written by the NY Times columnist, Thomas Friedman. (I apologize to my readers for referring to the book and the columnist again). Friedman , in his book, had among other things posited that in the era dominated by Keynesianism( economics attributed to the great economist, John Maynard Keynes), it was the heaviness and scale economies that informedeconomic theory and practice. However, in the current phase of globalization, which he referred to as the Schumpeterian era, it was the size and speed that determined the health, vibrancy and productivity of economies. Miniaturization,digitization , and speed were the mantras and buzzwords of this era.

This is almost a veritable truth. Gone are the days when heavy industry was the hallmark of an industrial and industrialized or even an emergingeconomy. Today the health, vibrancy and productivity of an economy is determined by innovation, connectivity (both technological and economic), and linkages to the global economy. The competition is informed by how lighter, smaller, user friendly and effective and efficient your product or service is. Everything is commoditized. (My more environmentally minded and romantic friends will take exception to this and argue with me). The rate and speed of obsolescence is stupendous. In Schumpeter’s phrase, ‘creative destruction’speaks eloquently to this condition. And to quote a business guru, in this environment, ‘only the paranoid may survive’

This is the hard reality of our times. The question then is: what are the implications of this for states like Jammu and Kashmir? How can we find a niche in this competitive atmosphere where speed and lightness are the requisites for success?

Given the nature of our political economy, it would appear that we may be lagging behind in these indicators and benchmarks of success. Our economy, still more or less an agrarian economy supplemented by centre state fiscal transfers and crafts oriented may even be said to be stuck in a bit of a pre –industrial paradigm. This, however, does not mean we are condemned to this state of affairs. It is globalization and the global economythat offers the antidote to our economic problems. The question now is what can be done to integrate the state into the sinews of the global economy?

The answer lies in the domain of public policy and an enabling environment that assists and nurtures individual initiative, entrepreneurship and innovation. The state may have to re-orient itself , focus on areas where it is indispensable and make room and space for the private sector in areas where the private sector can do a better job. This sounds like a typical World Bank prescription and may be attacked as a ‘neo liberal’approach. In fact, it is neither. It is an eclectic solution that acknowledges and encourages a role for the states and a role for the markets. In, then , is a synthesis. Or , more colourfully, it is where Keynes meets Schumpeter.

In this schema, the state can and should focus its energies on developing and nurturing human capital. This approach has been tried and implemented very successfully in the South East Asian countries which have consequently reaped great dividends from this. By making people skilled and empowering them through education, the state then leaves space and makes room for the magic of markets to work through.

This approach may then be supplemented by developing niche industries that have a premium in the global economy. This, in effect , means a tightened, and reinvigorated industrial policy where targeted subsidies and support may be given to promising and profitable industries.

The banks also have another role to play: that of vigorously supporting new entrepreneurship and funding ideas- even crazy ones. It is in combination and in sync that these policies can reorient our political economy and lead to both a qualitative and quantitative shift of our economy. It is then that we may be able to compete and flourish in an environment where speed and miniaturization and economies of scope triumph over size, heaviness andeconomies of scale. It is about time that we choose the latter. In the meantime, I will enjoy the range of music available on my MP3 player while doing other stuff simultaneously and acknowledge my debt to Schumpeter and Friedman.

Global Kashmir: Possibility or a Pipedream?

Global Kashmir: A Possibility or a Pipedream?

Many months ago, when I had freshly arrived from the West, I was thinking of setting up a business in Kashmir- the kind which would enable me to reap the benefits of globalization or what Anthony Giddens has called ‘time space’ compression. Inherent in Giddens’phrase or coinage was the revolution induced by the Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) revolution which had compressed both time and space. I can, for instance, talk to my sister living seven seas away and in a different time zone at the click of a mouse or touching the buttons of my mobile phone. Similarly, Australia, mention of which evokes great distance in peoples’ minds, is just a plane ticket away. The conjunction of advances in information technology, communications and transportation, in a nutshell, have brought about this structural transformation.

Coming to my now aborted business venture, I conceived and developed a robust business plan and I dare say elegant business model. The model, conceptually, was built to take advantage of this time and space compression. Alas, the plan and the model hit reality and floundered on its rocks. The structural conditions that obtain in Kashmir- landlocked place, distant from ports and lack of critical infrastructure – gave short shrift to my goal of profiting from globalization and I then thought of carving out a nice in what is a very traditional business in Kashmir: tourism. To cut a long story short, none of this transpired and I find myself doing what is close to my heart.

I, however, have not given up on formulating and devising a plan to help Kashmir globalize. It is desirable and eminently doable. How? The answer is simple. Kashmir’s tryst with globalization can be made possible if the infrastructural deficit in India is obviated. This means according impetus and momentum to the 3^rd generation reforms in India. If India embarks on an infrastructural overdrive, this would mean better, world class ports, airports, cargo facilities or , in short, the critical infrastructure and logistical superstructure essential for taking advantage of globalization.

How can Kashmir benefit from this? Kashmir can tap into what are called global supply chains wherein a product is made in multiple locations and nodal points in the world. Take your laptop or mobile phone: it stands as a metaphor and living symbol of the globalization and the magic of capitalism. It may be designed in the US , its components made in China , and its frame may be made in Taiwan where it may be put together as well. The firm is no longer a black box and is defined contemporarily by vertical disintegration and is spread across the globe. So if Kashmir can find a niche product and specialize in making that , the finished product can then be sent to China Taiwan or Europe or the United States. What is critical here is logistical support, critical infrastructure and access to world markets.

Here there is a role for powers that be in Kashmir. They can pitch in politically and support the reform process and use their voice in taking the reform process forward. This then needs to be buttressed by a vigorous , supportive and up to date industrial policies that helps entrepreneurs and industries to find a niche and help them. The government or the state can enter the picture by helping in skill upgradation and development. The name of the game for entrepreneurs would then be developing and conceiving ideas and work vigorously in drawing , say, Volvo, or Marks and Spencer or even enter into tie ups with behemoths like Wal Mart.

Wal Martization of Kashmir would axiomatically mean globalization of Kashmir. The state could then be part of the global economy and find a niche for itself in the sinews of the global economy. This can be an unalloyed good and would also impart pride and vigour to people. This is besides the very important economic benefits that would accrue to the people of Kashmir. The default fall back on handicrafts or tourism- important sectors in their own right- would be given short shrift and Kashmir would begin its tryst with industrialization and build an industrial base by following a template that would have stupefied the best of economists only a few years ago. Let then the powers that be in Kashmir offer their support to economic reforms in India , take advantage of coalition politics and lend their weight and voice to this. The benefits can only be salubrious. I can then, in the meantime, draw satisfaction from the fact that my hard work did not go in vain.

The Guns of America: On School Shootings and America

The Guns of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trouble in Kashmir as the US Withdraws from Afghanistan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ugly American Revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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