Signing out

I have used this blog for about four years now and it is time to give it a rest for multiple reasons. For one, I am migrating to a new platform (comment if you wish to follow!). Secondly, I feel that many of these articles show a more emotional character and are not as well-argued. Over the years, I have developed past opinions to evidence and I wish that my new blog not be tainted by my past baggage. Hence, I shall strive to write more professionally and perhaps even check my some of my biases at the keyboard! Third, given certain developments in my life, I wish to start blogging using my name instead of the pseudonym I had appropriated all this time.

In any case, I hope to see anyone following this blog on my new one. Thanks for reading.

[Special note to Amit: I read your comment on a post I have now removed and I the answer is yes, I have read what you mentioned. The point you raise is significant and I will not discuss it in a reply but will post on the issue soon at my new blog. Please let me know how I can forward you the new url and such. Thank you for reading.]

BRIC(k)S for Brains

The formation of a loose cabal by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (joined in April 2011) was, I hoped in my naiveté, the sign of a political power base in the international arena that would bring the much required checks and balances on American hyperpower and unilateralism. Unfortunately, the bloc has been a sore disappointment in what seems to be its political weltanshauung in its short presence as a notable actor. To be fair to the countries involved, the term BRIC was coined in 2001 by then-head of global economic research at Goldman Sachs, Jim O’Neill, and the countries did not come together of their own accord to form an organisation. Nonetheless, these countries have now come together to work for a 21st century that would be more equitable for themselves, converting their growing economic power to greater geopolitical clout.

BRICS undoubtedly offers many opportunities for India. Although no formal treaties linking the five countries exist as of yet, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa make up the raw materials component of the association, while China and Brazil are the manufacturing hubs. In a jab to economic theorists, India seems to have moved from an agricultural phase directly to the services phase of economic development without a clear industrial phase and India remains the service provider in BRICS. Any free trade agreement or economic treaty between these countries would involve about 25% of the world's landmass, 40% of the world population, and an economic footprint (in terms of PPP-adjusted GDP) of $18.5 trillion (nearly twice that of the United States), a consumer pie unrivalled in economic history. Other countries, such as Turkey, Mexico, Nigeria, and Indonesia from the N-11, aspire to become members of this economic behemoth soon, making it larger, richer, and more powerful. In a 2007 revised report, Goldman Sachs predicted that from 2007 to 2020, India's GDP per capita in US$ terms will quadruple", and that the Indian economy will surpass the United States by 2043. It states that the four nations as a group will overtake the G7 in 2032. The total BRICS economic output accounted for 18 percent of the total global economy output in 2010 and is expected to pass the G-7's output by 2035.

All this seems to be remarkably good news for those who wish to see the balance of power shift from the Atlantic to the Indian and Pacific oceans and hope for the resurgence of Indian power after almost four centuries (or nine, if one accepts Sangh politics). However, India has some treacherous waters to navigate through before it wholeheartedly embraces the BRICS agenda. Of course, there are a few questions looming about the BRICS dream in the first place. For one, it is entirely possible that one or more of these countries do not live up to the projections in the future due to political or other circumstances. Secondly, Russian and Chinese disregard for human rights may become more of an international issue in the future – while this augurs well for other BRICS members, any formal grouping of these nations is bound to be tainted by Russian and Chinese actions. Third, the demographic advantage of a youthful population enjoyed by Brazil and China may fade in three decades. Furthermore, it is uncertain how the increasing gender imbalance in China (and India) will affect their economies and social structures. Fourth, the imbalance between BRICS countries themselves – China accounts for about 70% of the combined BRICS GDP – basically makes BRICS into a Chinese bloc. Admittedly, the countries have the independence to act on their own when it serves their interests, but this still raises the question of what BRICS can offer to Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa. As analyst David Rothkopf wrote in Foreign Policy, “Without China, the BRICs are just the BRI, a bland, soft cheese that is primarily known for the whine that goes with it. China is the muscle of the group and the Chinese know it. They have effective veto power over any BRIC initiatives because without them, who cares really? They are the one with the big reserves. They are the biggest potential market. They are the U.S. partner in the G2 (imagine the coverage a G2 meeting gets vs. a G8 meeting) and the E2 (no climate deal without them) and so on.” [BRICS statistics]

Moving to my reservations about India in BRICS, it seems to me that India is by far the most pro-America country in the group – in a 2004 worldwide poll, India was only behind the Philippines in seeing Bush and the United States as a positive force in the world. India has much to gain from closer ties with the United States for at least the next two decades. The Next Steps in Strategic Partnership and the Indo-American nuclear deal have cleared the way for significant cooperation in technology that India's ailing defence efforts and energy sectors need. The recent condemnation of the NATO-enforced no-fly zone over Libya came in for criticism from BRICS when India had no geostrategic advantage in such a move. Even if we look past politics and to morality (which is a risky endeavour), there is no doubt that Muammar Qaddafi is not a benevolent leader. Libya's past attempts at making nuclear and chemical weapons, and its support of terrorism should give pause to any Indian statesman in seeking better ties with the country, for who should be the targets of such terrorism if not the United States and India? Libya's ties, or rather Qaddafi's ties, not surprisingly, are strongest with China among the BRICS (although Europe dominates trade with about 64%).

It is heartening to note that India has in the past broken with BRICS on issues vital to her security environment. For example, in a IAEA vote in March 2011, India voted in favour of the British Nuclear Fuel Assurance plan meant to ensure continuous supply of nuclear fuel or low-enriched uranium to countries desirous of developing nuclear power for peaceful uses even in the face of adverse political developments between the donor and recipient country.

Despite the oft-stated benefits of BRICS, India is yet to get an endorsement from the group for a permanent seat in the UN SecurityCouncil – China has not supported India to date and the support from BRICS for South African and Indian candidacy for the UNSC has diluted India's position. Although a joint statement issued at the end of the recently concluded BRICS summit in Sanya declared that Russia and China would like to see India play a larger role in the UN, there was no indication that China would back India's bid for inclusion into the UN sanctum sanctorum.

Meanwhile, China has extracted BRICS support for its currency, the yuan, to be one of the currencies in the basket underlying the special drawing rights of the IMF. This is despite the devalued currency hurting exports from India and Brazil. The Sanya summit also resulted in a pact in which the five countries pledged to use their own currencies in giving credit and loans to each other rather than the dollar. Although this challenges the power of the almighty dollar, its main beneficiary is China as it holds trade surpluses with all the other BRICS. The pact could, forseeably, position the yuan as an alternative to the dollar. Even if trade is not impacted by this initially, holdings of the yuan will funnel more trade to China as China stands the most capable of giving massive lines of credit to its trading partners.

The inclusion of South Africa into BRICS, though in some ways a welcome move, threatens to undermine the purpose of IBSA, the India-Brazil-South Africa business consortium. Arguably, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey, popularly known as the “growth economies” (each accounting for about 1% of global GDP) have a better claim than South Africa to join BRIC. The South African economy of $285 billion compares poorly with South Korea’s ($830 billion), Turkey’s ($615 billion) and Mexico’s ($875 billion). But South Africa has one distinctive asset: it is the “gateway” to an entire continent for trade and investment – and for making geopolitical forays. Its other asset is that it has China as its largest trading partner. By bringing South Africa into the BRIC orbit, China challenges the US to rework its Africa strategy. How do you patrol the “global commons” in the Indian Ocean without a grip on the Cape of Good Hope? To be fair to China, the challenge is of diplomatic suppleness with no trace of hard power - yet. China's overture to South Africa can only be seen as a long-term move. Bringing South Africa into BRIC bought China goodwill with its largest trading partner in Africa and gives it a significant advantage in its rivalry with India in Africa.

Thus, although BRICS may have some advantages for India, so far it seems simply an exercise in vanity to be included in a group of the most promising emerging economies by as famous a company as Goldman Sachs. There are many kinks in the BRICS framework that India needs to be wary of. Although BRICS certainly has the potential to challenge American hyperpower and create a Concert of Europe writ large, its significant Chinese component may make us prefer the devil we know.

An Antidote for Terrorism

There seems to be a common perception that terrorism is the new threat that faces the world. The United States, under President George W. Bush, launched a "War on Terror." In its name, two countries were invaded, the draconian (by civilised standards) Patriot Act was passed, and a set of other initiatives designed to fight terrorism. Although terrorism is by no means a trifling problem, the casualties of this war have been increased budget in security and the abeyance of some of our civil liberties. Admittedly, terrorism has taken a hard knock in areas where intelligence confirmed their existence, but that is no reason to sit on our laurels - the very nature of terrorism is that it retreats in visiblity to regain its advantage of invisibility and hits again at other unsuspecting targets.

It is perhaps time to think our strategies on combatting terrorism. For one, vast armies have been shown to be somewhat impotent against it. Secondly, to evade the high tech surveillance net, many terror groups have reverted to old fashioned low tech solutions - instead of mobile phones, they use drop boxes; instead of email, they meet in person. Third, terrorism is not particularly different from regular crime - save the one difference of public and political statements in their choice of targets, terrorists are by and large common criminals albeit some with better resources. The fact remains, however, that even the mightiest army in the world, the US, has no answer when the terror groups originate from rogue states. A nuclear Pakistan has allowed terror groups there a modicum of security against an Afghanistan-style invasion by either the US or India (in 1999). Arabia, though not technically a rogue state, is a powder keg in that as home of Sunni Islam's two holiest sites, action against it could set off a worldwide orgy of Islamist violence (supported by apologists both Muslim and academic).

So what can be done differently? There is no one answer, obviously, but one proposition is to scale back the rhetoric and tackle it based on the facts on the ground. Clearly, there are multiple levels to the problem but each needs its own solution. At the ground level, states should train and arm police better. Despite its size and complexity, India is a relatively under-policed country with about one police officer for each 1,200 citizens (national average - some states are better) as against the usual 1:250 ratio found in most western countries. Despite this, there are some 113,000 sanctioned positions for the post of beat constable that are unfilled. The reason for this is that many politicians ensure that only those who bribe them or who belong to the "right" caste or faith get selected to become a police officer. The absence of professional standards for all but higher-level police positions ensures that several entrants have matters other than the security of citizens as their first priority. In all too many cases, the police are tasked with ensuring the financial and political interests of their patrons often at the expense of the public interest. In the situation where India finds itself as one of the three focal points for jihadi terror (together with the United States and Israel), it would appear self-evident that the training of the police force would be given a high priority. Yet till now, six decades after the British left, there is zero - repeat zero - training given to police constables or indeed any member of the police force below the level of assistant superintendent, usually the junior most position formerly held by a British officer. Then, as now, those further down the chain were not trained except in the most rudimentary way. After all, it does not take a high IQ to learn how to wield a stick or bark out warnings to the public. Small wonder that the quality of the police force is, to put it charitably, uneven. It is a tribute to the civilizational values of the Indian people that despite this weakness in its administrative architecture, public order is relatively high, especially when compared to their neighbors. Even in the UK or in the United States it will be seen that crimes involving Indian-Americans are much less frequent in number than those involving those from countries that have sought to shed the heritage of India and embrace Wahabbism and its attitudes, such as Pakistan and increasingly Bangladesh. For example, even though Mumbai was swamped by torrents of rain at about the same time that Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, there was none of the law and order breakdown in Mumbai that was witnessed in New Orleans.

The district superintendent of police (DSP) is the key officer in each district. Although DSPs are usually seconded to the state administration from the centrally recruited Indian Police Service (IPS), the power of transfer is wielded by the chief minister and the home minister to ensure the DSP's subservience to their dictates. It may seem fantastical but the reality is that the average tenure (within a district) of the superintendent of police in India is about six months. There are cases of police officers (usually those unfortunate enough to be honest) that have been transferred as much as 11 times in one year, thereby playing havoc with the education of their children and the stability of family life.

Normally, it takes about six months for the district police chief to understand the local law and order situation as well as the capabilities of his or her personnel. After that, a minimum tenure of three years is needed to ensure that such knowledge as well as one's efficiency and motivation is reflected in performance. Sadly, those given such long tenures within a district are almost always officers who are ultra-obliging of the whims of their political masters. Clearly, at least in matters of police administration, things change very slowly in India, if at all. The registration of false cases against political and personal opponents and the immunity given to friends of the powerful is endemic in India. The only saving grace is that the disease of maladministration in most parts of India is (as yet) nowhere near the levels reached in Pakistan and Bangladesh, two countries where Wahabbism has found secure nests and from where the Wahabbis seek to infuse their poison into India's 157 million Muslims.

Although corruption is a problem, it is hard not to have empathy for the average policeman whose salary is around Rs. 8,000 in Bombay, one of the most expensive cities of the world. As a result, policemen (and women) are forced to seek other sources of income to make ends meet for themselves and their families. Sadly, the standard of living of the (honest) police constable in India has been reduced to but a tad above that of a street beggar. He has no training, no housing and certainly not a living wage. The wonder is that despite such neglect by those in authority, the police in India work an average of 16 hours per day and manage to keep the country within the ranks of the more stable in the world. Again, a huge part of the credit goes to the culture of India that ensures that the inhabitants of a millionaire's mansion can exist peaceably next to a teeming slum, with not even a single guard for protection. This can be compared to, for example, South Africa or Russia where the rich are forced to barricade themselves inside of fortresses to ensure their survival.

When we come to weaponry and equipment, the events of November 26-28, 2008, demonstrated on live television the police force's lack of firepower. For ten crucial hours they faced trained terrorist commandos while armed only with sticks or, at best, World War II vintage rifles. Except for the third of the police force that is now used almost entirely for the security of the country's political and official elite, the rest are pitifully armed. Also, such a high proportion of the total force set aside for the ritual assembly of police officers along different points of a VVIP's route and at the VVIP's meeting places is unreasonably high given that the total number of the worthies benefiting by such manpower.

During the 2009 election season, when Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi filed her nomination papers in the Rae Raebareli constituency the country's television audience was witness to the sycophancy of senior administrators towards their political bosses, a level that must surpass even the high levels of subservience recorded during the period of the Raj. The director-general (DG) of the Special Protection Group (SPG) was seen on television running alongside the car ferrying Sonia Gandhi to the town's election center. What was the DG (SPG) doing at the time? Was he monitoring the situation and assessing threats? Or keeping in touch with his personnel from across the country tasked as they are with the protection of numerous worthies including the prime minister? Not exactly. He was brushing away rose petals from the vehicle's hood! A crucial national security task indeed and certainly one deserving of the DG (SPG)'s undivided attention. It speaks well for the 58-year-old's level of fitness that one of the most senior police officers in the country was able to keep pace with Sonia's vehicle, albeit with a slight bout of panting towards the end.

Were such obsequious behaviors towards those in power be atypical they would not be a cause for worry. But they are becoming the norm. At least four major commissions have given suggestions for police reform - principally rescuing the force from the death-grip of the politicians - but they have been ignored. Politicians have taken care to pay lip service to the idea of a better police force - as Jim Hacker in Yes, Prime Minister reminds us, sometimes, you have to look as if you are trying to solve something but not actually solve it. An article in the Times of Indian in September reported on some basic facts about the police in India:

* Existing manpower -- 14.5 police personnel per 10,000 of population
* Desirable position -- 22 police personnel per 10,000 of population
* Gap between existing and desirable strength -- 5.96 lakh police personnel
* Total number of police stations -- 14,000
* Police stations in rural area -- 8,000
* Gap between existing and desirable strength in rural areas -- 3.4 lakh police personnel
* On an average, a cop gets in-service training only once in 20 years against the desirable norm of one in-service training every five years
* Total number of policemen in states -- 16 lakh
* Total 99,000 cops got in-service training in 2004; 69,000 in 2005 and 51,000 in 2006 -- decreasing trend
* Home ministry estimates that states will need Rs 25,808 crore annually for next five years to meet gaps in police strength and training

The police continue to act as the personal militias of the powerful rather than the guarantors of law and order for the ordinary citizen. According to a study done in Rajasthan Police Service, the self-perception of police was also found to be negative, as they themselves felt overworked, unappreciated and victims of political manipulation.  Unless the police in India are given the manpower, the remuneration and the equipment and training needed to evolve into a modern and professional force they are at risk of being ineffective against not just the average pickpocket but the next boatload of terrorists from Pakistan.

At a national level, it is perhaps a better idea to coordinate the efforts of various agencies. One thing India does not lack in is bureaucracy, and there are umpteem departments and agencies working in the same field to secure the Indian people from within and without. For example, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) perform the same role. Of course, the National Security Guards (NSG) seems to be the unit that does the grunt work after two bureaucracies have gone through the paperwork. On top of that, the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) have their own fiefdoms within the intelligence and security community. The Border Security Force (BSF), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Seema Suraksha Bal (SSB), and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) also perform the same job - protecting the border from smuggling operations and infiltration. Then there are the state police. Bureaucracies need bureaucracies to keep them in line, obviously: the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) and the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) suggest better ways of storing police data, modernisation of the police force (good job there!), and other such things. What is sorely needed is a streamlining of Indian security operations. The collapsing of the agencies into a larger parent group and the sharing of information between them would be one small step in the right direction.

Finally, at a national level, there is perhaps the least that can be achieved. Trade with terror harbours such as Pakistan should be subject to a security tarrif; every opportunity should be used to remind the world of where the terror elements arise; strong partnerships must evolve between like-minded countries such as the Israel, France, Italy, Spain, Britain, and the United States (there is the danger of information leaks, of course). National policy must make every step that enriches the terror groups or their host nations more difficult - no cricket, more difficult travel permits (including Arabia), diversification of oil purchases and investment and research into alternative sources of energy such as nuclear power and hydrogen. At the same time, ties should be improved with moderate Muslim countries such as Jordan and Indonesia to give Indian diplomacy a voice and influence in the "dar al-Islam." Needless to say, these steps have to be taken diplomatically so as not to seem overtly hostile - whatever goodwill we do have needs to be maintained at all costs.

I have written in other articles (or discussions to articles) on the Centre-Right India blog that terrorism is a grassroots movement which cannot be defeated by state military might alone. The fight needs to be taken to the terrorists, at the lowest level they operate on - the hawaldars and beat police. Just like crime, or a virus, terrorism may never completely go away, for as long as a crime is committed for political reasons, terrorism will survive. That does not mean that, like crime (or a virus), it cannot be controlled or contained. It is time states took terrorism seriously and look at it as a criminal problem and not an ungodly apparition - it only gives the terrorists more power.

What Went Wrong?

The title of this article, taken from Bernard Lewis' famous book on Islamic societies, is perhaps not so much an exposition of what went wrong but how we ought to think about the present situation Islam has put the world in. I do not care to either denounce or defend Islam per se, but as someone interested in policy and social order, I am more interested in proposing a solution.


Scholars, journalists, policy makers, clerics, and even ordinary citizens around the world have been asking for the past thirty years (contrary to American perception, the world was as much troubled by Islamic terrorism before September 11, 2001) why there seems to be a surge of violence around the globe, carried out in the name of Islam. Indeed, there have even been televised debates held on whether Islam is a religion of peace or not. This, I believe, is the wrong approach and a largely irrelevant question. It ought to be obvious by now that any idea, however noble, can be corrupted and misinterpreted by people seeking their own gains. Christianity has the Crusades and the Inquisiton on its conscience; Marxism has the death of untold millions slaughtered by Stalin and Mao; democracy seems to cater to the mob and can easily be subverted as was witnessed during the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Furthermore, democracy certainly did not stop numerous other U.S. incursions over the past sixty years. Lest this be seen as an American problem, it is noteworthy to remember that democratic England seems perfectly comfortable with holding on to the Falklands, a stigma of their imperialism. Not all interpretations need be horrendous - Sufism, seen as a corruption of Islam by many, is an interesting and syncretic belief system that has coexisted harmoniously with its neighbours. Hinduism, despite degenerating from a highly intellectual belief system into a collection of incoherent superstitions and rituals, is yet to launch wars of cleansing and purification upon its neighbours.

Perhaps a more suitable approach to one of th most pressing issues of the day - Islamic fundamentalism - is to ask what needs to be done to protect laws, institutions, and values that non-islamic societies hold dear. Democratic openness, never challenged until now, has become the Achilles heel of modern secular society. Without pointing fingers to Muslims specifically - the Christian Right is a brewing problem no one seems to be keeping an eye on due to the immediacy of Islamic terror - it can be objectively agreed that Islamic countries have an abysmal human rights record. In Saudi Arabia, women still are not allowed to drive, nor are they allowed to venture out of the home without being escorted by their son, brother, or father. In 2002, Saudi policemen stopped 15 girls from leaving a burning school building because their hijabs were not worn properly. In April 2008 it came to light that some months prior, a Saudi woman was killed by her father for chatting on Facebook to a man. In the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, it is believed that 3-4 women per month are killed in honour killings. Over the course of six years, over 4,000 women have fallen victim to this practice in Pakistan from 1999 to 2004. More recently (in 2005), the average annual number of honor killings for the whole nation ran up to more than 10,000 per year.  In Iran, despite its rich history with ample examples of intellectual openness, it is safer for women to wear the chador lest a basij accost them. Political terror has, over the past 30 years, become synonymous with Islamic groups. Womens' rights are rarely, if ever, respected in Islamic countries.

It is perhaps easier to dismiss problems internal to Islam (such as womens' rights, homosexual rights, or honour killings) more easily than the outward manifestation of terrorism. Politically, this is the easier option. However, it still points to fundamental rifts in basic values. I am truy intrigued by how apologists for Islam will come forth readily and in great numbers, claiming that acts of terrorism are done by a few radicalised minority who do not represent "true" Islam. These same apologists are scarcer when it comes to condemning acts of terror or openly taking a stand against the radicalised "wrong believers" by advocating and working towards reforms within the system. Instead, the outsider is fed with asinine claims of Islamic "feminism" and how women are protected in Islam. Suddenly, the hijab becomes, not a symbol of oppression, but one of liberation. Personally, I am not opposed to any item of dress, however outlandish it may be, provided it does not hamper security or functionality. it is worth mentioning though, that the same tolerance apologists for Islam ask of secular societies when it comes to wearing the hijabis not extended to secular values such as freedom of expression. Cartoons of Mohammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in 2005 became the focal point of a worldwide orgy of violence and mayhem. The argument suddenly became one of hurting the sentiments of the Muslim community and the values of self-censorship. To be fair, Hindu brigands were no less tolerant of MF Hussain's paintings, but a dollars and cents evaluation of the scale of destruction, the lives lost in the chaos, and the geographic extent of the disturbance reveals the extent of radicalisation in the two communities. Another marked difference between these two events is that there was an outcry against Hindu intolerance in the latter case but no such protest is yet to be voiced in the former. Such behaviour is not reserved for dhimmis or kafirs - Taslima Nasreen's book launch was attacked in Hyderabad by members of the Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) in 2007. Her mistake? The audacity to criticise the plight of women in Islamic societies such as Bangladesh (on this topic, she has written much - her autobiographical four-volume Amar Meyebela, Utal Hawa, Ka, and Sei Sob Ondhokar, Lajja, for which a fatwa calling for her assassination was issued, and Shodh).

Of course, what "true" Islam is remains a matter of speculation as both the radicals and the apologists accuse each other of not keeping to the "true" faith. However, for all claims of Islam as a religion of peace, there is no doubt that there are a number of questionable lines in the hadith as well as the Qur'an. Any attempt to get rid of such lines is seen as heretical. The question arises, why is there no reform movement? Hinduism went through several reforms to outlaw atrocious practices such as Sati and the mistreatment of widows. The Vatican apologised to the Jewish community in 1998 for its role in the Holocaust. Why is there no evidence of similar measures by the Muslim community? It is not my place to demand reforms in Islam. However, I do have the right to demand that as long as I live in a free and secular society, all citizens are treated equally and that Sharia not be implemented. I have the right to demand that I be allowed to express my ideas freely (another hypocracy is that Islamic countries do not allow missionary work, while they expect secular and non-Islamic states to allow freedom of religion for their conversions). It is also my right that subversive methods employed by the Islamic community be aggressively countered, not by violence but by enforcing the law (which would presumably have restrictions on discrimination based on religion).


Ultimately, policy analysts should not care whether Islam is a religion of peace or not - it is merely a matter of intellectual curiosity better left to scholars. Policy should dictate a firm defence of liberal values, applied equally to all citizens. It is not of immediate concern to civilised states what the barbaric medieval states do internally. Political correctness should not be allowed to spin facts on the ground, that many acts of political violence are being carried out in the name of Islam - "true" or not is not our concern but the casualties are. Trade, issuance of visas, etc. should be informed by our values and reciprocity. For example, Islamic missionary work should be banned as long as non-islamic missionary work remains banned in Islamic countries. Free speech should be actively defended and any attempts to subvert its practice should be dealt with severely. Visas should be controlled to countries with a track record of human rights violations. Noise ordinances should disallow the use of megaphones in the muezzin's calls to prayer.

To state that something has gone wrong with Islam makes the implicit assumption that there was something right with it in the first place. It is indeed the case that Ibn Sina, al Farabi, Ibn Rushd, and many others contributed greatly to world civilisation during the Islamic Golden Age. However, even then, the Mu'tazilites were persecuted and their work was not freely propagated. Those who experimented with and contemplated other belief systems were ostracised from the community if not killed - Sufis are one example, but the irony is that the first Muslims to come to India via the trade routes circa 680 CE were escaping the persecution of the Umayyad Caliphate! It is indeed a miracle that science and philosophy flourished in such a repressive system. Nevertheless, even that system no longer remains. it is not correct for us to ask that Islam be reformed, but we can demand that in non-Islamic societies at least, it remains a system which one can opt out of. Too long has secular society put up with religious zealots in the name of liberalism; too long has it feared to defend its values.

Lessons in Advanced Citizenship

So Arundhati Roy is an idiot. Yes, we all knew that...what's new? In her never-ending quest for notoriety, Roy recently visited Kashmir in the aftermath of the civil unrest there. While there, she spoke to locals in small gatherings and severely criticised the Indian government for the atrocities it was committing in the state. She further stated that the disputed territory of Kashmir was not an integral part of India. The next morning's newspapers covered her comments and there was an outcry across the emotionally stunted nation. “How could she say such nasty things about India?” people wanted to know. As was to be expected, the observation was very quickly made by a lobotomised individual that Roy could get away with such talk only in a free country like India, and had she been in Pakistan she would not have been cheeky enough to pull such a stunt.

The Indian Home Ministry is reported to have told the police in New Delhi that a case may be filed against Roy for sedition. Clearly, it thinks that there is enough evidence to charge Roy under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, which states, “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.” Ironically, freedom of speech in India, though enshrined in the Constitution of India as a fundamental right, is actually curtailed. Although Article 19(1)a gives the freedom of speech and expression to every individual, sub-clause (2) restricts the freedom whereas it pertains to “reasons of "sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt, court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.” If the Union Minister for Justice, Moodbidri Veerappa Moily, is any indication of the laws in India, the Minister described Roy's remarks as "most unfortunate". He said: "Yes, there is freedom of speech...but it can't violate the patriotic sentiments of the people."

Upon learning of the possible case pending against her, Roy cleverly used the media opportunity to lambast the Indian government some more. In a statement she released, Roy declared,"I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland; for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore; for the Indian poor who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state." In an interview, she went on, "Some have accused me of giving 'hate speeches', of wanting India to break up. On the contrary, what I say comes from love and pride. It comes from not wanting people to be killed, raped, imprisoned or have their fingernails pulled out in order to force them to say they are Indians.” Roy continued, “Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice, while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor roam free."

Speaking at a seminar on ‘Wither Kashmir: Freedom or Enslavement?’ in Srinagar, Roy said, “Kashmir has never been an integral part of India. It is a historical fact.” She declared that she was proud to associate herself with “resistance movements” across India and counselled Kashmiris to “consolidate the gains” of the recent four months of anti-India agitation. “The power concedes nothing unless it is forced to,” she said, and demanded demilitarisation of Jammu & Kashmir, urging Kashmiris not to join the State police and the Central Reserve Police Force. “India is behaving like a colonial power and suppressing one community at the hands of the other,” Roy ranted on. “They are sending Nagas to Kashmir and Punjabis to Manipur.” Roy didn't spare Prime Minister Manmohan Singh either. “The Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy,” she claimed, “has not been elected.” Roy is known not only for her controversial speeches but also her equally polemical writings.

In the wake of such rancid verbal diahorrea from Roy, it is difficult to clearly see the issue in question here. Undoubtedly, many are angry at much of what Roy said. Furthermore, there is no doubt that not only does Roy have her history wrong, but she also does not understand the nation-building aspects of military recruitment and deployment not just in the Indian Army but armies worldwide. It is also quite clear that Roy is a naive person who is yet to see real brutality or denial of civil rights. However, that cannot be allowed to translate into anger instead of justice. As the law stands, Roy is clearly guilty. The outcome of any legal proceedings will surely find it to be so. But that is not what concerns me. The fundamental principle of the restriction of free speech and expression is what bothers me. In his classic defence of free speech, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill laid down what is known as the ‘harm principle.' It postulates that the only justification for silencing a person against his will is to prevent him from causing harm to others. It is to this powerful libertarian mid-19th century principle that we owe the idea that free speech cannot be proscribed merely because we find it disagreeable, and that curbs may be imposed only if such expression constitutes a direct, explicit, and unequivocal incitement to violence. Roy, for all her raving and ranting, did not cross this threshold – the law requires that direct connection between a defendant’s words and the harm done by others be shown. Clearly, there is no direct link between Roy and Kashmiri separatists or the Maoists. Roy's support of these heinous causes is unquestionably problematic to say the least, but she has not armed or funded them. However, laws cannot be enacted retroactively and this argument does not serve as a defence of Roy. It is, however, something that Indians should pay close attention to for the future lest India indeed become a police state. One would have thought that we had all learned our lesson from the Weimar Republic NOT to have such sweeping and powerful laws on the books.

So what are the problems with the restrictions placed upon free speech? Does freedom mean license? Of course not. However, to frame the debate as a choice between license and encroaching restrictions is the fallacy of excluded middles. Subject to the harm principle, freedom of expression should indeed be absolute. Let us quickly run through the specific restrictions placed upon free speech in India:

1. sovereignty and integrity of India – how is the sovereignty and integrity of India “violenced” by free speech? Sovereignty and integrity can be threatened by armies from without and terrorism and separatism from within. If free speech is not directly inciting a rebellion, it cannot be said to have done violence to sovereignty and integrity.

2. security of the state – the security of the state is covered by the Official Secrets Act. There is no need to place further restrictions on expression.

3. friendly relations with foreign states – friendly relations with foreign states are not maintained by sacrificing your core values or interests. India could probably maintain friendly relations with Pakistan by giving up Kashmir and with China by giving up Arunachal Pradesh...so why doesn't anyone consider that?

4. public order – if taken to mean wide-scale rioting, this falls under the harm principle and a legitimate restriction on free speech.

5. preserving decency – what is the empirical yardstick for measuring decency? There may be a few basic values we might all agree on, such as a ban on public nudity, but what formula does one use to measure decency or the lack thereof?

6. preserving morality – what is this, Saudi Arabia? Should we start stoning women and not let them drive too?

Indians have a choice – they can remain emotionally stunted, psychologically hurt by every little incident, or they can embrace democracy and advanced citizenship. But perhaps India is not ready for democracy, not with around 40% of its population illiterate and most of the literate population accustomed to learning by rote than actual intellectual engagement and original thought. Perhaps lessons in liberty need to be paid for in blood and not enough blood has yet been spilt on the subcontinent...

Hair-Trigger Hysteria

One glaring difference between India and a mature democracy is that in India, any group with a grudge and the goons to back it can resort to violence or the threat of violence to shut down free speech. Extremist Hindu groups attack shops selling Valentine’s Day cards, fundamentalist Muslim clerics urge their followers not to sing the national anthem, and Christians attempt to shut down screenings of the allegedly blasphemous The Da Vinci Code. In this kindergarten of religious communities, freedom of expression has been one of the first casualties.

Maqbool Fida Husain is a Maharastrian artist with middling talent who managed to gatecrash into the limelight on the back of his controversial paintings. Two days ago, it was made public that the Government of the Arab state of Qatar has offered him citizenship (which he may not have applied for) and which has been accepted. The Husain case is yet another example of the hypocrisy that the Government of India continues to practice - on the one hand, freedom of expression is proclaimed, but on the other, the state has done an abysmal job of defending it.

Husain is no stranger to controversies. His depiction of Hindu deities in the nude or performing sexual acts enraged Hindu nationalists in 1996 (though the paintings themselves were from the 1970s), while he had to redact his film, Meenaxi: A Tale of Three Cities (2004), owing to strong Muslim opposition to the song Noor-un-Ala-Noor (they claimed it was blasphemous as it contained lines from the Qur'an). Husain also found himself in hot water when he painted India as a nude woman (Mother India, 2006), the names of the states written on various parts of her body. Hindu nationalists have been behind many vicious campaigns against Husain, while some have petitioned that he be awarded the Bharat Ratna because "life and work are beginning to serve as an allegory for the changing modalities of the secular in modern India — and the challenges that the narrative of the nation holds for many."

Had this been the end of the matter, it could all have been chalked up to "crazy nationalists" and India's unique brand of two-faced democracy. Although he deeply regrets the way Husain was treated and forced into an exile because of mob culture, another Indian artist, Satish Gujral, has poignantly asked on the record whether [Husain] will be bold enough to treat icons of Islam in the same manner. Meenaxi was apologised for and withdrawn from the theatres the day after it was released, while Husain's paintings have gone on to sell for millions of dollars and breaking records at Christie's South Asian Modern and Contemporary Art sale.

In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of twelve cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (salla Allaahu 'alayhi wa salaam) as a terrorist. Haji Mohammed Yaqoob Qureshi, a minister in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, publicly offered a US $11 million bounty for beheading the Danish cartoonists who had drawn the Prophet Mohammed. When Dinamalar, a leading daily in Tamil Nadu, reprinted the cartoons so that Tamilians can see what the brouhaha was all about, their office was stoned and four public buses were burned. The Government of India recalled their Ambassador to Copenhagen in protest. The following year, in the hi-tech city of Hyderabad, three legislators of a local Islamic party, the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), roughed up Taslima Nasreen, a Bangladeshi author critical of her country’s treatment of its Hindu minority and Islam’s treatment of women. Subsequently, the government of West Bengal state in eastern India had to call in the army to quell rioters in Calcutta, whose demands included Nasreen’s expulsion from the country. Again, the pusillanimous government made a feeble speech about hurting the sentiments of the public and requested the author to leave.

Just a few weeks ago, the Shiv Sena threatened to disrupt screenings of My Name is Khan because of Shah Rukh Khan's naive statements on Pakistan. In October 2009, faced with a similar threat from another political outfit, the same producer had to publicly apologise for a film in which characters used the anglicised name Bombay rather than the official Mumbai. The state government could not curb the activities of the rogue political party in either case. In another infamous incident in 2003, a mob ransacked a reputable research institute in the western city of Pune for helping an American scholar who wrote critically about Shivaji, a revered 17th century ruler. Neither the quest for greater historical accuracy nor freedom of expression curtailed their actions. In 1989, India became the first country in the world to ban Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses – Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against the author followed press reports of protests in India. It might be noteworthy to remember that Muslims are only about 13% of the country's total population. In an overwhelmingly Hindu country, it is intriguing why the government always bends over backwards to appease the Muslim vote.

Clearly, hair-trigger hysteria is not the monopoly of any one group in India. Like little brats, they threaten unpleasant consequences and demand attention and capitulation. However, it is of note that the government has acted against those "hurting the sentiments" of Christian and Muslim people but not against those acting against Hindu beliefs (on the issue of censorship itself, I have written previously - A Rudderless Party, August 25, 2009). Rushdie's book was banned, Nasreen asked to leave the country, and although a citizen filed a criminal case against UP Minister MY Qureshi's blatant lack of civilised behaviour, nothing came of the case. Nafisa Ali has been quite vocal about the rights of Husain, but she has nowhere been heard commenting on the Danish cartoons or Rushdie's unfair treatment. Hindu sensitivities are left to brigands to defend and clueless and unsophisticated retards that they are, outfits like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal, and the Shiv Sena fall into the trap and obfuscate the issue with their very presence. So freedom of expression is not only an iffy proposition for successive Congress governments and the Indian intelligentsia, it is also an idea that is applied selectively.

Obviously, it would be better if Indian politicians were literate and understood the laws they are meant to uphold, but in the meantime, can we please just expect the violations of our civic rights to be consistent?

Tango with the Dragon

India is in a tough neighbourhood - from the very moment of independence, it has been locked in a definitional struggle with Pakistan, has fought and lost a border war with China, and has to contend with Nepal and Sri Lanka snuggling up to their (India's) one-time conquerors, the Chinese. In addition, Chinese military aid - not only in terms of small arms and armour but also technology transfers of missile systems and nuclear weapons - to Pakistan has effectively created a cordon in the North. China has, in the past, threatened India with the possibility of opening a second front during India's conflicts with Pakistan in 1965, 1971, and during Kargil in 1999. Furthermore, the flow of increasingly sophisticated weapons to the Maoist Naxals spread over 180 districts and ten states has kept India preoccupied with their internal problems. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 weakened India's position further, but the recent overthrow of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan has given India renewed hope to salvage the geopolitics of South Asia in its favour. Nonetheless, South Asia remains one of the most dangerous places in the world - in 2008 alone, there were 280 violations of the Indian border by Chinese troops, and in the small and mountainous terrain of Kashmir, Islam, unresolved border issues, and three nuclear powers with four wars between them come together.

India's problems with China stem from the Chinese invasion of India in 1962 and the resulting annexation of Aksai Chin (38,000 sq. kms). Since then, India has had an inferiority complex regarding the Chinese, which feeds well into the great Han chauvinism. India's economic and military weakness coupled with the utter lack of resolve to address that has left India kow-towing to Beijing (In an utter disregard for etiquette, Beijing summoned the Indian Ambassador at 02 00 to protest against Tibetan demonstrations in India ahead of the Olympic Games). That India needs to strengthen its border defences, its deterrent capability (nuclear as well as conventional), and its economy (which would buy it influence in the world) is obvious, and Indian leaders should be mindful that soft power is meaningless unless backed by hard power. However, beyond the sabre-rattling and hard power, what options are open to India?

TIBET

One of the most contentious issues between India and China has been the presence of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his people on the Indian soil. The Chinese see in the Dalai Lama not a venerable saintly figure but a dangerous politician. They perceive the Dalai Lama as the figurehead for future Western interference in Tibet, and suspect that the trouble in Tibet just before the Olympic Games in 2008 was inspired by the Dalai Lama. India on its part tries to mollycoddle China by assuring it that its soil wouldn't be allowed to be used for any anti-China activities. Yet the suspicions remain. China is unnerved by the tremendous popularity the Dalai Lama enjoys in Tibet even to this day despite his exile for half-a-century. In the 1980s, when his representatives were allowed by the Chinese authorities to visit Tibet, the hearty welcome they received rattled the Chinese leadership. The Chinese attitude towards the Dalai Lama and his people hardened quite a bit after that. No effort is spared by China to browbeat countries that extend an invitation to the Dalai Lama to revoke it. Very recently it pressurised Sri Lanka into withdrawing its invitation to him, and Barack Obama of the United States and Kevin Rudd of Australia have refused to meet him when he visits their respective countries.

The reality of the matter is that this is a lost cause. Within Tibet, any hint of opposition is met with skull-crushing force (as was witnessed in March 1959 and March 2008 just before the Olympics). Outside Tibet, Tibetans are largely a forgotten community except by the occasional celebrity (Richard Gere, for instance) who is probably in the twilight of his/her own career too. It was heartening to see protests worldwide on the eve of the Olympic Games, and equally disappointing to see how the Indian Government, upon receiving a strong protest from the Chinese, moved to disallow public demonstrations and denied Tibetans media space. In any case, even supporting the Tibetan cause with weapons and other war-making materiel is unrealistic against the ruthless Chinese state machinery - if aid of such sort is given to the Tibetans by any country, it must be in a completely dissociated manner and only at the request of a majority of Tibet's Government in exile as the consequences could be severe for the Tibetans.

India has a choice - it can keep playing the Tibet card, which would keep the sores in Indo-Chinese relations fresh and would invite Chinese retaliation elsewhere: the United Nations Security Council, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, trans-regional groupings, Pakistan. On the other hand, it can take a realpolitik view of its own interests and abandon Tibet in exchange for Chinese cooperation on the diplomatic front and the recognition of Sikkim as an integral part of India. China would also have to stop supplying arms to the Naxals (this in itself will not solve the problem - arms will flow from elsewhere but the supply will most definitely be reduced. If cooperation on this issue is not forthcoming, India can strongly consider providing arms and training to the Uighur tribes; Ronald Reagan has already stirred the hornet's nest by arming the Taliban, and a few more Uighur will not add to the instability in the world, but it will add to China's woes). Both, Indian aloofness from the Tibetan cause and China's new-found desire to cooperate with India are easily verifiable. Although not much in itself, this would be a good confidence-building measure.

AKSAI CHIN

Another reality Indians need to face is that short of war, Aksai Chin is lost forever. The Chinese will not suddenly give it up out of the goodness of their heart, nor will they succumb to pressure. Nearly 50 years after the war, it would take a brave government to come forward and admit to its double mistake - one of taking it, and another stubbornly insisting that it rightfully belongs to them. In any case, China actually believes that they have a right to Aksai Chin. Besides, the loss of face would be tremendous if China were seen to be yielding to Indian diplomatic pressure, which they have no need to do owing to their military, economic, and diplomatic strength anyway.

It would be equally hard for India to give up its claims to what they have strenuously argued as their territory. Furthermore, the publication of the White Papers detailing the talks between the Indians and the Chinese in the late 1950s and early 1960s has made the discussions public knowledge. It may be easy in a country like China to suppress information, but in India, the land of loose lips, it is almost a certainty that news about fresh negotiations and either side's bargaining chips will get out. For reasons of prestige if nothing else, neither side can be seen to give in. In addition, it is unlikely the Chinese will ever give up their claim to Aksai Chin - for them the region serves as the strategic link between Tibet and Sinkiang. The Indian discovery of illegal Chinese presence in the area in 1957 was due to road-building activity. In fact, Chou Enlai offered to make a quiet exchange during his negotiations: give up Aksai Chin and China would give up its claims on Arunachal Pradesh. For India, naturally, this sounded a little disingenuous as both pieces of land belonged to them. However, the price of military weakness, since the Indians did not learn in 712, 1192, 1757, or 1962, is loss of territory. Today, India can only offer to give China what it already has - Aksai Chin in exchange for dropping claims on Arunachal Pradesh and remaining neutral on Kashmir in exchange for recognition of the transfer of the trans-Karakoram tract from Pakistan to China in 1963. It is not sure if the Chinese would even bite: they refuse to talk about Aksai Chin any more. For them it is a settled fact. Typical Indian cravenness has meant that even their own leadership stopped talking about it. Rajiv Gandhi visited China in 1988, Narasimha Rao in 1993 and Vajpayee in 2003. No clear official position has been heard from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) on Aksai Chin after the meetings despite the fact that there is a unanimous Parliament resolution of 1962 on getting that territory back. In the never-ending game of brinkmanship, India might, for its part, consider shelling parts of the Sinkiang-Tibet highway every once in a while with mortar fire, making its use uncertain.

PAKISTAN

The key issue between India and China is really Pakistan. Chinese support for Pakistan has already done tremendous damage not only to India but to the world. In the most heinous of terrorist acts, China transferred missile technology and blueprints of a nuclear device (China's fourth test) to AQ Khan and Pakistan. Apart from this, Pakistan has received other strategic aid from China. If Pakistan is a threat to India (or Israel), it is in large part due to China (while the US looked on - refer to my post, Lessons in Hegemony, of August 30, 2009). Although the damage has already been done, India must try to do some damage control - with nuclear weapons in unstable countries, the world hardly has a choice. India needs to raise an international ruckus on the AQ Khan network and use all guile, startegy, and bargaining chips available (which may not be much) to raise the profile of the AQ Khan network. Obama claims to want to reduce the threat of nculear weapons; he even won a Nobel Prize for this "call to action." India needs to call him to action on AQ Khan. This cannot be done without the cooperation of China, the 900-pound gorilla in the United Nations Security Council. If India can play its cards right for once (to be fair, Indira Gandhi's world tour to raise support for action in East Pakistan was masterful), the cost of sticking by Pakistan can be raised significantly. And if India and China can have meaningful dialogue with each other on Aksai Chin and Tibet, China's need to play big brother to Pakistan will be considerably reduced - after all, China cosied up to Pakistan as India cosied up to the Soviet Union as the Cold War moved into the Third World. China has no intrinsic interest in being friendly to Pakistan.

The counter to this, if China refuses to, as the Americans say, play ball, is to focus determinedly on a Look East Policy (refer to my post, India's (Don't) Look East Policy, of March 13, 2009). Closer relations with Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, and Australia would be a start - just as the Chinese have moved to encircle India with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Nepal, India must adopt what Israel calls a "Periphery + 1" policy (go beyond the ring of enemy states encircling you to find allies behind enemy lines). In the 1950s, this was a real opportunity but was squandered away by Indian foreign policy obtuseness. To borrow a sentence the Chinese themselves like to use often, Beijing must be made to under stand that India will no longer “stand idly by” if China continues to counter and encircle India with impunity.

There are many other avenues for cooperation between India and China - trade will be an enormous factor, particularly as the world economy shifts its centre of gravity back towards the East. China is already India's largest trading partner, surpassing the US this year. India exports some important raw materials to China, such as steel. It is only in the interest of both countries, which still have a long way to go in terms of standards of living of their citizens, to work towards cooperation and let half-century old animosities die. Development of relations with China is a reality. The same goes for China where India is concerned. It is high time, however, India came off its schizophrenic stubbornness-obsequiousness behaviour and demonstrate that it is a strong state that won't be pushed around, but is at the same time willing to look for 21st century solutions in the 21st century.

That "I" Word...

The world is living in multiple centuries. I do not mean that Africa is forty years behind South Asia which is fifteen years behind Southeast Asia which is ten years behind Europe materially. Nor do I mean that different people use different calendars - for Christians, it is 2009 AD, while for Muslims, it is 1420 AH. Hindus have multiple calendars, depending on too many things to consider for the sake of our sanity. What I mean is, that in many ways, many parts of the world are living in the Age of the French Revolution. Populism, autocracy, nationalism, religion, and a sense of Romanticism, of purpose, and of destiny mark this developmental stage in the history of nations. Two regions that seem particularly inflicted with this fever are the Middle East and South Asia (my rather circumscribed understanding of the planet includes only Asia, Europe, and North Africa, with North America being the alien presence - hence, apologies if you feel your region has been left out of my equation). Whether it be an inferiority complex stemming from colonial subjugation or from an incomplete nationalist project, that dreaded "I" word, identity, is still a matter of public discourse and politics.

[DIVERSION 1: Essentialising is usually used in a pejorative sense, at least in the West. Although the dictionary definition of the word merely states that it is the expression of core properties of a subject, critics have argued that it reduces the subject to those core properties alone (although Indian Marxists don't think this applies to their more 'nuanced' categorisations of the Right). Well, yes, if the actor is an imbecile who cannot recognise individual characteristics which may go against the collective image. To reject an essentialising statement is, however, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Science is based on educated generalisation - statistics depends on it. And yet scientists and their research survive. Similarly, there is no denying that Europe has a Christian identity, even if it is secular by law today. The Middle East, barring Israel, has a strong Islamic flavour, no matter what the differences between Shia and Sunni are. Africans are usually dark-skinned. This in no way negates the African-ness of white settlers who have been in Africa for two or three centuries, but they are in the minority. Essentialising does not mean that, because the average height of the Dutch is 179 cms, a Dutch midget would be in danger of having his/her citizenship revoked. It is time that scholars quit their immature hostility to the idea of essentials.]

There can be no denying that India has a strong Hindu component to its identity. In every history ever written, be it by Muslims or by Christian missionaries, no one claims that Islam, Christianity, or Judaism are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent. No scholar has ever claimed that Moses parted the Saraswati, or that Jesus gave a sermon under a banyan tree or that Muhammad received the angel Gabriel in the Udaygiri caves. Despite this essentialising of Indians, no one in their right mind would deny that there are Muslims or Christians in India, nor would any sane person claim that APJ Abdul Kalam, Mansoor Ali Khan, Zakir Hussain, Irfan Khan, Irfan Pathan, or for that matter, Leander Paes, Diana Hayden, or Amartya Sen are not Indian. Oddly enough, today, claiming a Hindu identity is not only seen as backward but also immediately marks one as part of the Saffron Brigade. As former Managing Director of Procter & Gamble Gurcharan Das revealed in his latest book, "The Difficulty of Being Good," his desire to read the Mahabharata prompted one of his friends, a favoured civil servant of Indira Gandhi's, to ask him if he had gone saffron. Das wondered why no eyebrows were raised when he had read Western epics like the Iliad or the Divine Comedy. In part, this is due to a highly successful public relations campaign mounted by the Communists and the Congress. Another ingredient to this mix is a latent Macaulayism that exists till date among Indian elites - the language of elitism is unabashedly English to this day in India. Of course, it would be asinine to legislate against this and only a Party desperately grabbing at straws (like the BJP in Haryana promising to ban Western pop music in defence of Indian culture) would try to do so. Only a free market of ideas and commerce should dictate the rise and fall of languages and culture. Thus, although there is nothing inherently lamentable about the domination of the English language in India, particularly among the intelligentsia, the Indian fetish for all things foreign creates an implicit bias in thinking - Chaucer is more familiar to this class than Kalidasa and Shakespeare, rather than Vishakhadatta, Shudraka, or Bhasa provides the framework for future literary endeavours, and not because of literary merit. Das quotes V S Sukthankarand I feel the need to as well: “The Mahabharata is the content of our collective unconscious .... We must therefore grasp this great book with both hands and face it squarely. Then we shall recognize that it is our past which has prolonged itself into the present. We are it."

I am really not a good Indian. I have never been a pucca Hindu either. I had abandoned these categories as I had abandoned the memories of the Great War and I was equally happy with the Aeneid, the Mahabharata, or the Hezar-o-yek Shab. In the backdrop of the Shah Bano case, the temple controversies in Uttar Pradesh and Kerala, and the Mandal Commission, however, I was made keenly aware of not only of my Hindu identity but my brahmin identity. Congress and its allies seemed to say, "Look, we don't care what you are. You qualify as a Hindu brahmin by birth and on that basis we are going to deny you many things other have easy and even free access to." Thus began my exploration of the tenets of Hinduism, my investigation into the caste system, Hindu law, and philosophy. What it meant to be a Hindu (in modern India), practically, was made abundantly clear to me by the sychophantic and obsequious Congress regime. A nation-state fraught with as many difficulties as India cannot afford so many divisions and categories of people. There are already too many visible differences in language without compounding them with religious and caste considerations. By advocating sectionalisation, the Congress is pushing the country to the brink of disintegration. Today, as Das found out, it has become a mindset - read the Divine Comedy and you are secular; read the Mudrarakshasa and you are clearly a saffron fascist, never mind that the Divine Comedy (or the Iliad for that matter) also involved divine creatures and locations. Gurcharan Das, and probably millions of others, myself included, probably do not want to choose between religions. We celebrate Eid as easily as Ganesh Chaturthi. We enjoy Abu Muslih bin Abdallah Shirazi as much as Nakkirar, and we are as interested in the Sharia as we are in shruti, smriti, and aachaar. Yet unless one is willing to exorcise one's Hindu self, one is forced into a saffron strait-jacket.

National interest is another strange thing - the ridiculously facile political scene in India has made the choices highly reductive. One the one hand, you have an ineffectual foreign policy (wedded stubbornly to a pro-Arab sentiment in the hopes that it will protect oil supplies and put pressure on Pakistan) and a system and level of taxation even highway robbers would be hesitant to apply (59% of the tax revenue is from indirect taxes such as excise, customs, cess, sales tax, VAT, entry tax, etc.), and a focus on rural money sinks (giving massive subsidies - no tax, free electricity and water, etc. - and loans and writing them off just before elections, with no outlay for education, irrigation, pollution control, or land reform). On the other hand, again, if you are a saffron-tinged fascist, you can opt for a cogent foreign policy based on realpolitik and logical defence outlays, lower and lesser taxes to encourage business, huge private-public partnerships in sorely needed infrastructural projects, and more privatisation of Public Sector Units. The latter set of policies, which most people with any faith in market capitalism would choose, were those of the BJP Government 1998-2004. The common wisdom would have one believe that voting for defence (only an alpha fool would argue it is not required given 26/11, the Naxal terror, and almost daily Chinese incursions into Indian territory), infrastructure, and an incetive-based economy makes you a Hindu fundamentalist. In effect, according to the (pseudo)secular Front, every choice one makes can and must be boiled down to religion.

Personally, I am rather lukewarm on nationalism. It does not seem necessary to repeat the European experience (though, strictly

speaking, if modified from its European form, it ceases to be nationalism unless we allow for more valencies) and I am yet to find any state that deserves my undying devotion. I am a 'nationalist' of many states - India, Israel, Italy, France, Russia, Denmark, Egypt, Iran - because I find something wonderful about each of them. They are better than some states, worse than others. Being an Indian (or any other nationality) is like being on a team. Michael Ballack loved Bayern Munich and played to the best of his ability for them. Today, however, he belongs to Chelsea and he will play hard for them. That, though, is irrelavant. Civilisational glory, whatever that means, is not something we participate in. Not one nationalist (alive) contributed to the building of Persepolis or the writing of the Ainkurunooru. It is highly unlikely that anyone remembers compiling the Pirkei Avot or designing the Pyramids. Admittedly, some civilisations have much to boast of but what of it? Would it not be a better use of time to read up on these achievements than boast of them as signs of one's personal superiority? More critically, are the Pyramids really any less or more of a wonder than Angkor Wat? National glory is a simpler beast to tackle - it is more tangible, for one. It is the collective public relations boost a state experiences if many of its citizens win international laurels. Even in this, unless one is part of the football team that won the Championship or the person who won the Nobel Prize, one is only deluding oneself, aggrandising oneself, and living vicarious through others to forget any shortcomings in the immediate proximity.

The political climate, however, forces me to be an Indian nationalist and a Hindu brahmin. I have to be Hindu because I like the ancient Indian philosophy and the epics, and I have to be an Indian nationalist because Hindus vote for the BJP which is a nationalist party. I am unwilling to relinquish either identity, even if I don't invest in them as much as some might. Perception may be dictated by others, but identity is an individual choice and naturally, the two are intertwined. It is in manipulating this link that there seems to be an effort to subvert an apathetic (to insular and parochial arguments) individual through guilt and horror of association with brutes and beasts (inevitably, all Right-wing movements share a lineage with German National Socialism - Godwin's Law is true! Ironically, Leftist movements have nothing in common with Josef Stalin or Mao Tse-tung). Although I believe in collective identity, I also believe that it is only a part of me, and not necessarily the most important part. Is it any wonder then, that more and more people seem drawn towards "tough love" against minorities? That the smallest demand (not so small nowadays after years of being pandered to) results in a violent backlash? It is, after all, on their behalf, for the sake of their vote banks, that the Third Front and Congress so abasedly engage in this propaganda war. If anything is wrong with India's public religious sphere, it is solely the Hand and the Elephant that are to blame. Goebbels is supposed to have said that if you repeat a lie a thousand times, it becomes the truth. In India, the results bear him out.

A Vote for Genocide

...The mobs carried iron rods, knives, clubs, and combustible material, including kerosene. They used voters' lists, allegedly provided, by the Congress Party politicians themselves, to identify houses and business establishments owned by---The mobs swarmed into---neighborhoods, arbitrarily killing any---they could find. Their shops and houses were ransacked and burned. In other incidents, armed mobs stopped buses and trains, in and around Delhi, pulling out---passengers to be lynched or doused with kerosene and burnt...

...Before they could realize what was happening, a huge mob broke down the door of their house and dragged all the men folk out. Before their eyes, their husbands were torched to death, women sexually abused and houses set on fire...

...I saw with my own eyes my husband being taken out and then set on fire. After all the men in the house were set afire, the mob then targeted the women who were hiding. They were dragged out and sexually abused. I saw one of my relatives being raped. And the mob did not spare me and molested me...

You may think that I am talking about the Godhra riots, and it would be no fault of yours. Because, in India, violence is only committed by the Sangh Parivar against Muslims - or so the English news media would have you believe. The statements above describe what happened a full 18 years before Godhra in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. According to official sources, some

2,733 Sikhs were massacred in what can only be called a pogrom though H. S. Phoolka, a high court lawyer who has been representing the riot victims and is a representative of the November 1984 carnage justice committee, claims that the figure is closer to 4,000. In New Delhi alone, about 600 cases of arson, killing and rioting were registered (The Jain-Aggarwal committee had recommended about a thousand), but police closed half of them, ostensibly for lack of evidence. Police complicity was also alleged (investigated by the Kapoor-Mittal committee). Hundred were rendered homeless, and thousands fled the North, where the riots were concentrated. The anti-Sikh riots were the worst religious riots in India since independence in 1947. In May 2009, a petition filed by advocate MS Butalia said that hundreds of anti-Sikh riot cases were still pending in the court, 25 years after the fact. Several members of Parliament belonging to the Congress Party have been accused in these cases - HKL Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar, Dharam Das Shastri, and Jagdish Tytler. The Nanavati Commission (2004!), in addition to finding evidence against these MPs, also held the then police commissioner SC Tandon directly responsible for the riots.

[DIVERSION 1: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told a court in September 2009 that witnesses who deposed against former union minister Jagdish Tytler for his alleged role in a 1984 anti-Sikh riot case are unreliable and made false statements to implicate him. "During investigation, only two persons came forward to depose against Tytler and both Surinder and Jasbir Singh are unreliable. They have made false statements to implicate Tytler," Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjay Kumar contended before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Rakesh Pandit. Kumar further contended that Surinder, who died recently, gave contradictory versions of the 1984 incident allegedly involving Tytler.

The CBI, which had on April 2 sought to close the case against Tytler claiming there was no sufficient evidence against him, had questioned the jurisdiction of a magisterial court and sought the matter to be transferred to a sessions court. The agency claimed as the matter involved the offence of murder, it should be transferred to the sessions court. The court, however, was not convinced with CBI's arguments and decided to hear the closure report]

The anti-Sikh pogrom broke out after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of the Indian National Congress had been assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards in retaliation for Operation Blue Star, in which Indian troops stormed the Golden Temple (one of Sikhism's four most sacred sites) to flush out Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (As a side note, it is interesting to remember that Bhindranwale was Indira Gandhi's man against the Shiromani Akali Dal and he had actively campaigned for the Congress Party in the 1979 general elections). The excessive and perhaps not properly planned use of force by the Army resulted in more casualties than were strictly necessary. For example, the attack was timed to coincide with an annual Sikh festival. Further, although Lt. Gen. Sinha had advised against the tactics of the Operation, the Government replaced him with Gen. Arun Vaidya and went ahead anyway (it was indeed possible to execute the mission with more care as Operations Black Thunder I & II proved). The official casualty figures were 83 dead and 248 wounded for the Indian Army and 492 dead and 86 wounded for the Sikhs (unofficial figures stand at about 500 Army and 5,000 Sikh dead and wounded). Brahma Chellaney, the only journalist who managed to stay behind despite the media blackout, telexed 780 militants and civilians and 400 troops killed in fierce gunbattles. Chellaney also reported that “several” (later confirmed at eight to ten) suspected Sikh militants had been shot with their hands tied.

In response to the riots, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi made a statement at Boat Club in New Delhi

on 19 November 1984, on the birthday of Indira Gandhi, "Some riots took place in the country following the murder of Indiraji. We know the people were very angry and for a few days it seemed that India had been shaken. But, when a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little." Indeed! It was only in 1998 that Sonia Gandhi expressed regret (but stopped short of an apology) for the happenings of 1984, perfectly timed, of course, for the general elections barely a month ahead. The reality of the sentiment is made clearer by the statements of some of the victims: "I made desperate attempts to locate my husband, but there was no news. Today, I cannot even claim compensation as I don't have any evidence or certificate showing that my husband is dead," said one Sail Kaur, who had lost 12 members of her family in the violence. Seventy-year-old Mitha Singh was able to get a compensation of Rs. 350,000 in 1999 only after several rounds of the city court. Singh lost his only son who was burnt alive in their factory that day. For Gurdeep Singh, memories of his mother are still strong. Even after 25 years there is no news of his mother, Vimlesh Kaur, who disappeared after the riots.

These terrible events have long been forgotten in India because it is more convenient to pick on someone like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) whose public relations skills are appalling if not non-existent. The Godhra Affair has been in the spotlight of the "secularist" press for the past seven years. The violence was sparked off by a Muslim mob of more than 500 stopping and storming the Sabarmati Express on its return from Ayodhya. The assailants burned 59 Hindus passengers, mostly women, children and seniors, alive. In immediate retaliation, riots erupted across Gujarat in which 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed. Police firing claimed the lives of 93 Muslims and 77 Hindus (this militates against the notion of police complicity). Thousands of Hindus and Muslims were preemptively arrested.

The Indian Supreme Court, strongly critical of the state government's investigation and prosecution of those accused of violence during the riots, directed police to review about 2,000 of the 4,000 riot related cases that had been closed citing lack of evidence or leads. Following this direction, police identified nearly 1,600 cases for reinvestigation, arrested 640 accused and launched investigations against 40 police officers for their failures. After a local court dismissed the case against her assailants, Bilkis Bano appealed to the Supreme Court through the National Human Rights Commission. The Supreme Court granted the motion and transferred the case out of Gujarat - charges were filed in a Mumbai court against nineteen people as well as six police officials and a government doctor over their role in the initial investigations. In January 2008, eleven men were sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and murders and a policeman was convicted of falsifying evidence. Eight people, including a VHP leader and a member of the BJP, were convicted for the murder of seven members of a family and the rape of two minor girls in the village of Eral in Panchmahal district.

The Nanavati Commission of 2008 exonerated the Gujarat Government, given evidence of the acquisition of 140 litres of petrol hours before the arrival of the train and the storage of the said petrol at the alleged key conspirator's, Razzak Kurkur, guest house. This was further corroborated by forensic evidence showing fuel was poured on the train compartment before being burnt. The alleged mastermind was said to be the cleric Maulvi Husain Haji Ibrahim Umarji and a dismissed CRPF officer by the name of Nanumiyan, from Assam, who had instigated the Muslim crowds. Furthermore, two Kashmiris, Gulamnabi and Ali Mohammed, were in the same guesthouse for a fortnight prior to the event speaking about the Kashmir liberation movement. The CPM and the Congress party both came out railing against the exoneration of the Gujarat government by the commission citing the timing of the report (with general elections months away) as evidence of unfairness. Congress spokesperson Veerappa Moily commented at the strange absolvement of the Gujarat government for complacency for the carnage. He also said the report reinforced communal prejudices. In 2005, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was denied a visa to the United States upon the strong lobbying of "secularist" groups.

Without getting into tit-for-tat arguments or into a spiralling blame game, a few things are clear from an examination of these two cases of violence against religious minorities: (1) Muslims are more important than Sikhs, (2) the Congress can do no wrong, (3) when in doubt, it is convenient and safe to blame the Sangh Parivar, (4) Congress MPs are above the law, (5) justice means the subordination of every community's interests to those of the Muslim community. If the law were applied equally to all sections of society, this discrepancy in the way Sikh cases have been handled in the aftermath of the 1984 riots as compared to the Muslim cases in the aftermath of Godhra would not have existed. Further, there has been constant pressure on the Central Government to 'mete out justice' in the Godhra Affair but no such pressure exists in the case of the anti-Sikh riots. In fact, the Government has worked quite hard against publicising the events of 1984 - in the case of the film Amu, a story about a 21-year old Indian-American who visits India only to get flashbacks of the 1984 riots she had been made to forget in America, the censor board refused to pass the film. The Board cleared it only with six politically motivated cuts, including a 10-minute cut and the removal of all verbal references to the riots. Says Ellora Puri, a Political Scientist at the Punjab University in Chandigarh, "Indian social commentators - media, cinema, writers or academia - have been fairly amnesiac about the 1984 Sikh killings."

This is not the only thing India's social commentators have been amnesiac about - the Emergency (June 25, 1975 - March 21, 1977)

is another dark chapter in Indian history that had best not be disturbed. Other than the rampant corruption in Indira Gandhi's regime, she was also accused of sanctioning (1) Wanton detention of innocent people by police without charge or notification of families, (2) Abuse and torture of detainees and political prisoners, (3) Use of public and private media institutions, like the national television network Doordarshan, for propaganda, (4) Forced vasectomy of thousands of men under the infamous family planning initiative, and (5) Arbitrary destruction of the slum and low-income housing in the Turkmen Gate and Jama Masjid area of old Delhi. It is not easy to find exactly how many people perished during the 21 months of Congress dictatorship, and given Indian policy on the declassification of documents and opening of archives, we may never know. However, a glimpse of life in Emergency Rule India can be had from TV Eachara Varier's heart-rending memoir, Memories Of a Father.

This is the Party we are asked to vote for, the Party that will save us from the Hindutva brigade - it is like the Soviets telling the Poles in 1939 that they will save them from the Germans! These are the double standards we are meant to acquiese to or we are communalists, fascists, and Hindu fundamentalists (regarding the inaccuracy of these terms, refer to my post, Lotus Blooming, of August 23, 2009). In terms of damage to the people, to communities, and to the individual, in terms of damage to institutions and to the rule of law, the Congress Party has done more and more thoroughly than any BJP Government can ever do - and we are still restricting the topic to domestic affairs. There is an expression in Konkani - when someone is angry beyond comprehension, one says that one is so angry that it feels like one's liver is being boiled. I find it very apt in this instance. But then again, are we not complicit too? I do not remember anyone, whether it be Human Rights organisations, Lok Ayukt, or other political parties, raising these issues.