Top Rack

"Myths and Facts: Bangladesh Liberation War" by B Z Khasru

2011-12-21T16:14:00.000+05:30

The recent declassification of US Government archives has provided a rich mine of information on US behaviorduring the1971 war between India and Pakistan that liberated Bangladesh.

B Z Khasru, a US based journalist, has done extensiveresearch of this newly declassified data to bring additional information aboutthe 1971 events.

It was Bhutto, not Mujib, who broke Pakistan, saysGeneral Yahya Khan in an affidavit issued just before his death. All that Mujib-ur-Rahman wanted was forBengal to have its fair share of growth, jobs, public purse and foreign aid;and the opportunity to grow through trade with India. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had a tacit preference tolet East Pakistan secede (and leave the West to be governed by Bhutto) than besubject to a weak federation ruled by Bengalis. Bhutto preferred power than Pakistan.

Yahya was no angel either. His motivation to conduct elections was theprobability of getting to stay in power for a long period of time since hisIntelligence officers advised him that the elections might not result in aclear majority and the framing of a new constitution within 120 days after theelections is unlikely. His allusion toMujib as the future PM of Pakistan was more to scare the politicians in theWest and the army to unite.

However, Khasru’s book is more about how US misplaced itsprinciples and misread the tea leaves.

Nixon and Kissinger saw the entire problem through thenarrow prism of securing friendship with China through the benevolence of YahyaKhan.

1. The aspirations of 75 million people in the Eastand the genocide unleashed on them were not important. When US Consul at Dacca, Archer Blood,accused the US Government of “moral bankruptcy” for its “posture of pretendingto believe Pakistan Government’s false assertions”, Nixon recalled Blood andtransferred him to Personnel.

2. The focus was on keeping Yahya Khan pleasedsince he was the conduit to the secret parley with China. US would continue to publicly supportYahya’s unified Pakistan; if East Pakistan requires US support, US woulddecline to give such a support “based on the premise that in US opinion WestPakistan would not use force to bring a solution”.

Nixon and Kissinger were amazingly consistent in“misreading” the tea leaves:

1. Kissinger theorized that India would not want anindependent Bangladesh since that would induce India’s West Bengal province tosecede from India and unite with Bangladesh!

2. Nixon preferred to support Pakistan whereverpossible because “Yahya was more decent to US than Indira Gandhi was”. Kissinger agreed, “Yahya was decent andreasonable if not politically smart”.

3. Kissinger felt Indian occupation of Bangladeshwould be even more violent and would make Pakistan’s occupation look like child play. When Indian army entered Dacca, Nixon was surprised to see locals welcoming the liberating army and asked: “You see those peoplewelcoming the Indian troops. Why thenare we going through this agony?” Kissinger replied: “To prevent the West Pakistan army from beingdestroyed; to retain our Chinese arm; to preserve balance of power with theSoviet Union”.

Nixon had a strong bias against India. In his private conversations with Kissinger,Indians were referred to as “cowards” and “savages”. Nixon tried to support Pakistan in severalways:

1. When his State department disagreed withKissinger that US owed arms support to Pakistan (when Pakistan invoked thebilateral agreement with US and sought arms), Nixon orchestrated provisionthrough intermediary countries. Jordandid provide aircrafts and pilots to Pakistan. Iran agreed to but rescinded in the last minute. Kissinger admitted in 1972 to China that USsupplied arms via third countries. Theaugmentation did not have an impact.

2. Nixon urged China to move troops to the Indianborder saying “The Indians have got to get a little scared”. China did notoblige because of its concerns about Soviet intervention under the Indo Soviettreaty.

3. Nixon moved US Seventh fleet to Bay of Bengal toincrease threat perceptions though this did not have any impact on the war.

4. Nixon warned Soviet Union that any help to Indiawould leave a scar in US-Soviet relationship for many years after the warended. Nixon told a visiting Sovietminister: “The Indians are cowards. Theyare raping and murdering. They arepretty vicious”. (Historians wouldconsider this to be a Presidential lie). Kissinger felt Nixon’s statement would make Soviets reduce their supportto India. They did not.

In Khasru's book, Indira Gandhi emerges as a good leader. She worked on domestic opinion beforesupporting Mukti Bahini. She worked oninternational opinion before invading East Pakistan. She read the geopolitical scenario rightlyand concluded a treaty with the Soviet Union to ensure China does not start anyconflict to step up pressure against India. She was firm in declining to conform to UN resolution (orchestrated byNixon) to ceasefire and withdraw from each other’s territories (the usual endfor every India Pakistan war in the past).

In the end it came down to Nixon and Kissinger notreading an important import of that amazing document, the Declaration ofIndependence of the United States of America, which read: “Whenever any government becomes destructive of man’sinalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it was the rightof the people to alter or abolish it”.

"The last days of United Pakistan" by G W Choudhury

2011-12-18T19:05:00.001+05:30

Pakistan started as a homeland for the Muslims of Indiansubcontinent in 1947. That credentialwas lost in 1971 when Bangladesh separated from Pakistan after a genocide thattook 0.4 million to 3.6 million lives (depending on whose narrative youbelieve).

G W Choudhury provides a unique perspective of the eventssurrounding the birth of Bangladesh. Hisperspective is unique because: One, GWCis a scholar (he taught political science at Dacca University and later at DukeUniversity). Two, he is of Bengaliorigin and has a better understanding of the Bengali point of view. Three, he was a Minister in General YahyaKhan’s military dictatorship and has unquestionable allegiance to the idea ofPakistan.

Why did Pakistan fail to keep all Muslims united under oneflag and face secessionist pressure from a sub set of its Muslims within 24years? Why did the Bengali Muslim getalienated from the Pakistan idea?

GWC cites several reasons:

Though religion was a unifying factor, languageand culture were divisive factors. TheBengalis in East Pakistan had greater affinity to the Hindu Bengalis of Indiathan fellow Muslims in Pakistan. Pakistan failed to play the unifying card and alienated Bengalis byattempting to make Urdu spoken in West Pakistan as the national language. The alienation was so strong that in aprovincial election, Muslim League, the national party won just 9 out of 304seats!
Bengalis did not have a role in nationalpolitics despite constituting 55% of Pakistan’s population. People from Punjab and Sindh in the westernhalf dominated national politics. (Pakistan’s politics did not provide a role for people in the westernhalf either; it was ruled by military dictatorship or by a sham democracy thatdid not hold one general election at national level until 1970!).
Bengalis did not have a role in provincialgovernment either. Most of the top jobsin civil service went to people originating from West Pakistan.
Bengalis had a different view on internationalrelations. Bengalis depended upon tradewith India and nursed no animosity against India. (When Mujib was egged by GWCto accept Chinese friendship, Mujib retorted: “Friendship against whom? I have no dispute with India. Why should I need China’s help andassistance?”) National leadership,dominated by the western half, nursed an animosity against India because of itsstronger affinity to Kashmir. GWCconcedes in his book that “Pakistan’s hands were not clean in Kashmir or in theMizo unrest in Assam”.
Bengalis did not enjoy a fair share of publicrevenue, foreign aid or government jobs. Most of these went to West Pakistan. (To be fair, most of the revenue/aid went to the army; not WestPakistan; however that is a technical detail for the average Bengali).
The Bengalis did not have their fair share ofeconomic growth as a result. In 1960 West’s GDP was 32% bigger than East’s. In 1970, West’s GDP was 61% bigger than East’s.

General Yahya Khan decided to transfer power to a governmentelected by people. The Eastern half(with 55% population) was fully united behind Awami League party. The Western half was split amongst variousregional factions. In normal circumstances, Mujib-ur-Rahman,the Bengali leader would have become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. According to GWC, the people in the westernhalf and the army would have accepted Mujib-ur-Rahman as PM.

But there were stumbling blocks:

Politicians from West Pakistan were not willingto let power go to Bengalis.
Mujib-ur-Rahman’s intentions were notclear. Though he proposed a six pointagenda demanding provincial autonomy, and was not talking of secession therewas widespread suspicion that his real intent was secession.

Yahya Khan had to make some tough choices. Could he trust Mujib to form agovernment? Could he pressure Bhutto toaccept Mujib’s leadership? Would Mujibconsider the electoral results a mandate for secession and demand secessionafter becoming PM? Yahya made hischoices and conducted the elections in Dec 1970.

Results were as below:

	West	East	Total
Mujib		160	160
Bhutto	81		81
Others	57	2	59
Total	138	162	300

Bhutto declined to cede power to Mujib saying “majorityrule does not apply in view of geographic distance between East and WestPakistan”. Mujib was pressing forgreater provincial autonomy in a set up where the federal government wasvirtually powerless. GWC tried to brokerpeace with a half way house arrangement. The negotiations did not yield any result.

After this, the narrativevaries based on who you ask.

GWC “concedes” that Pakistan Army (on the fateful day of25 Mar 1971) unleashed violence on its own people in the East that can never becondoned or justified; but carefully avoids the word “genocide”. He does say that “foreign newspapers did notexaggerate and in fact people’s agony, suffering and humiliation had not beenfully exposed”. (Neutral observersestimate the number of dead to be around 3.6 million and the number of refugeesinto India to be 10 million). Pakistanarmy brought the peace of the graveyard to the Eastern half.

Burdened by the inflow of refugees, India started providing tacit assistance to Mukti Bahini (the freedom fighters of Bangladesh). Pakistan started air action against India at the Western border (based on the premise that this would keep Indian army busy and deter any intrusion in the Eastern border; and China/US would prevent escalation). GWC concedes this strategy was not fruitful. India invaded East Pakistan and liberated Bangladesh. The war that Bhutto vowed would last a thousand years lasted just 14 days resulting in decimation of Pakistan army in the East and capture of 93,000 prisoners of war (who were later sent to Pakistan under Simla Accord).

However, GWC’s analysis is not sufficient:

1. GWC carefully avoids discussion of the loss of3.6 million lives in East Pakistan under a genocide orchestrated by Pakistanarmy.

2. GWC ignores the fact that Pakistan started thewar at the Western front for which India responded by invading East Pakistan.

3. GWC says India’s victory “with little cost” wasdue to the full backing (ie moral support) of Russia while US/China did notprovide military support (though they provided moral support) to Pakistan. He misses the asymmetry of his analogy. He also misses the power of a millionaspirations.

4. GWC laments for Pakistan army’s defeat withoutair support and “surrounded by a hostile population”. Very funny.

Anyone interested in the story of Bangladesh should readthis book for the insight; but should read at least one more book to get abetter perspective of the price paid for “Amar Sona Bangla”.

"The Remains of the day" by James Ivory & Ismail Merchant

2011-12-11T04:55:00.001+05:30

Yaghan language (spoken in Tierra del Fuego - the archipelago off the southern tip of South America) has a word that is considered to be the most succinct (and most difficult to translate to English): "mamihlapinatapai". It means the look shared by two people, each hoping that the other will initiate something that both desire but neither is willing to initiate. Whew.

This 1993 Merchant Ivory movie (of course scripted by Ruth Jhabvala) is an excellent epitome of the "mamihlapinatapai" feeling. The movie is based on Kazuo Ishiguro's book about the ambiguous relationship between a stoic perfectionist English butler (Anthony Hopkins) and a warm housekeeper (Emma Thompson). One can sense the love between them; their reluctance to express it first; and their keen desire that the other should express first. The housekeeper leaves to marry someone else. Fortune offers another chance twenty years later only to be lost again.

Anthony Hopkins' Mr Stevens is the perfect butler a master could hope for. He runs the house with dedication and commitment; is laconic and polite with his master and with his staff. He manages everything for his master and yet "vanishes into the wall paper" even as leaders of the era visit his master's house to architect a European unity between the first and the second world war. He sees nothing; hears nothing and talks nothing and offers no opinion even when the house guests seek his opinion on worldly issues. Quite a contrast to Isaac Asimov's Henry (the butler serving the Black Widowers) who "engages" with impressive intelligence in the affairs of his guests.

Emma Thompson's Miss Kenton is a polite and proper lady. She is slightly warmer than Stevens; slightly less repressed and very subtle in expressing her emotions (be it love or be it anger). She lets her emotions get through on two occasions: one, when she teases Stevens by enquiring whether he is reading a scandalous book that could hurt her character; another when she cries in her room after announcing her decision to marry Tom. On both occasions, Stevens "misses the bus" in understanding and reciprocating the feelings.

You feel like intervening into the movie to break the ice. That is the feeling Kazuo Ishiguro, Ruth Jhabvala, Ismail Merchant and James Ivory wanted you to be left with.

I would rather regret doing something than regret not having done something. Excellent movie.

"Controversially yours" by Shoaib Akhtar

2011-11-27T18:57:00.001+05:30

Shoaib, the Rawalpindi express, is one of the best players of cricket in the game. He entertained spectators withan exceptionally high quality pace bowling (on occasions exceeding 100 miles per hour).

Shoaib had the “in your face” and “never saydie” attitudes that took him to commanding heights of glory even as the sametraits threw several challenges into the journey.

Shoaib had a tough time emerging from his lower middle classyouth to pursue a high risk career in cricket; had a tough time in dealing withan unfair employer, a politicized cricket administration, seemingly uninspiring and often hostile coaches, captains and fellow players. Shoaib had a tough time dealing with his ownfitness and his penchant for parties/girls. However, Shoaib did not have a tough time at all with just one part of hisecosystem: support and adulation from the countless number of fans not just in Pakistan but also in India and every other country thatloves/plays cricket.

Shoaib provides us a lovely glimpse of middle class Pakistanin the chapters dealing with his childhood. Dad worked in a job that does not pay much but takes care of mostaspects of life including education and healthcare. Mom managed the household within the limitedmeans with dignity. Education ranked ahigh priority. The young boys gauged how“rich” the family was on any day by looking at the size of the knot at the endof their mother’s duppatta (she stored the money in her dress!). Shoaib aspires to conform to his family ethos and yet seeks to be "free". Shoaib, by speaking from his heart, enkindles the nostalgia in most of usand inspires renewal of faith in future.

Shoaib attempts to set the record straight but is notentirely successful:

Yes, he tampered balls. His excuse: everyone did it andwinning is important. Not cricket.
Yes, he partied a lot. Yes, there were girls. No he didnot rape.
No, he did not fake injuries. He genuinely suffered. His commitment to play bearing his pain withfortitude has not been appreciated.
No, Pakistan cricket administration was not supportive. One was not assured of one’s place in theteam unless the non-playing administrators were pampered.
Yes, the team knitted well during good days. No, the team did not knit well during baddays. On balance, there was moreinternal strife and hostility than esprit de corps.
Yes, there was match fixing. He did not indulge in one though he was approached.

Shoaib does not have one unkind word for India; recognizes that several of the Pakistan players(including Shoaib and Afridi) enjoy immense popularity in India and is joyous at the support his Kolkatta fans (he played for KKR in Indian Premier League) gave him.

Shoaib has been candid in commenting about fellow players in Pakistan and elsewhere. His comment about some Indian batsmen playing for their records instead of for winning the game cannot be dismissed as a biased observation. Whether unfair or not, it comes from his heart.

The one thing that I expected but did not find in the bookis his state of mind, the tactical options he considered and executed and theirsuccess/failure in crucial match winning moments. He probably wanted to save it for a privatebriefing to aspiring pace bowlers in Pakistan so that some day when his recordis broken it is done by a Pakistani for the Pakistan team.

"Skydiving" by Soumya

2011-11-09T04:18:00.000+05:30

The girl who preferred sweetened pop corns to roller coasters in Euro Disney in 1994 goes skydiving on a sunny day in California:

Partly proud. Mostly jealous.

"Hang gliding" at Interlaken, Switzerland

2011-09-16T09:01:00.001+05:30

The toughest moment is when you are atop the Alpine cliff awaiting a friendly breeze before running down the brief slope toward crisp clean air far above the beautiful town with hope that nature gives you a nice lift. After that it is pure joy.

She did it too. With a dive and a loop.

"Matters of discretion" by Inder Kumar Gujral

2011-06-13T00:53:00.005+05:30

Autobiographies of Prime Ministers (especially ex diplomats) tend to be discreet to the point of being bland. Autobiographies of intellectuals tend to be profound and insightful in their analyses.

Inder Gujral, Prime Minister of India, top diplomat prior to that and an intellectual surprises us twice: One, Gujral expresses his views in a refreshingly honest way; does not hold back. Two, Gujral stays away from discussing any substantive issue India faced/faces.

Gujral's candid biography provides an insider view of the main actors and the games they played in Indian politics for 33 years between 1966 and 1999:

1. Indira Gandhi, to Gujral, cannot be counted upon. Gujral (along with Dinesh Singh and Uma Shankar Dixit) was part of the coterie that helped Indira Gandhi become PM in 1966. Yet she dumped them quite quickly. Gujral had to “fight” to get a ministerial birth in her 1967 administration.

2. Indira Gandhi, to Gujral, was a split and complex personality. Gujral says "She could be mean, petty and vicious; and large hearted, gracious and charming”

3. Indira’s ethics, to Gujral, is suspect. Her Yoga Guru Dhirendra Brahmachari applied pressure on Gujral to get a prime property in Delhi from the Government. Gujral declined. Indira Gandhi demoted Gujral and got the land transferred to Brahmachari. Additionally, Gujral thinks the untimely death of L N Mishra ("the man who knew too much") in a bomb blast raised a few suspicions.

4. Indira Gandhi’s suspension of democracy in India in 1975 was, to Gujral, her worst blunder. “Small men with small minds captured power, and well equipped demolition squads were destroying democratic institutions and suppress or even get rid of Individuals with moral stature and ethical values”. The misadventure was traceable to her affection for son Sanjay Gandhi, unwise advisers such as P N Haksar and sycophants such as N D Tiwari and Shyama Charan Shukla. Soviet Union’s Nikolai M Pegoy regretted to Gujral that “Indira Gandhi must understand that she is a leader first and a mother second”. Her reinvigoration of democracy by calling for elections was because of a misjudgment that she had “smothered opposition and Sanjay has been accepted by a prostrate electorate”. As late as 1984, Pranab Mukherjee and Vasant Sathe in Indira’s cabinet were working on amending the Constitution to a Presidential system with strong limits on the role of opposition!

5. Indira Gandhi’s ordering troops into the Golden Temple was, to Gujral, her second biggest blunder. Congressmen, under Indira Gandhi, created Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale to play one faction against another for electoral purposes; in the end Bhindranwale went out of control. Indira paid with her life. Her son Rajiv’s era began with an anti-Sikh riot that haunts the nation even today.

6. Gujral's deposition to Shah Commission investigating Emergency excesses was a tussle between loyalty and honesty. Arun Shourie best described it as “Gujral trying to please both his present and past masters”.

7. President Sanjiva Reddy, in a visit to Soviet Union (during the days Gujral was India’s diplomat in Moscow), was not keen on discussing any political or economic issue with Soviet leaders. He was keen to take his family out shopping!

8. Ramakrishna Hegde, Chandrasekar and V P Singh deserve credit, according to Gujral, for the formation of Janata Dal in 1988. Hegde lost his parity because of (as Gujral so nicely articulates) “his proclivity for sybaritic comfort and affinity for glitter and glamour” ruptured his image!

9. V P Singh, to Gujral, was “stubborn in not heeding the advice of his colleagues and indecisive till a situation went out of control; he easily played into the hands of sectarian leaders who alienated him from his support base and the media”. Singh’s support to expand quota of “other” backward castes in Government jobs from 22% to 49% (based on recommendations of Mandal Commission) was one such incident that led to the fall of the government within a year.

10. Chandrasekar formed his government in Nov 1990 (with unreliable support from Congress party) that made “the Hindujas, the Ambanis and the Birlas jubilant”. Gujral declined to join Chandrasekar’s cabinet. The Government did not last long.

11. Janata Dal which lost the 1991 elections to Narasimha Rao was dysfunctional; state bosses without any moral compunction gained power over national leaders. Gujral contested this election from Bihar and was shocked to get an offer for “polling booth services” to ensure victory for a price of Rs 150,000 and 50 bullets! Gujral declined. Nor was Gujral impressed by V P Singh asking Gujral to not contest elections and look after a “large sum donated by an unnamed source” to Janata Dal. He declined that offer too.

12. The United Front, a coalition led by dark horse candidate Deve Gowda was beset by unreliable support from Congress party. During this period, Lalu Prasad Yadav loses his seat in Bihar State Legislature thanks to a “fodder scam scandal”. Gujral seems to have helped Lalu to run the state by proxy by helping Lalu’s wife succeed him as CM!

Gujral became Prime Minister in 1997 when Sitaram Kesri (“the old man in a hurry”) withdrew Congress support to Deve Gowda). However, within a short period, Gujral faced significant pressure from Congress party to drop coalition partner DMK from Government (because of allegations against them in Jain Commission investigation of Rajiv Gandhi assassination). Gujral refused to oblige and preferred to resign; in a rare display of timber in Indian politics.

The most shocking (but not surprising) revelation: Karunanidhi sent Minister Aladi Aruna to pressurize Gujral to appoint a preferred candidate as the head of Chennai's port (a lucrative job if one is corrupt) but told the public in TN that the trip was to lobby for TN interests in Kaveri river water dispute between TN and Karnataka! The shock is not about corruption in DMK; the shock is about trivialisation of the fortune of TN farmers!

Gujral may not have intended it; but ends up highlighting the darker side of Indian politicians quite vividly.

"Dairy milk Ad" by Cadbury

2011-04-12T05:09:00.006+05:30

A sixer that barely escaped a catch. A century. A young girl in love. A woman who is not inhibited. A cricketer who can hit. A man who is not afraid to be shy and embarrassed. Cadbury daily milk chocolate. Seven things that create the "joie de vivere" mood.

Yes. It is official. This is my favorite ad.

"Liberty or death: India's journey to independence & division" by Patrick French

2011-03-19T03:07:00.007+05:30

This book by UK politician Patrick French is junk.

Two examples:

One, the author says India's independence movement would not have worked under Stalin's Russia since Gandhi/Nehru would have been summarily executed. By this logic, Britain would not have had magna carta if Attila the Hun was its King at Runnymede!

Two, the author says that a few "volunteers" and not Pakistan Army invaded Kashmir in 1948. Is this still in dispute? Really? So passe.

Unfortunately I bought Patrick French's 2010 book on India last week; allegedly a history of a billion people. Now, am apprehensive. What is the focus this time? Two billion arm pits?

"Tinderbox, the past and future of Pakistan" by M J Akbar

2011-03-13T23:44:00.012+05:30

Pakistan is an idea that was born out of pride in the past and fear of the future; it would neither stabilize nor disintegrate but remain in its current toxic state says M J Akbar, renown author and newsmagazine editor in his book tracing the fascinating story of the birth and growth of Pakistan.

Akbar quotes Maulana Abul Kalam Azad from an interview given to a Lahore magazine in 1946: "After the initial euphoria dies down, divisive pressures would become assertive in Pakistan; the two wings will separate; and regional identities, fueled by outside interference, will result in balkanization. Incompetent political leadership will pave way for military rule; neo rich will loot national wealth and Pakistan will end up being controlled by international conspirators". Quiet a prescient man, Azad was.

What gave rise to Pakistan? Muslim pride and Muslim fear.

The pride of the Indian Muslim is justified. Muslims wielded power in India for 665 years from 1192 to 1857 AD. Though the rulers were Muslim, it was not an Islamic rule. Both the Delhi Sultans and the Moghuls (except an odd Aurangazeb) kept their faith away from statecraft and co-opted Hindu nobility and warriors to add depth and sustainability to their rule. The Muslim population in India too was significantly influenced by the tolerant and compassionate Sufi philosophy.

The fear set in with the gradual weakening and eventual decline of Moghul empire.

Muslim response to this fear of insecurity differed: the Deoband Madrassa, the Barelvis and the Jamat-i-Islami wanted the British out and were willing to live in peace with Hindus in a untied India; the Aligarh Muslim University set up by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan sought to co-operate with the British to carve out special treatment for Muslims including special electorates in provincial and central legislatures.

Muslim politics had five swivel moments eventually leading to the birth of Pakistan:

One, in 1916 Muslims under Jinnah leadership secured Congress agreement for separate electorates (and a united fight against the British)

Two, in 1919 Muslims were outraged by British taking away Islam’s holy mosques from the Ottoman caliph, trusted Gandhi to lead the jihad against the British (only to be disillusioned by Gandhi’s abandonment of the Khilafat movement after a violent incident in Chauri Chaura).

Three, in 1927 Jinnah failed to bridge the gap with Congress when an opportunity arose to draft a Constitution for India. After this the British kept deepening the wedge between Hindus and Muslims.

Four, in 1937 Muslim fear of Hindu domination arose after a provincial election when the victorious Congress declined to form a coalition with the defeated Muslim League. Jinnah swore to convert the dispersed provincial identities and regional leaderships into a “national minority”.

Five, in 1946 Muslims were disappointed at Congress, fearful of balkanization, reversing its decision to adopt a federal structure constitution for a united India. This resulted in partition and the birth of Pakistan unavoidable and in the best interest of everyone.

Post partition, Pakistan lived up to Azad’s predictions.

The ruling class co-opted faith into politics; sabotaged weak attempts at land reform; and left people in poverty. Jinnah’s dream of a secular state with muslim majority was ignored. Instead, as dreamt by Maulana Maudidi, theocratic urges were patched into legislative framework.

The emergence of Pakistan as an Islamic state was gradual. In 1949 the Constitutional Assembly subjected the young state to principles of Islamic faith. In 1956 the new Constitution made the country an Islamic republic. In 1962 General Ayub Khan added the Islamiyat curriculum that distorted history glorifying Arab invaders and identifying Pakistan with the invaders. In 1973/74 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto introduced a new constitution that reaffirmed Pakistan as an Islamic republic; reserved President and PM positions to Muslims, reinforced teaching Islamiyat in schools, set up an initiative to ensure every law was in harmony with the faith; paid government salaries to imams of mosques; moved weekends to Fridays; banned night clubs, gambling and liquor; triggered movement to Sharia and declared Ahmadiyas as non-Muslims although none of this eventually won him popular support. In 1977-85 General Zia completed Islamisation process. He passed Hudood laws; imposed Zakat and made blasphemy a crime punishable with death. Finally a new constitution was adopted in 1985 that enshrined supremacy for Islam in the governance of Pakistan.

Pakistan went on to become a frontline warrior state for Islam. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto held the first Islamic summit in 1974 setting up the Organization of Islamic States; started a nuclear program that had tacit funding and support from Arab states; nurtured and funded Burhanuddin Rabani’s mujahideen in Afghanistan as early as 1972. Zia funded/supported jihadi warriors against Soviet rule in Afghanistan and Indian rule in Kashmir. Musharraf's "running with the hare and hunting with the hound" policy turned the jihadists against Pakistan.

The erosion of political framework was also gradual: In 1953 Governor General Ghulam Mohammed dismissed an elected government; installed a puppet government; and dismissed the puppet government too. An obliging Chief Justice Munir upheld Ghulam’s actions by inventing the dubious “doctrine of necessity” that would eventually destroy Pakistan’s democracy. In 1956 President Iskander Mirza (an erstwhile General) weakened civil government by dismissing elected governments four times in 30 months with power shifting slowly and firmly to the army. In 1958 General Ayub Khan set up the first military rule. In 1974 Bhutto turned to army to maintain law and order. General Zia-ul-Haq declined to help; set up the second military rule and moved Bhutto to prison/death. In 1999 Pervez Musharraf removed Nawaz Sharif and set up the third military coup and dictatorship. Pakistan alternated between military dictatorships and corrupt civil governments.

End result: Pakistan became a military dictatorship financed by US (and Saudi Arabia) administering a theology based law, pursuing terrorism as a state policy, in possession of a nuclear device, and an infrastructure that creates a large pool of terrorists with designs to take over the State.

Akbar thinks Pakistan will not disintegrate. However, the odds seem to favour Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

“பாடாத பாட்டெல்லாம்” by Kannadasan

2011-03-10T10:33:00.017+05:30

One song that I keep humming often is this melody written by Kannadasan; composed by Viswanathan & Ramamurthy and sung by P B Srinivas and Janaki in the 1962 movie Veera Thirumagan.

Reason: Soothing emotions expressed in awesome lyrics. Kannadasan’s imagination, choice of words and ability to express emotions are awesome.

The plot is simple: He tells us of the progress of his love for her through various phases: Attraction, Expectation, Hesitation, Consummation and yearning for the union of souls not just body.

Here goes my understanding of what I consider to be one of the best songs ever written in Tamil:

பாடாத பாட்டெல்லாம் பாட வந்தாள்
காணாத கண்களைக் காண வந்தாள்

She came to sing tunes that she never sang before; implying that this is a first for her. She came to see eyes that have never seen before; implying she expects this to be my puppy love too.

பேசாத மொழியெல்லாம் பேச வந்தாள்
பெண் பாவை நெஞ்சிலே ஆடி நின்றாள்

Yet she came to say stuff she never said before; implying an intention to cross the rubicon! I am hooked!

மேலாடை தென்றலில் ஆ ஆ ஆ
பூவாடை வந்ததே ம் ம் ம்

Her upper garment. Gentle breeze. Wow!
And, I was close enough to smell her fragrance. Ahem!

கையோடு வளையலும் கல் கல் கல்
கண்ணோடு பேசவா சொல் சொல் சொல்

Physical proximity is nice but I yearn for proximity of minds where spoken word is not necessary; where one can communicate with eyes.

அச்சமா நாணமா இன்னும் வேண்டுமா
அஞ்சினால் நெஞ்சிலே ஆசை தீருமா

I sense hesitation still. Is this due to fear (and therefore I need to go slow) or shyness (and therefore I need to hasten)? Can we ever make an omelette without cracking an egg? Will she open up?

மிச்சமா மீதமா இந்த நாடகம்
மென்மையே பெண்மையே வா வா வா

Is the residual hesitation a useless remainder (like food left in the plate) or useful remainder (like food left in the buffet)? Should I take a step back or a step forward? I don’t know. I would just make an appeal.

இரவிலே நிலவிலே சேதி வந்ததா
உறவிலே உறவிலே ஆசை வந்ததா

Oh yes. What made her move forward? Did the ambience trigger passion?

மறைவிலே மறைவிலே ஆடலாகுமா
அருகிலே அருகிலே வந்து பேசம்மா

Now that the physical union is consummated, I yearn for union of mind and soul. Come my friend, let us chat.

P B Srinivas, in his best years then, does full justice to Kannadaasan’s lyrics. S Janaki’s humming demonstrates how a composer adds to lyrics without writing a word.

In my younger days, there was no TV. We had to do with radios. We had the luxury of hearing a song and doing our own visualization. Nowadays when this song is telecast, I close my eyes (to not let the poor quality visual affect the excellent image I carry in my mind from childhood) and enjoy.

There is a far older poem in Tamil that goes:
செவ்விது செவ்விது பெண்மை ஆ
செவ்விது செவ்விது காதல்
A critic in that century said that the word that packed maximum meaning in the entire poem was the fourth one!

All I can say about Kannadasan's song is: "ஆ! ஆ! ஆ!"

"Quiet diplomacy" by Jamsheed Marker

2011-02-13T05:39:00.002+05:30

Taking you to far away places and letting you have a first hand insight into unfolding events and making you feel you are a part of the ambience is not something new to Jamsheed Marker. He was a cricket commentator in those TV less days when the spoken word was the only way to vicarious enjoyment of a match.

Jamsheed Marker had a long and colorful innings as a diplomat. He was Pakistan’s ambassador to the Soviet Union when Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan. He was ambassador to the United States when US sponsored Mujahideen fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Jamsheed does not disappoint. His prose is entertaining and insight engaging.

Some interesting snippets:

One: When you move from Anglophone West Africa to Francophone West Africa, according to the author, the cuisine improves and plumbing worsens.

Two: The President of Cote d’Ivoire observed that when you send a young African to Paris he returns a Marxist; when you send him to Moscow, he returns a conservative!

Three: After inviting Sekou Toure of Guinea to speak, unaware that the microphone was still on, Indira Gandhi said in Hindi “Oh dear, this man is going to speak forever”!

Four: Desmond Tutu said that when the missionaries came to Africa, they had the bible and the Africans had the land. After the Africans joined the prayers and opened their eyes, the Africans had the bible and the missionaries had the land!

Five: Voltaire said that the best form of government is a benevolent despotism, tempered by the occasional assassination.

Six: Kissinger told Yahya Khan that for a military dictator, Yahya ran a lousy election!

Seven: When a translator conveyed Gromyko’s message to Pakistan’s ambassador to “please not take any action that would oblige us to fulfill our obligation to a country with whom we have a Treaty of Friendship”, Gromyko intervened and clarified that he did not use the word “Please”.

Eight: Helmut Schmidt said that “Moscow’s concept of settled frontiers was to have Soviet troops stationed on both sides of the border”.

However, the book suffers from two major deficiencies: One, it is too sanitized. All people appear nice, hold nice thoughts and say nice words. Two, Jamsheed steers clear of the strategic thinking behind Pakistan’s foreign policy.

Pakistan has had a good innings in international relations by positioning itself as the frontier for the free world in the past; and the trench line to protect Islam recently. The success and implied perils of such thinking merited some commentary from the pavilion but is missing.

"Scorpion's tail" by Zahid Hussain

2010-12-12T11:54:00.001+05:30

Zahid Hussain, senior editor at Newsline in Pakistan, has the credentials and compassion to cover issues relating to Pakistan and the prose to keep your attention riveted with brevity and analysis.

It is a waste of time to keep identifying individual leaders of terrorism and eliminate them, claims Zahid. You can cut the scorpion’s tail; it would develop a new one.

Your perspective gets challenged and widened when you read Zahid Hussain.

The war in Afghanistan is a war between a state and a nation; not a state and a state. The US is at war with Pashtuns. A third of the Pashtuns are in Afghanistan (comprising 42% of the Afghan state). Two thirds of the Pashtuns are in Pakistan (comprising 15% of the Pakistan State). The Talibans are substantially Pashtuns.

Pashtuns do not care about the political boundaries between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They move freely from one to another. Pashtuns are governed more by the tribal leader at village level than by the shura council at the national level. This makes it easy for a tribal leader to hold complete sway over his terrain (and use the village for opium cultivation). This makes it quite difficult to set in place a national government that can he held accountable to good principles of governance.

The Pashtun theology is a combination of the two most radical schools of Islam: the Deobandis from India and the Wahabis from Saudi Arabia. This theology acquired political power because of two reasons: US (to settle score with Russians) and Saudi Arabia (to get the extremists in the Kingdom out of the Kingdom and be busy with something else) used theology to rally radicals to wage a proxy war. Unfair exploitation by tribal leaders and war lords seeded the need for an uprising. The Talibans stood up; provided relief but brought in new miseries.

The US strategy is flawed:

One: US cannot fight the Pashtuns in half the land; and stay restrained from extending the fight to the other half (because it is in a different state; a nuclear power). The Pashtuns are free to use their territory in Pakistan for rest and recuperation and for keeping the ambers alive and recruit fresh talent.

Two: US cannot rely on Pakistan to maintain its supply line; and deter Pashtuns from retreading to safe havens in Pakistan or hound them out of such safe havens. US has to appreciate that Pakistan is running with the hare and hunting with the hound here. Pakistan military would offer symbolic wins (to merit the aid and equipment) but not substantial wins (that eliminate the power of Taliban). Pakistan believes it is better off in the long run to retain friendship with the Taliban by emphasizing shared religion and shared interests.

Three: US cannot “drone down” a few tribal leaders and think it can win the war. There are enough Hakimullahs to succeed on the death of Baitullahs. Each drone kill ends up creating a few hundred new terrorists.

Pakistan’s strategy is flawed too:

One: Pakistan thinks there are good Taliban and bad Taliban. Truth: There is one Taliban. You cannot befriend Sirajuddin Haqqani and eliminate Hakimullah Mehsud. They work together. They support each other. The Afghan Pashtun cannot survive the US army had it not been for the hospitality and safety provided by the Pakistan Pashtun.

Two: Pakistan thinks that the Pashtun fundamentalists, the Al Qaida fundamentalists and the Punjab fundamentalists are different silos that are not integrated; that one can be a friend serving interests in Kabul, another a small price to dispense with for aid from US and the third a tool to wage a proxy war. Reality: They communicate. They share a mission. Al Qaida thrives in Pakistan; most of its new recruits come from Sind and Punjab. The Lal Masjid priest Abdul Rashid met and was inspired by Osama Bin laden.

Three: Pakistan thinks it is good strategy to train and nurture theology driven fundamentalists to achieve the purposes of the State. Pakistan has ended up creating two forces that it cannot control increasingly: (a) disloyal members of its own army and intelligence services going “rogue” and (b) fundamentalists turning against the State of Pakistan. In effect, Pakistan has created a Frankenstein monster.

Four: Pakistan has attempted too often (and without success) to buy peace by ceding concessions to theology driven fundamentalists. Each time such a concession was given, the fundamentalists have used the window to regroup, recruit, re-equip and strike back with a greater force.
Zahid Hussain presents the picture with excellent insight.

Solution: Pakistan has to recognize that it is dealing with a scorpion and cutting the tail is not solution enough.

"Wikileaks" Imagined cable from Indian Embassy, Washington DC to PMO

2010-12-03T14:18:00.009+05:30

CABLE TO PMO FROM INDIAN EMBASSY WASHINGTON DC

TOP SECRET. NO DISCLOSURE TO FOREIGNERS, ALLIANCE PARTNERS IN UPA, OPPOSITION, BURKHA DUTT AND VIR SINGHVI.

Scene setter for forthcoming visit of POTUS to India.

In a pre visit meeting at the Oval Office with Post (attended by SecState Clinton and our RAW representative masquerading as translator from Indian English to American English) POTUS expressed keen desire to sign new deals that can create jobs.

POTUS is under significant pressure in local media to create jobs. US Economy shrank by at least 10.0 million jobs ($ 2.60 trillion GDP) in the last two years. POTUS has been able to persuade Americans that this is mostly due to the outsourcing of 0.3 million jobs ($ 0.06 trillion) to India. However, more and more of the unemployed are now beginning to feel this is due to a shrinking economy and pressure is building on POTUS to step up initiatives to create jobs.

POTUS could have launched massive government expenditure on infrastructure to do this. His Budget Director says POTUS is unable to do so because his predecessors have already stepped up government expenditure "way above decency". An unfriendly Congress (not ours, theirs) does not help either. (In a private conversation Post encouraged House Majority leader John Boehner to support this; but reactions were negative).

POTUS could have reduced interest rates. However, it is already near zero. It would be weird to reduce even further and ask lenders to pay interest to borrowers.

Therefore POTUS has chosen the Weimar Republic solution of printing and releasing more cash into the economy.(They call it QE2 – the British Ambassador was not at all pleased with such an innuendo). POTUS thinks that you did a similar thing just before election (writing off farm loans). Post clarified that you forgave loans that would have never come back even otherwise; but the cash was always going around. You did not increase it. POTUS fails to appreciate the point and hopes more money will make people happy. Post urges FinMin and RBI to evaluate converting our dollar reserves to a wider basket of currencies.

In meetings with you, POTUS may seek new business deals (he is bringing several CEOs). It is important that we sign a few deals while POTUS is in India to help him send the right signals back home. It would be better if deal sizes are defined by number of jobs created and not dollars sent to US. Their current need is jobs; not more dollars.

POTUS' main worry is his re-election in 2012. In our opinion, short of opening the gates to friendly immigrants, this appears unlikely. POTUS is impressed with your successful re-election campaign. He might be interested in knowing more about the huge write off of farm loans. It might be worth suggesting write off of all sub prime loans. (In a different chat, Karl Rowe told our political analyst that this may not work in POTUS' favor since all those borrowers, after becoming debt free owners of their houses with picket fences, may turn Republican).

POTUS is not exactly India friendly. (He spent a few months in Pakistan in his younger days). However, he is our best bet. The alternative is Sarah Palin who is likely to have an even greater affinity to Pakistan because she can see Pakistan first before she sees India from her home in Alaska if she looks eastward. There is no point in telling her to look westward and discover us first. She is not exactly friendly with directions and maps.

We should not expect POTUS to make any statements against Pakistan while in India. POTUS needs Pakistan’s help to maintain the supply line to his army waging a "war against rebels hiding in Pakistan who are protecting the terrorists living in Pakistan". He has too much in stake there. He has paid $ 2.30 trillion to American suppliers and soldiers and $ 0.01 trillion in aid to Pakistan so far to conduct this war.

POTUS may not want to be seen in US media visiting Bangalore or shaking hands with CEOs of IT businesses while in India. PMO should be sensitive to this. However, the CEOs accompanying him have sought Post for private introductions. They are happy to have off site meetings to explore opportunities.

SecState accompanying POTUS is currently under pressure due to Wikileaks. She is not worried about the cables becoming public knowledge. The issues discussed and positions taken, after all, were public knowledge for a while. The cables are mostly harmless and may even achieve peace in the Middle East. Isreal is happy with Saudi King's desire (as SecDef said) to "fight the Iranians to the last American". She is upset only about inability to pretend a posture that is different from policy any more.

SecState may ask you how we deal with leaks. Urge PMO to use this opportunity to put in a good word for Indian IT companies to administer IT infrastructure and security.

SecState may want to discuss Kashmir with you. Americans think if Kashmir is given to Pakistan, Pakistan will be free to fight in the western border. Americans should be impressed that if Kashmir goes to Pakistan, Bin Laden will move to Kashmir; build good neighborly relations with China and get Chinese funding and support for Jihad. That should scare tem a bit. My assistant thinks this is a tad far fetched and not likely to be believed. Suggest leak it to the AmDip in Delhi. If he puts this in his cable, it might acquire more credibility.

There is one cable from AmDip in Delhi suggesting that you have been too timid and compromising in your principles thanks to pressure from Sonia Gandhi and Karunanidhi. However, the cable clearly adds that you yourself may not have benefited from the biggest scam in India’s long history of scams. Journalists accompanying POTUS may raise questions on this.

POTUS' wife tends to wear sleeveless dresses (PakAmb had the best joke on this in diplomatic circles: she bares arms while he bears arms). It would be better if Shri Ram Sena’s Pramod Mutalik is given an all paid trip to Bangkok for the duration of the visit to avoid a diplomatic incident.

Post met General Petreaus in a private meeting. He is comfortable supporting POTUS strategy in Afghanistan. His distrust of Bush/Cheney is more than his dislike of Obama. He thinks the war is a “practical exam” part of his doctoral theses in Princeton on counterinsurgency. If he succeeds, he may get more votes than Karzai in the next Afghan election. If he fails, he is afraid it would be a C- in Princeton.

We hope POTUS creates a “mother of all controversies” while in India so that you can have a brief period of rest instead of having to deal with all this unnecessary media attention on CWG, 2G, Bihar elections, etc.

Good luck Pratan Mantriji.

"Decision points" by George W Bush

2010-11-28T18:03:00.005+05:30

Persons in public life get stuck with an image that might often not do them justice. (Mary “Let them eat cakes” Antoinette was actually a compassionate queen. Thomas “Civil liberties” Jefferson owned slaves. Joe “Loquacious” Biden brings enormous intellect to policy making).

We do not know whether George W Bush deserved his image that provided easy fodder for late night comedy shows for eight years. He had an opportunity to clear things up in his book; but fails.

In his book, GWB hopes history would be kinder to his presidency than media and provides a peek into consequentially decisive moments in his presidency to facilitate history render a fairer judgment.

History would remember him for Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, he took his eyes off early and the war has become the longest engagement by the American war machine and his successor is striving to avoid defeat rather than ensure victory. In the other, he did remove a dictator but ushered in a security vacuum and a political vacuum. GWB fails to address why there was insufficient evaluation of differing views before war. Was Paul O’Neill right in his accusation that Dick Cheney came to cabinet meetings with pre-written minutes and expected everyone to follow the script? We would never know.

History would remember him for 9/11. He did well to prevent recurrence. However, the safety did have a price tag of erosion of civil liberties.

History would remember him for Katrina. Bush thinks the Governor of Louisiana was responsible. However, a President cannot bide for time in the face of natural disaster and break down of law and order.

History might remember him for failing to address the funding of social security. Changes in demographics have resulted in a sharp increase in number of retirees (who enjoy the benefits) and a sharp decrease in number of workers (who pay taxes that fund the benefits). Failure to bridge the gap by cutting entitlements and increasing taxes could make public finances unmanageable in future.

The book lacks the intellectual depth expected of a President’s memoirs. History may have to look elsewhere for a better insight into the legacy of George W Bush.

"Inside the Kingdom" by Robert Lacey

2010-11-04T07:03:00.004+05:30

Robert Lacey (the renown biographer of Queen Elizabeth II) lived in Saudi Arabia to understand its history and people and provides an amazing mixture of analytical history and anecdotal episodes in this book providing an insight into the Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia, as someone observed, is a living proof of the law of unintended consequences.

King Faisal is upset with American support for Israel and triggers an oil embargo. Oil prices rise. Saudi Arabia gets rich. Ostentatious lifestyle arrives into the Kingdom. So does modern education. Radicals use religion to decry both and capture the Grand Mosque. The Royal Family build consensus and its brave sons remove the terrorists from the Mosque. Though the radicals are dead, their policy is adopted by the rulers to diffuse popular anger. Religion and religion based education is accorded supremacy. A new generation of radical and poor youth arise. They are exported for jihad against the infidel communists. The jihadists taste victory and develop a sense of their destiny. A Sunni Arab brother invades another Sunni Arab brother. Americans are invited to protect the Kingdom. Jihadists see the Americans as modern day crusaders. A new King with better credentials of austerity tries to ameliorate radicalism and modernize the country without Americanizing the country.

The book provides an excellent insight into the Kingdom’s history. I cannot understand why Saudi Arabia should ban this book. My respect for Saudi Arabia and its rulers increases after reading this book. I disagree with several of the policies of Saudi Arabia. But I disagree with several of the policies of my beloved India too!

"India and Pakistan: Continued Conflict or Co-operation?" by Stanley Wolpert

2010-11-04T06:24:00.002+05:30

Stanley Wolpert provided a fascinating perspective and dispassionate analysis of India’s history in his earlier book “Shameful Flight” (reviewed in this blog).

In this book the author does not disappoint. Some of the insights provided by the author:

One: The distance between Pakistan and India has widened in the last 63 years. India has embraced democracy based on civil liberties and rule of law; a modern education system that produces people of use to the global market; and a strong play in the global market. Pakistan has deteriorated with poor quality politics; poor education and a deteriorating economy.

Two: By denying civil rights and self-governance to its own people, Pakistan has lost moral authority to seek civil rights and self-governance to the people of Kashmir.

Three: India’s failure to provide self-governance to people in Kashmir (with strong presence of its army and significant denial of due processes of law) is an important factor in the alienation of Kashmir’s population.

Four: Prospect for peace would reduce if a Hindu nationalist party gets elected in India. The current Congress Party Administration with its secular credentials offers a better chance for peace. Pakistan must appreciate this. Prospect for peace would reduce if Pakistan becomes a failed state. India must appreciate this.

Five: Given the various entrenched sensitivities, neither country would cede Kashmir to the other; neither would agree to Kashmir being an independent state. The only solution is for the Line of Control to become the international border between India and Pakistan with each keeping the slice of Kashmir it already has/controls; if that border is made irrelevant by free movement of people and products, even better.

Good insight. Good advice.

"Obama's wars" by Bob Woodward

2010-10-20T04:45:00.002+05:30

Bob Woodward is the nearest equivalent to Television in the print media. He provides instant history with erudite and dispassionate analysis. In "Obama's wars" he lets us have a peek at American thinking and policy making about the war in Afghanistan.

The war has several features that do not appeal to common sense:

1. No clarity of purpose. US policy makers debate endlessly on the mission. Destroy Al Qaeeda? Destroy Afghan Taliban? Degrade Afghan Taliban? Prop up Karzai rule? Usher Jeffersonian democracy to Afghanistan? Catalyze economic development in Afghanistan? Eight years into the war, the debate on purpose seems endless and pointless.

2. Tactical disadvantage. The current opponent in the war theater, Afghan Taliban, has a unique advantage. Whenever threatened, the Taliban can retire and rest in the safe havens of Pakistan (beyond the reach of the US war machine), re-equip and return with greater zest and motivation. No way to fight a war!

3. Bet on the wrong horse Episode 1: Conventional thinking in the US is that Pakistan is a friend keen on helping US but beset by worries about local popular support and not free from threats from India.  There is little discussion on a more plausible alternative:  Pakistan is keen in prolonging the war (since the war is a source of income and US support), ensuring Afghan Taliban live to rule another day.

4. Bet on the wrong horse Episode 2: Karzai. US has a consistent track record in supporting power bases that quickly lose popular support for various reasons. In Karzai's case there is just one reason: corruption. He makes people long for Taliban!

5. Inappropriate belief by US Army that it should control (not just influence) war policy.  The young President wants more than one meaningful option; and desires to make a cool decision in the private environs of his situatino room. The Army provides its preference flanked by meaningless options to drive Presidential decision in the direction the army desires. The army feeds public thought by clever leaks to newspapers and calculated testimonies to Congress.

6. Insufficient sense of purpose and prolonged analysis in war policy.  The President seems to want to keep aiming for a long time before pulling the trigger. At times, a sense of purpose and vision should drive strategy than perpetual and meaningless analysis or consensus building. Such an approach worked in the magic campaign and would have worked in Government too. Alas, the young senator was courageous because he had nothing to lose. The young President seems weighed by his legacy-in-progress and seems lost in building conensus.

After spending ten years, almost a trillion dollars and the lives of a few thousand Americans, it is funny that the only thing the players could achieve is a statement that they would pull out at a pre-determined future date. The Afghan Taliban now know when they can buy their return tickets to Kabul.

America is the last hope for peace worldwide. It is a pity that Americans have the calendars and clocks in this war while Taliban have the time!

"Downfall" by Oliver Hirschbiegel

2010-07-10T07:52:00.008+05:30

We were on vacation in Germany. Should we? Should we not? My wife and daughter were against going. They thought they could not bear the pain. I wanted to go to the Dachau concentration camp near Munich. I had a reason.

Two books made me cry when I was a teenager. The rise and fall of Third Reich by American War correspondent William Shirer was one of them.

Accumulating power by dispensing with constitutional framework, securing popular support by arousing national sentiments, eliminating everyone who could speak truth to power, conveniently identifying a powerless minority as the main reason for all malaise in society and lowering the bar on national conscience are all standard hallmarks of insecure and greedy politicians suffering from a paucity of wisdom. Our own country has several examples of this.

Adolf Hitler went a step further. He did not stop with taking away the hope, opportunities and wealth of his targets like politicians everywhere try to do. He took away their dignity and their lives.

I could identify with the boy whose body was used (even as he was alive) for conduct of physiological and emotional experiments. I could identify with the old lady who wore make up and danced to demonstrate she was young and therefore should be allowed to keep her life. I wept for the husband who saw his sick wife get into the van that would double up as her killer and transporter to graveyard at the same time.

I had to visit Dachau and pray for the people who were denied a chance. It may mean nothing. On the other hand, it might.

In the end we agreed on a short 1 hour tour instead of the normal 4 hours tour. The German taxi driver politely suggested we should understand World War I to understand World War II. We did not reply.

This is what we saw:

Rows and rows of 6x3 bed spaces that would house the prisoners.

The 10 yard distance between death and survival that we crossed in a minute; but the prisoners had to brave a moat, a wire fence, a yard covered by sniper fire and a tall compound wall.

It took thousands of lives of one heroic army to put an end to this ugly saga and leave its call sign: "never again" hopefully.

Adolf Hitler was a monster. Brought shame to Germany (which did not deserve this principle or leadership). Brought misery to millions of innocents.

The movie Downfall depicts his last ten days. Bruno Ganz is a good actor. He probably did what he was asked to do well. However, if you did not have the benefit of prior knowledge, and discover Hitler through this movie, you might think of him as one more General who lost a war.

That, sadly, is too big a failure.

"The Gamechangers" by the Fake IPL Player

2010-04-03T13:05:00.000+05:30

Cricket engages India. Cricketers have rewarded India. However the state of the sport was dull until Lalit Modi and IPL came along.

IPL has the right ingredients: Regional tribes are vying for national championship using a mixture of local and world-class talent. Short duration leading to assured results. Forty days of prime time TV audience that is probably equal to the population of US.

Lalit Modi rewarded the audience, the players, and the sports associations that owned the infrastructure by clever monetization of the game from the rich who vied to own the clubs and the television channels that could cash the advertisement slots.

All that was missing was some fun.

The Fake IPL Player provided it.

We got updates of what was happening among the celebrities involved. We are clever enough to figure out whom the nicks referred to.

We laughed at the plight of the owners when their teams did not go up the league table; the cascading impact on their personal brand especially when they invested their “face time” in addition to their “money”.

We smiled at the cunning manipulations of the Sports Czar who wanted to make IPL a power to reckon with in international cricket. We liked him for that.

We could imagine the coach who so believed in his lap top that he would rather send the lap top to bat!

We laughed at the machinations of power hungry support staff

We read with interest the off-field shenanigans of the players.

We ROFLed when the frustrated captain said “Attitude toh poora masala dosai ka deta hai; aur bowling aapam jaisa karta hai”.

The Gamechangers is an irreverent story that mimics the innards of IPL and the blog in an engaging way.

I enjoyed reading this book in one go more than watching some of the IPL matches at Chepauk.

"India's agriculture: need for evergreen revolution" by Dr M S Swaminathan in WSJ

2010-02-18T07:42:00.007+05:30

Two reasons why agriculture is important to India:

One, 66% of Indians work in this sector. India cannot “emerge” until the quality of life improves for farmers.

Two, food security is important to any country. Production and storage of food cannot be left to market forces of supply and demand. Most countries, including USA, provide subsidies to farmers to ensure market forces do not drive them away to other sectors or other products (such as cash crops).

India moved successfully from producing 800 kg/hectare to 3,200 kg/hectare 42 years back thanks to Green revolution. Dr M S Swaminathan played a key role in achieving this. His views on the challenges India faces, as articulated in this interview with Wall Street Journal are important:

One: India, unlike China, has not focused on water management. 60% of our farm production depends on rainfall. We need storage of water and bridging of supply across geographies and across time.

Two: Growth has not weaned farmers away into alternative livelihoods. Population dependent on farming has increased over time. Farm sizes have shrunk (80% of farms are less than 1 hectare in size). We need to follow the examples of China, Japan and Netherlands and create farm co-operatives without challenging ownership. (Farmers would not cede ownership of land). We need a management revolution. We did this in milk industry. We need to do this in agriculture.

Three: Farming continues to be a risky business; a big bet on monsoon, land, pests, storage, distribution and prices. Insurance is available only to 7% of farmers. 93% suffer risks. More than 50% of the farmers, as a result, are indebted.

Four: Farmers do not have access to medium/long term low cost credit. Annual loans do not reduce farm risks; and have actually increased business for moneylenders. We need the equivalent of an HDFC, dedicated to farm loans.

Five: Our support prices are just not enough. If farmers lose incentive to produce, our social system would collapse. Dead consumers do not generate demand. (We are not talking of trade distorting subsidies. Only 7% of our production gets exported).

Six: We hold 50 million tons of food grains in store. We need to build worldclass storage facilities for holding this stock. We need to extend storage to legume grains and pulses too.

Seven: We need to create Special Agricultural Zones that would serve as the granaries of the future.

Dr Swaminathan elegantly summarizes that we need to add “brain” and “bank” to the “brawn” in agriculture. Seventy years ago another great Indian, Mahatma Gandhi, urged us to marry “intellect” to “labor” in agriculture.

We need a political heavyweight with management background to focus on agriculture. Our green revolution would turn into an evergreen revolution.

"Glengarry Glen Ross" by James Foley

2010-02-13T21:18:00.009+05:30

In my view, this 1992 movie (an adaptation of David Mamet's 1984 play) is good enough to be in an all time top ten list.

Two days in the lives of four salesmen under significant pressure to meet targets. The quality of leads is poor. The products offered are shady opportunities to invest in real estate. The clients are unwilling and suspicious. The management is heartless. The need to close business is very real.

Each salesman has a unique personality.

Jack Lemmon performs as the past maestro currently slightly out of touch. The salesman's abilities to “sell” by charm, alternate between emotions and “bargain his way out” under challenging circumstances are exceptionally well displayed.

Al Pacino performs as the top star salesman (who inside his heart knows this is more due to luck than due to skill). His seemingly incoherent but fully effective monologue playing upon a prospect’s insecurity and complacency to close a deal; easy willingness to mislead and avoid a cancellation are portrayed very well.

Ed Harris performs as the angry, upset underperformer willing to “steal” the leads away to competition egging his colleagues to join him.

Alan Arkin performs as the whiner concerned about his inability to close deals and the poor quality of leads.

Add to this a hardball head office guy, a corrupt office manager, burglary, loss of high quality deals, a police investigation, and unlimited use of profanities.

You get an amazing mixture that grabs your attention from start to end.

Whose role did I enjoy the most?

Jonathan Pryce. He plays the role of a gullible prospect who succumbs to the top star’s pitch and signs up; but has to cancel “now” at the instructions of his wife. His display of curiosity, interest, greed, doubt, consent; pressure and guilt (in having to cancel the deal the next day); last minute swings in opinion; disappointment and disgust is truly outstanding.

Would see this movie again.

"Twenty20" by Lalit Modi

2010-01-22T09:54:00.004+05:30

In spite of various divisive factors created by politics and religion, cricket has always been a unifying factor between India and Pakistan.

Players from Pakistan are heroes in India as well. In a match in Chennai, when Pakistan won by high quality cricket, the Indian crowd gave them a standing ovation. Likewise, Indian players, and spectators, have received warm reception in Pakistan as well.

Cab drivers (from Pakistan) in Dubai/Sharjah have teased me about a match the Indian team lost to Pakistan; but the tone and tenor was always friendly.

Twenty20 represents the best in business. I liked the odd moment when the Calcutta crowd cheered Shoaib Aktar (playing for Calcutta but hailing from Pakistan) when he took the wicket of a star Indian batsman (playing for a different club) and son of the soil Saurav Ganguly hugged Shoaib and encouraged him to do more! That promised hope for the future.

Twenty20 represents a brilliant economic idea. It cannot afford to ignore high quality players. Players from Pakistan represent high quality. Boycotting players from Pakistan would reduce IPL's brand image as "best of breed".

We need to reject the enemity that radicals in Pakistan nurture against India. We should not reject the people of Pakistan; or its excellent cricket stars.

Silly business idea. Poor political strategy.

"Interview with Eugene Fama" by John Cassidy in The New Yorker

2010-01-16T13:34:00.013+05:30

Some books have a big impact on your life. You tend to read them more than once. You tend to read them again after a decade.

For me, Louis Fischer’s Gandhi was one; Ramachandra Guha's India after Gandhi was another.

“Finance Management and Policy” by James C Van Horne was a "big impact" book.

I subscribed to its value system fully and willingly. That the objective of an enterprise is to maximize shareholder wealth seemed rational (then and now).

Particularly appealing in the book was Eugene Fama’s assertion that the share price incorporates all known factors about the economic fundamentals of the stock (and therefore the enterprise). For an aspiring young professional, Eugene Fama appeared insightful and reasonable then. With time and experience, that conviction is diluted. Exuberance and fear do have an impact on asset price; on occasions probably in excess.

Eugene Fama does not seem to have understood that yet; and disappointed me three days back in this interview with John Cassidy published in The New Yorker. It was reasonless identity with an ideology in the face of a reality that differs significantly! Only the Papal inquisition of Galileo exceeds this in absurdity!

Finance shall await a better messiah with more heart than brain; and more reason than belief to explain why the price of an economic asset may not always reflect just the economic fundamentals and why investors should be wary about asset price bubbles!

"Pongal eclipse" by Repute Infotech

2010-01-14T07:53:00.011+05:30

Three miracles fascinate us in perpetuity: the Universe, birth of a child and death.

My fascination with the sky started early. On a solar eclipse day four decades back, my grandmother told me fascinating stories handed to her by her ancestors on how the snake tries to eat the sun; could not handle it and unsuccessfully gorges out after a while. For a young boy, the spectacle of a snake trying to eat the sun was more enjoyable (and therefore accepted) than my dad’s explanation of planetary motions in the solar system, shadows cast, views blocked and rare ability to observe stuff denied observation otherwise.

My dad and I viewed the eclipse through “soot layered glass” and “black and white film negative” (the glass is certainly not recommended; the negative is probably not recommendable). I could see the eclipsed sun but was quite disappointed to not see the snake!

Several years later, as a young professional (with astronomy as a rewarding hobby that got me an exchange student scholarship to the United States) I saw the eclipse in a more scientific environment (using a pair of binoculars to get the sun focused on a white board; do not see directly the sun through binoculars or telescope) with brilliant clarity.

We have since graduated to using a Meade Telescope on an equatorial mount that moves just to compensate for earth’s movement and “locates and auto tracks” over 10,000 celestial bodies (and some made by man).

None can beat the experience my wife and I had with our naked eye in a recent Dubai Desert Safari. After the exciting drive over the dunes, a camel ride, a colorless belly dancing and a tasteless Arabic dinner, somewhere in the middle of the desert, they switched off all lights for 15 minutes and asked us to look at the sky. We saw millions of stars where a countable few existed just a few minutes earlier.

Losing “touch” with the sky is a big price we pay for lighting up our nights.

On 15 Jan South India (and a few other places from coastal Africa to southern China) would witness a rare annular eclipse (the moon would be right within the sun’s disc leaving a thin ring all round) known as “Kangana gragam” (Bangle eclipse) in Sanskrit.

www.PongalEclipse.com (brought to you by a Repute Infotech, a business enterprise in my neighborhood in Chennai) provides information about the eclipse in a truly informative and exciting way. The animation about the progress of moon’s shadow on earth’s surface over time makes it easy to understand.

A long while back an Arab boss of mine (thank you Hikmat Dandan) suggested I should “see with my heart” and not just “with my eyes” when we had a significant disagreement on a strategic issue. One can twist that to "see with your brain" and not just with your "heart and eyes". You can see the eclipse with your brain at this site.

Make sure your kids enjoy the eclipse and the site.

"Climate change" by all of us

2009-12-19T14:32:00.005+05:30

There is a problem. Some people caused it in the course of creating their prosperity. Others want their opportunity to create prosperity (and add to the problem). Who should solve it?

True culprits (in the last 250 years) are US and EU. Citizens of US, EU and West Asia cause the maximum damage per person. However the smokestack is currently the worst in China, US and EU. India, unrestrained, could join the list.

Fair solution requires two steps: One, impose a quota based on area and population (and levy a penalty on excess); Two, levy a one time tax on past culprits to compensate those who did not cause it in the past.

Is this feasible? Not unless US, EU, China and India agree. True test of statesmanship for US/EU mostly and China/India to a lesser extent.

Until this is done, all children (American, European, Chinese and Indian) can look forward to a less comfortable planet to inhabit.

"Seeds of Terror: The Taliban, the ISI and the new Opium wars" by Gretchen Peters

2009-12-18T11:33:00.012+05:30

Gretchen Peters, the Harvard graduate who covers Af-Pak region for ABC News provides an objective analysis of the role of poppy seeds in nourishing terrorism.

If you are a venture capital investor, investing in Afghanistan/Pakistan in poppy seeds is the way to go. Reasons:

Illegal drugs is a big market. 8% of global trade (against 5.3% for motor cars).

Poor governance in Afghanistan facilitates drug lords to “order” farmers to grow poppy; buy future deliveries under "salaam" system; bribe those in power to overlook trafficking; pay Taliban war lords to oversee safe transportation; produce heroin in the lawless borderland between Afghanistan and Pakistan; export through Iran/Turkey or Pakistan to hungry markets in Europe and launder the money through Middle East.

The farmers get a pittance (and yet that pittance is 12 times what they would get for normal food crops). But the Taliban warlords net quite a pile; $ 439 million in 2007!

The business model evolved over a period of time.

Cause 1: In its obsession to win the cold war, US overlooked supporting religious zealots. Zbignew Brezezinski asked, “What was more important? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”.

Cause 2: US conveniently ignored the drug connection of the mujahideen. Robert Peck of State Department testified to Congress in 1986 that US did not have enough evidence to believe the rebels were involved in narcotics trade. In 1989 Ann Wrobleski of State Department defended eloquently that “opium is the only currency the rebels have”.

Cause 3: Pakistan army and ISI did not have compunction in using drug money to fund covert operations. Nawaz Sharif, in a 1994 interview to Washington Post confessed that General Aslam Beg, Chief of Army and General Asad Durrani of ISI sought his permission to fund covert foreign operations through large scale drug deals.

Cause 4: Warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani (both now allied with Taliban) saw huge opportunity in being part of the supply chain but cleaned up their prospectuses by providing a religious coat to the business model and allying with Taliban.

Cause 5: Taliban saw the drug revenue as a reliable source of income to fund its activities. Selling drugs to non muslims was seen as part of the jihad. Though Mullah Omar banned poppy cultivation for one year (that was revoked later) in 2000, it was an ultimate insider trading con. That just pushed up prices ten times. Net margins went up. The only folks to suffer were the farmers.

Cause 6: Post invasion, US pursued stability; but overlooked poppy harvest, heroin production and transport. Again, obsessive pursuit of one priority and compromise with another that could hurt US in the long run. The 1988 warning Edmund McWilliams issued to Milton Brearden of CIA that “we are financing our own assassins” is continuing to be ignored.

If Harvard were to issue a degree in being a Commander in Chief, course 101 would be on “cutting the funding for your enemy” and course 102 would be on “not taking your eye off all your other enemies”.

Gretchen Peters has several valuable suggestions:

One, bomb the refineries and chemists. There are just 24 of them. Should not be too much to ask after you have spent $ 2 trillion on a war machine.

Two, bomb the drug convoys. You don’t need drones. These convoys start in Afghanistan; mostly from Helmand province.

Three, exert influence over money launderers. In the end, Gretchen Peters says, the drug lords keep their money in western banking institutions.

Four, go easy on the farmers. They don’t love Taliban. They hate Taliban. It is just that they don’t have anyone else to love. Install a government that can move into that sweet spot.

If not, remember Gretchen Peter's quote, “Amerians may have the watches; but Taliban have the time”.

"The Limits of Influence - America's role in Kashmir" by Howard B Schaffer

2009-12-12T11:46:00.015+05:30

Howard B Schaffer was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for US twice; and political counselor in US embassies in Pakistan and later in India in the seventies. In this book, Schaffer provides an analysis of US role in Kashmir from an insider’s perspective.

Schaffer seems to sincerely believe that United States can fashion its policies based on its interests; but other countries should fashion theirs based on principles! Unfortunately interest driven policy often produces tactical wins and strategic losses. Schaffer is quiet about acknowledging the strategic failure of US policy toward Pakistan; and the threat this has created for US and South Asia and vociferous about India's intransigence in not conforming to "equity".

There is no equity about a partition forced by faulty thinking of a colonial ruler. (Am not one of those who decline to accept partition. I am glad it happened). Let us get back to basics! Partition did not create a separate nation for all muslims! After partition, India continued to remain home to a large population of Muslims spread throughout India. There is no equity about Pakistan's claim to Kashmir.

Pakistan sees itself as the nation representing muslims in the subcontinent. India sees itself as a multicultural and multi-religious nation. It does not accept religion-based majority as sufficient for separation.

Pakistan is going back in time with Military dictators usurping power from weak civilian governments; feudal lords dominating economic assets; fundamentalists hijacking a peaceful religion to deny equality to women; education to young and membership in the Ulema to minority sects amongst Muslims. India, on the other hand, has a stable and institutionalized democracy; civil liberties; rule of law; modern education; and religious tolerance.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have preferred India over Pakistan.

Not John Foster Dulles. He saw (at the advice of an equally myopic Philip Noel-Baker of Britain) in Pakistan a “strategic ally” to be the frontline warrior against communism. More importantly he alienated India by taking a Eurocentric view that Goa is a province of Portugal and resenting India taking control of its land from the colonial ruler. Dulles ended up supporting a state that does not share American values of liberty, freedom, equality and plurality and was just clever enough to feign anti-communism to get access to American funds. This put US under pressure to, wherever possible, support Pakistan in the Kashmir dispute and in the genocide in Bangladesh.

It was India’s tactical alliance (again driven by interests than principles) with Moscow that saved the United Nations from getting hijacked by friends of Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue against India’s interest.

Later, US had to pursue a fine balancing act between its obligations to support Pakistan and wider geopolitical objectives with India. US acquired a “morally unassailable ability” to remain in sidelines only after Pakistan concluded an agreement with India, replacing the UN defined cease fire line with a bilaterally defined Line of Control and agreeing to resolve Kashmir issue in bilateral discussions.

Pakistan did become an important frontline state in the cold war eventually. US scored a tactical victory against the Russians using Pakistan. But the strategic price US had to pay is quite heavy: (a) acquiescence in the development of nuclear bombs by Pakistan and (b) creation of jehadi warriors who are willing to die and therefore limitlessly powerful in killing.

After India and Pakistan exploded their nuclear devices, Schaffer confesses “the importance attached by US to the equities of the Kashmir issue were lessened”. Preventing escalation is now in US interests. Lack of US support (and in fact US opposition) encouraged Pakistan to withdraw from an aggressive posture in Kargil.

Pakistan again became important to the US after 9/11. Pakistan rediscovered the business model of sustaining insurgency in Kashmir. Schaffer says “Pakistan is delivering the goods in Afghanistan and insurgency in Kashmir did not pose an immediate threat to US interests”.

I have no issue with Schaffer in thinking US should pursue its interests for tactical wins!

What I find unacceptable is Schaffer’s belief that India should act based on equities of Kashmir issue and not based on its interests! In my view, India too is entitled to advancing its interests by what India considers appropriate strategic or tactical responses.

It is in India's interest to develop a greater bonding with the US through interlinking the two economies. US would keep its business interests (apart from political interests) in mind in shaping its policies. In addition to clever pursuit of interests, this would be wise pursuit of principles too!

Additionally, it is in India’s interests to make peace with Kashmiris first; make it advantageous for them to be a part of India. It is in India’s interests to protect the Indian state. Against insurgencies exported from neighborhood. It is in India’s interest to make peace with Pakistan. Prosperity would facilitate this unity.

The best US can do is to not engage but be available. That would be clever pursuit of interests; and good principle.

"More salt than pepper" by Karan Thapar

2009-12-12T07:48:00.005+05:30

I bet every book lover has two traits.

One, she would keep buying new books even though she has not yet read half the books in her possession yet. She just does not have the time to keep up the reading. Yet she does not want to miss out on the new arrivals. (She does not read them on a FIFO basis either. Her choice often is based on mood; if not random!)

Two, she has to read more than one book at a time. One book could be heavy (profound ideas that require highlighting and cogitation); another could be quite light and easy on the mind.

I have always had problems locating the second type. Light. Easy. Yet, engaging. Preferably light non-fiction (humor, biographies, essays).

Karan Thapar provides a “filler” that is fun to read.

I am not a fan of Karan Thapar. I find his TV interviews a frustration. He raises intelligent questions. He has the ability to “stick to the knitting” and prevent his subject sidestep or obfuscate the issues. However he hijacks the airtime; talks thirteen to a dozen; prevents even good answers from coming through; and does not know the difference between being firm in extracting an answer and being rude in preventing an answer.

However, I saw the soft and emotional side of Karan when he was interviewed by someone else (on the death of his Oxford classmate, Benazir Bhutto) and was provided decent time to respond!

Karan lets us have a peek at his opinions; his people and his life in this collection of short and light chapters.

One can easily visualize the contemplative Jawaharlal Nehru gazing at the distance and rambling about “stuff” while Karan’s Mamu was more interested in the mundane and immediate matter of securing the elder Nehru’s permission for younger sister Nayantara’s wedding.

One cannot so easily visualize Indira Gandhi chiding the children (including young Karan, his sister and Sanjay) to get ready to go to the President’s home; but ease themselves before going so as to not “spend a penny” in the Presidential palace. Or replying with a smile how she manages when her schedule involves long lasting events!

One is thankful to Kris Srinivasan for some of his emails to Karan wondering:

1. Why are “wise men” and “wise guys” opposites?
2. Why “overlook” and “oversee” differ so much in their meaning?
3. Why is the guy who handles all your money a “broker”?
4. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
5. If people in Poland are Poles, are people in Holland Holes?
6. If electricity comes from electrons, does morality comes from morons?
7. Why are you ‘in” a movie; but “on” TV.

Karan adds his own gem: If “I am” is the shortest sentence, is “I do” the longest sentence?

Excellent book.

"Mumbai's winners and losers" by Irfan Husain

2009-11-30T06:46:00.005+05:30

"I do not like getting old. However, given the alternative, I do not mind" said Scot Adams.

"India may not like to initiate peace with Pakistan. However, what are its alternatives?" says Irfan Husain (in his article in The Dawn).

According to him the true winners of Mumbai were the terrorists and the security establishments; the true losers were the victims and the larger population of both the countries. Irfan Husain argues that peace is the cleverer thing to do.

Pakistan's army gets its importance, power and money from one source: maintaining an adversarial tension with India. The army would not, normally, encourage peace with India.

Pakistan's religious extremists would never encourage peace with India.

However, there is a silent and intelligent majority of moderates in Pakistan.

India has an excellent opportunity now:

1. At the moment, Pakistan's army does not depend on India for its importance, power and budget. The fight against terrorism is now perceived to be a bigger cause. Pakistan's army would actually be relieved if India were to take a few steps to ease the tension in the India Pakistan border.

2. At the moment, Pakistan society is getting alarmed at religious extremism. They are still at a point where it is possible for a majority to reject religious extremism (if army would contain the radicals) than succumb to it (out of fear).

3. At the moment, India has a stable government with sufficient majority (that is not based on a co-alition). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has enough respect in India to bring a solution that is fair (even if it is not acceptable to everyone in India).

4. At the moment, Pakistan has a stable government with a leadership that has the toughest task any elected government can be expected to handle.

5. India is looking to grow. India cannot afford to let its politics come in the way of economics.

6. A Pakistan that loses to the Taliban is the worst scenario for India.

India and Pakistan made significant progress in resolving Kashmir in the recent past. This got stalled because of terrorism incidents.

India has to take the initiative to make peace with Pakistan. Now. That is the cleverer thing to do.
Pakistan has to make peace with India. Now. That is the wiser thing to do.

How I wish Irfan Hussain's thoughts are echoed by thought leaders in India too.

"How to fund a startup" by Paul Graham

2009-11-21T12:05:00.003+05:30

Before becoming an entrepreneur, I was a CFO. Raising money from early stage investors, managing the relationships, going public and dealing with the public market were all part of the territory. Met several bankers, fund managers, analysts and retail investors in different corners of the world.

Most of them are good partners. Keen to grow their wealth. Keen to protect it. Eager to find the next big opportunity.

However, the goal of an investor is different from the goal of an entrepreneur. Understanding and managing the conflicts is important. As important as getting your business vision and execution right. Make a mistake there; and you could end up spending too much time dealing with yourself instead of your market.

As a start up, I have stayed with "bootstrapping". The freedom to build the business for the long term is delectable. (Of course there is a concern that the enterprise may end up becoming an echo chamber of my thoughts; but ensuring this does not happen is a lesser challenge than managing goal conflicts at an early stage). This is probably easy when you become an entrepreneur in late forties; may not necessarily be possible when you are young.

Paul Graham's article (written about four years back) about "funding for startups" continues to remain current; and provides an excellent insight into the subject. (Click here to read).

Anand Rajaraman has a different view in his blog. (Click here to read). It is not easy to differ with a young billionaire with a doctorate from Stanford. However, am not sure excellent businesses are, as a rule, always characterized by "market, team and technology". Venture investment has been sufficiently scarce so far and therefore has the luxury of staying focused on the "sexy end of the pyramid". However, it is possible to prosper with "simple ideas neatly executed".

My advice to young entrepreneurs: Stay away from third party investors until you can. But do not shy away from raising funds when you can "feel" your muscles.

"Learn from Karim Khan's notes" by Jawed Naqvi in The Dawn

2009-11-20T06:21:00.005+05:30

I was a child going to Grade II when the Federal Government attempted to impose Hindi on Tamil Nadu. I remember the cartoons in Tamil newspapers depicting the Hindi demon trying to kill the demure Tamil "mother". Without any understanding of the issue, my young mind was seeded with an unfair bias against Hindi.

It changed only when, in my early twenties, I discovered "Suhane raat dal chuki", "Chaudwi ka chand hai" and Mohammed Rafi. It was so easy to stay in love with Tamil and yet admire the language spoken by most in India.

When we returned back to India and Chennai after a long gap, it was gratifying to see Hindi gaining acceptance among the children without disturbing the position Tamil deserves and merits in the State.

Keeping alive the threads that unite us is a good idea. Imposing the thread is a bad idea.

Jawed Naqvi's article about imposing our culture on others in The Dawn is an excellent articulation of this view. The Dawn is one of my favorite newspapers to get the perspective of Pakistan. Jawed does leave you "thinking".

I dont understand the chaste (and probably poetic) pieces he teases us with in this excellent article. However, I get the drift. That is the beauty of being able to understand another person's ideas; even if you do not understand his language.

Have fun. Read this "article" in The Dawn.

"To Understand Pakistan, 1947 is the wrong lens" by Khurram Hussain

2009-11-05T06:33:00.006+05:30

Twelve years back I was in Jamnagar; as one tiny cog in a tiny wheel in the larger scheme of things that went on to create a truly gargantuan refinery. I held an energizing cup of coffee and drew the drapes of my hotel window one nice morning. And stumbled into a world I never experienced earlier. Two young and agile men were tracking something I cannot see in the sky with a really large anti-aircraft gun. The waiter explained that this was routine air defense against Pakistan’s jets in the sky.

I remembered the other time I was close to an international border as an exchange student in Michigan. My hosts used to drive down (yes, not up) from Detroit to Windsor in Canada freely. Cars used to race past the border tunnel without anyone stopping us. In practice, there was no border!

Why cannot Pakistan and India accept the geography instead of remembering the history? If co-existence is made inexpensive, the resources released can make a difference to thousands of families on either side of the border.

It appears seemingly rational to see India as a stable multicultural society with popular governments and rule of law; and see Pakistan as an unstable polity dominated by religious bigotry and an eagerness to destabilize India. Quite convenient a view if you are an Indian.

Khurram Hussain’s article in the Outlook magazine brings a different viewpoint to understand Pakistan.

India tries to see Pakistan from a 1947 perspective: A religious minority carving itself out into a political entity to escape domination in a “majority rules” democracy and preserving its “anti majority” psyche well past expiry date. Pakistan remembers India from a 1971 perspective: An unacceptable treatment of one province by the rest in Pakistan “used’ by India to dismember the country and redraw the map.

The asymmetry in Indian perspectives about East Bengal and Kashmir (one a “good” war to liberate the dominated and another an “intervention” in internal affairs) is rarely discussed in a fair and comparable manner by Indian intellect.

On the other hand Pakistan’s intellect has a different memory. It does not necessarily accept challenges to popular governments; challenges to rule of law; challenges from religion; and even terrorism. However, it tacitly accepts intervention in Kashmir seeing Kashmir as a mirror of East Bengal.

When your existence has been challenged, “running for life” seems more important than “running for lunch”.

India would have to appreciate the alternate viewpoint of 1971 war and understand Pakistan from that perspective. India’s Pakistan policy would have to be shaped by addressing the “existential fears” unleashed by the 1971 strategies.

In the recent past, Pakistan’s intellectuals have published several books (some of them covered in my blog) that are not afraid to challenge the traditionally held views in Pakistan with intellectual honesty and candor. We need similar books in India to challenge our own traditionally held views with equal honesty in intellect and candor.

If praising Jinnah can be unacceptable in India (and sufficient to criticize one leader and ostracize another), we would not get smart enough to understand Pakistan and progress toward the normalcy that Khurram Hussain, the Yale University scholar thinks is invaluable for both the countries.

"Tanjore" in Princeton NJ

2009-10-02T18:59:00.009+05:30

Do you want to know how to make something vanish into thin air? Totally?

Just make it my favorite.

Woodlands Drive-in in Chennai was a favorite from my student days. I had my first date with a young lady (currently my wife) there. (Just don’t believe her story about the mess I made savoring ice cream on a cone in a warm climate. Not all of it is entirely true. Don’t listen to my daughters either. Two reasons. One: They exaggerate. Two: They were not there). We continued to visit Woodlands Drive-in quite often in the later years. Pop. It was gone. It was as though Chennai is not any more fully Chennai.

Virgin Megastores in Oxford Street was another favorite. I collect movies. Virgin had a great collection. You can count on getting stuff that you cannot get elsewhere. There was the additional joy of stumbling into a movie you have not heard of. And, discover a gem. When my daughter moved into her pad near Regent Park, within walking distance from the store, I was quite joyous. Pop. Virgin too was gone. Suddenly, for me, Oxford Street is not any more fully Oxford Street.

Tanjore in Princeton was a more important favorite. I spend a third of my time in the US; and half of it in Princeton NJ. Tanjore provided high quality vegetarian food. The couple who owned and ran it were warm; the waitress from Dominican Republic picked up enough insight about the various levels of crispiness with which you can make Onion rava oothappam. Bisi bele bath was prepared to Kamath restaurant standards (more vegetables than rice). The hour long drive from the City to Princeton in the soul-less New Jersey Turnpike had a reward en route at Tanjore. Pop. It has gone. I am re-evaluating whether Princeton should continue to be my base in the United States.

"Three Presidents and an Aide" by Arshad Sami Khan

2009-08-25T15:22:00.005+05:30

Salman Rushdie called Pakistan an “incomplete imagination” at its birth. Religious affinity brought the nation together. Differing cultural, linguistic, ethnic, geographic and political affinities are tearing it apart. Arshad Sami Khan, in his book, provides a ringside view of how this challenge was handled by three Heads of State (Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) for whom Sami was the aide de camp. Sami is a decorated war hero (fighter pilot in air force) and later a diplomat.

Sami steers clear of the typical pitfalls of memoirs of bystanders to history. Sami keeps the focus on the three heads of state; their personalities; and their roles in the events that unfolded during their reign. Ayub is portrayed as a “gentleman officer” with tolerance for the aspirations of his family. Believable. Bhutto is portrayed as an intelligent and cunning politician who could get haughty at times. Fits. Yahya is portrayed as a “straight talking army guy” with a teenager’s open mindedness and adventurism; and all rumors about “the fiddle playing Nero when Rome was burning” are dismissed as false. Not easy to believe.

According to Sami, in 1962, Ayub wanted to open a quick surgical war front (to cut off Kashmir from rest of India and walk away with the contested land) when the Indian army was deeply engaged with China. According to Ayub, US and UK prevailed on Pakistan to not do this promising to resolve the Kashmir dispute in favor of Pakistan in near future. Ayub regretted ceding to this pressure. In 1965, US embassy and State department assured Ayub that if Pakistan invades Kashmir, India would fight in Kashmir theatre alone and not open multiple fronts; and US would provide diplomatic support in international forums for Pakistan’s military operations in Kashmir. Ostensibly this was the reason Ayub deployed most of his firepower in Kashmir while the X division (defending Lahore) was hosting a football tournament. However India “declared an all out war”; opened multiple fronts; reached the gates of Lahore and its officers were promising to BBC that they would “drink double pegs in Lahore Gymkhana by midnight”. Sami says Ayub felt betrayed by the US Ambassador, who was promptly withdrawn from Pakistan. Some strategic thinker, this Ayub!

Yahya Khan’s strategic mistakes were political. He was shocked when, in a free and fair elections (for which he deserves credit) the underprivileged majority Bengali Muslims voted Awami league into power. He instructed his Security Council advisor Major General Umar to ensure that the results are different in the provincial elections that were to follow so that Yahya can discredit Awami League’s victory and retain power with the West. Hearing the praise for free and fair elections, he revoked the instruction to influence polls and negotiated with Mujib-ur-Rehman for an unconstitutional power sharing. He should have taken better counsel: from his aide de camp who has a more profound view on making a nation. Religion alone, according to Sami, is not sufficient as a binding force to make a nation. Cultural, ethnic, geographic and political affinities are important. If the founding fathers of Pakistan had designed it as “a loose federation of constitutionally autonomous units” Bengali Muslims would not have separated from Pakistan. If Sami’s masters had ceded to the rightful demands of Bengalis instead of imprisoning Mujib-ur-Rahman for conspiracy, Pakistan would not have lost its eastern arm.

Sami narrates one story that sounds uncharacteristic. When Yahya threatened to walk out of an Islamic summit because the Saudi monarch wanted to invite India (as the country with a large population of Muslims; in fact more than that of Pakistan), King Hussein intervened to apologize confessing he and the Saudi monarch were “conned into” inviting India by the crafty Indian diplomat. King Hussein offered to declare the Indian diplomat persona non grata for “interfering and misguiding members of the Conference”. Sami thinks of this as an accomplishment. Could this be true? Is ummat al-mu'minin, the Diaspora of Believers in Islam worldwide, defined by politics and not by religion?

"Making sense of Pakistan" by Farzana Shaikh

2009-08-10T14:20:00.009+05:30

Dr Farzana Shaikh (a Ph D from Columbia University and a visitor at Princeton) provides an excellent insight into the evolution of Pakistan as a state and a nation.

Pakistan was born when the minority Muslim community in British India was unified by concerns (about potential oppression in the electoral politics of a democracy) and morphed into a nation with political aspirations. The community had several challenges: lack of territorial contiguity, lack of ethnic homogeneity, differences in culture, differences in language and even differences in the way they practiced Islam. Once the unifying cause of threat from a majority was eliminated, the divisive factors played a bigger role in shaping the identity and future of Pakistan. Pakistan has morphed from the higher ideal of a “homeland for Muslims” to a “frontline state for jehad by the Wahabi Muslims”.

Pakistan, in its attempt to define itself, has disenfranchised to various levels its religious minorities; its sectarian minorities (Ahmediyas, Shias); its ethnic minorities (Bengali Muslims, Sindhi Muslims, Mohajirs); and even segments of its Sunni population (Sufi Muslims and more importantly all women who are no more equal to men under law) veering away from the Universalist message of peaceful Islam. Political leaders and the Army have been eager to legitimize their tenure by whipping up fervor for puritanical Islam or fervor against neighboring India to serve their political causes and have damaged the social fabric of this great community that was once the compassionate and tolerant jewel of the Moghul empire.

However, there are winds of change blowing through the land. There is an increasing emphasis on representative politics, rule of law.

In Farzana Shaikh’s view, Pakistan has to "recast its quest for religious consensus in terms of a cultural heritage rooted in the discourse of Indian Islam to salvage a pluralist alternative consistent with democratic citizenship".

Pakistan may very well find its "identity based on reconciliation of Islam's Universalist message with respect for the rich diversity of its peoples".

A truly remarkable book by this daughter of Pakistan. I wish someone writes about India likewise with equal measures of love and honesty.

"Caritas in Veritate" by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

2009-08-09T19:51:00.013+05:30

Pope Benedict XVI has recently issued an encyclical (translating to "Charity in Truth") that emphasizes, among other things, ethics in business. The encyclical avers that outsourcing by business enterprises "weakens responsibility towards stakeholders such as workers, suppliers, consumers, natural environment and broader society in favor of shareholders". The Pope does not approve "outsourcing" because it shifts economic activity from one community to another!

Question 1 from a "moral perspective": I can understand someone responsible for a geographic constituency lamenting the loss of "economic activity" to a different geographic constituency. How can someone whose constituency covers the entire world lament loss of jobs from one region to another? Does the Pope care more for stakeholders in one economic region than another?

Question 2 from an "economic perspective": All trades (in goods and services) shift "economic activity" from buyer region to seller region. Outsourcing is just one more form of trade. Does the encyclical apply therefore to all trade? Does this mean it is "Christian" behavior for Indians to not buy American aircraft, Canadian tractors, French wine, German cars or see English movies? If the encyclical does not apply to all trade, is it because the Pope believes these purchases are being made because of superior quality of products/services and not because of value in use? Would the encyclical then exclude "outsourcing" attributable to superior quality of goods and services?

I often imagine what would Jesus Christ do if He were to talk with us today. I am sure, in this instance, he would recognize that outsourcing (a) enhances value to consumer (b) knits people together and (c) spreads wealth more evenly. He would have been happy about the latter two for He is compassionate to all mankind; not just the Asia He hailed from. He would not have had strong opinions about economic value to consumer because he probably would have thought that you should "render unto Caesar things that are Caesar's and render unto God things that are God's".

I sincerely hope it does not take the Church too long to modify its views on outsourcing. St Thomas (the apostle who landed in India twenty centuries back to spread His message) would yearn that for his constituency!

"Letter to the Editor from Vanni/Sri Lanka" in Kalachuvadu

2009-08-03T20:46:00.011+05:30

I felt sad and angry.

It is not easy to tell you how sad I was and how angry I was.

It would be a tad easier if you were a Tamil; if you had a taste for “Kalachuvadu” (“Footprints on sands of time”) the Tamil magazine; if you read an anonymous letter to the editor on what happened in Sri Lanka in the recent past. The letter was 14 pages long and was written by an inmate in a refugee camp in Vanni that holds civilians caught in the war theater. The vivid description of the the last days of the war are very disturbing.

The anonymous writer says:

The Sri Lanka Government, in acquiring control over its territory, has been unmindful of the death of thousands of uninvolved civilians detained in the war theater by LTTE.

LTTE fought for a noble cause; its leaders and cadets gave their lives for the cause. But LTTE made several mistakes including: forced recruitment of "volunteers" to its cadets; forced retention of uninvolved civilians in the war theater as a protection; seeing everyone as either a friend or a foe; elimination of all opponents in Sri Lankan Tamil politics; elimination of any form of dissent; alienation of Tamil Muslims and alienation of India.

The Tamils in Sri Lanka were caught between Schylla and Charybdis; between an unfair majority and ruthless freedom fighters. (Each makes the other a supportable candidate!) Both were successful in creating a setback for the Tamils.

As an Indian, I am not a fan of any freedom fighter movement that kills a leader of my country. (He may or may not have my vote; but he is a fellow citizen and his life is protected by my country).

As a Tamil, I expect the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka to be treated in a fair manner; the same fair treatment I would expect India to provide its minorities.

I am sad and angry.

I hope a leader who understands inclusive politics, who can understand and use international opinion and who can institutionalize the striving for fair treatment emerges to handle the Sri Lanka/Tamil issue.

If that happens to be a Sri Lankan Prime Minister, even better.

"The importance of being trivial" by Mark Mason

2009-07-26T11:21:00.011+05:30

I have been a quiz buff from early childhood till about a dozen years back.

In the seventies, at 11 am on Sundays we used to stay glued to the radio to hear Amin Sayani conduct the Bournvita Quiz Contest; and get the printed list of questions and answers by mail midweek.

In the eighties, “Book of Lists” by Irving Wallace and “Book of Facts” by Isaac Asimov augmented the love for trivia. Then, it was the monthly quiz event organized in Muscat by "trivia diva" Sushi Natraj. We all took turns hosting them at our homes.

Later, it was the annual Dunhill Quiz contest; the questions were tough and prizes very modest. But the champions were held in high esteem.

Dunhill was replaced by the annual Times of Oman contest conducted by Derek O’Brien (held in a Soccer stadium holding an audience in excess of 10,000). The questions were probably only a shade above the average intellect of the crowd to keep the crowd engaged. Boy, the prizes were very attractive. (Dr Satish Nambiar, Nitin Khimji and I won the first championship. It was twice joyous since even the three of us did not think we would make it given the quality of competition. I guess it was the prize amount that motivated a practising doctor, a billionaire businessman and an oil company executive to team up and go gung-ho).

I have often wondered what drives folks to pick up, store, recall and regale trivial information? What explains the joy in doing all this? How does one counter the seemingly innocent and cleverly crafted enquiry of a life partner and friend on what is the use of all this information? Is there a limit to the number of facts we can store and recall? Why do we remember something forever; and forget others quickly?

Mark Mason provides a brilliant analysis in his book.

Some snippets:

1 Our brain has several billion neurons. When a new fact “hits” you, some neurons connect and form synapses (excitatory neuronal feedback systems). A brain of hundred million neurons could trigger a hundred trillion synapses! These connections help you store and recall. (“Cells that fire together wire together”).

2 Male brain (53% of males and 42% of females have this) is “systematic”. It organizes details bottoms up to strive toward the big picture. Female brain (yes, lots of males have them too) is “empathetic” and feels the big picture instead of going after the details.

3 Mark Mason meets several people to understand what makes a fact “perfect” enough to be “stored and recalled”. Several tests are proposed. The fact should be true; should be charming; should be surprising; should help you understand; should be good enough to pass on to children; should link unlinked stuff; should relate to a system etc. In the end, Mark finds his own conclusion. Read the book to know what it is.

Hey, forget the analysis. Mark Mason has several “bombs of delight”. Did you know that:

1 When you stand near the Big Ben tower, you can hear Big Ben chime on the radio (live broadcast by Channel 4 in London) earlier than the real chime itself (because light travels faster than sound)

2 Sleuth is the only film where the entire cast was nominated for Oscar (the film had just two actors: Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine)

3 Chicken tikka masala is not an Indian dish. It was invented in Britain to suit British tastes.

4 Monopoly prints more US money every day than US Treasury (over 200 times actually)

5 Elephant and Castle in London got its name from Infanta de Castille, the Spanish princess who lived there (and was engaged to Charles I).

6 When Woodrow Wyatt, the journalist/diarist, was asked by a receptionist in a French Hotel to spell his name, he responded: Waterloo, Ypres, Agincourt, Trafalgar and Trafalgar!

7 The Grand Canyon is big enough to store every human being in the World. Not like canned sardines. We all could have a small room to ourselves!

8 European Union exports more to Switzerland than to China!

9 My favorite: Dustin Hoffman stayed up all night, in true method-actor style, to simulate the exhaustion of his character in “Marathon Man”. Hearing this, Laurence Olivier responded: “Dear Boy, Why don’t you just act?”

Read for more snippets. Read for insightful analyses: by Mark Mason and by the various folks he meets who share his (your and certainly my) interests in joyous facts!

"Mamma Mia" by Varalakshmi Sarathkumar (and Abba)

2009-07-06T09:13:00.007+05:30

I was a teenager then. We had no music system at home. My friend next door (currently a movie actor and play back singer) acquired one. The neighborhood was reasonably well packed and the friend, thankfully, insensitive to noise pollution. That was when Anni-Frid Lyngstad (the sexy siren) and Agnitha Faltskog walked into my life. I went crazy. And continue to remain crazy about Abba.

Must have seen "Mamma mia", the theater production at least six times in three cities. Toronto was the best. London a close second. Broadway was good for its acoustics! The Canadian actor who played Donna Sheridan in 2004 had us moving and shaking to the beats. The Cambodian actor who played Pepper in New York jumped the highest in awe of "now you are cute, I like your style" Tanya. The English girl who portrayed Sophie Sheridan in London in 2006 was awesome. (Curious about what was the worst? Easy. The movie!)

But Varalakshmi Sarathkumar's (yes, the daughter of Tamil actor Sarathkumar) Mamma Mia in Chennai was very different and very good in several respects.

First, the choreography was awesome. Easily, the best.

Second, the creative alteration to the script and the set was refreshing.

Third, the songs were rendered to excellent standards.

Great job. They plan to tour. Watch out. Enjoy.

"Chennai Open 2008 Semifinal match"

2008-01-06T13:28:00.000+05:30

Chennai Open resembles India in a microcosmic way.

Hundreds of fans waited outside the gates; unable to occupy the hundreds of seats reserved for and left empty by “very important people”. The PR machinery is smart. As soon as the Press pointed out that seats are left empty, they enrolled volunteers from amongst “friends and relatives” to occupy the seats and vacate if/when the officers come in.

In spite of this mismanagement, the Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Tennis Association and Vijay Amritraj have kept Chennai in the ATP tour map and have managed to bring some very charismatic players to Chennai for the last twelve years. I am lucky to have attended the event for eleven of the last twelve years!

Yesterday's semi finals match was awesome.

One of them is on his way down. He was World Number One for several years. At thirty one and after hundreds of matches, staying within the top twenty is a testimony to his commitment to the game. He exudes a calm confidence in exceptionally tense moments. The crowd backs him as if he were an Amritraj or a Bhoopathy. Can you imagine five thousand voices chanting “Moya, Moya”? Carlos Moya played an extraordinary game yesterday.

The other is on his way up. He is World Number Two. At twenty one with several championships to his credit, it is no wonder he exudes energy every moment he is on court. Against any other opponent he would have been the crowd’s favorite. Not against Moya. Energy, power, speed and accuracy are displayed by him in every shot. (I have not seen someone stand midway at the back court and hit an “inside out” forehand with such a speed. With that shot, who needs a net game?). Rafael Nadal too played an extraordinary game yesterday.

The first set ended 6-6. Carlos Moya clipped it in a tie breaker.
The second set ended 6-6. Rafael Nadal clipped it in a tie breaker.
The third set ended 6-6. Rafel Nadal clipped it in a tie breaker and won the match.

Their game yesterday, was the second best I ever saw.

(No match can be better than the Pete Sampras vs Jim Courier Australian Open Quarter finals in 1995. Two sets each. Fifth was a tie breaker. Both were equal for a long while. In the end, a shot by Jim Courier landed on the net, remained balanced atop the net for a very brief while and fell, to his disappointment, into his court. When asked how he felt about it, Jim Courier said “Well, it could have fallen the other way!”. Pete did not say anything. He just wept).

“The Kaoboys of RAW” by B Raman & “India’s external intelligence” by VK Singh

2007-12-16T18:35:00.000+05:30

How secretive should sleuths be?

Secretive enough to not let our strategies become public domain information for adverse interests; yet not so secretive to escape public scrutiny completely.

At last some of our sleuths have started publishing books about their life and times in RAW.

Raman does not succumb to the temptation of spilling secrets.

He provides the insightful analysis one can expect from him:

(a) There are no friends or enemies amongst sleuths. Strategic interests dominate everything else. CIA was wary of Indian sleuths helping Soviets in Afghanistan and kept them busy by supporting the Khalistan movement. (Friendship between Kao and then CIA director George Bush changed this policy). CIA was happy to train ISI on terrorism in foreign lands (mainly directed against Soviets). Yet CIA was happy to train RAW/IB on counter –terrorism. French intelligence penetrated Prime Minister’s office and gained access to RAW briefings. Yet French intelligence was happy to co-operate with India and provide US/Soviet fleet movements in Indian Ocean. PM Narasimha Rao summed it up nicely when he said (in a reference to US): “We have to get along well with them; but we have to be careful with them!”

(b) Pakistan’s divisive actions in India did not stem from the loss of East Pakistan as Bangladesh. It started as early as 1956 when Naga rebels crossed over to Burma to get trained in rebellion. (The rebels’ dream of a Greater Nagaland, including bits of Burma, led to Burma turning hostile and stopping this). Pakistan helped Mizo rebel Laldenga conduct a campaign from Pakistan for Mizo separatism. (Laldenga began to dislike to his ISI handlers and made a deal with RAW to move to India). Pakistan provided honor and support to Dr Jagjit Singh Chauhan and helped him conduct his Khalistan movement even prior to the 1971 war. Pakistan found a greater success in Kashmir because of:

1. Availability of 80,000 trained and armed mujahideens free after the Afghan war to conduct a proxy war against India

2. Benazir Bhutto’s stepped up support to ISI (with unlimited power and required funds) to conduct the proxy war. (Pakistan’s relationship with India was at its worst when Benazir headed Pakistan. No meetings. No discussions on “non-white papers”. No initiatives).

3. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s trust in Benazir Bhutto (for which, according to Raman, Prime Minister V P Singh had to pay the price eventually) and

4. Prime Minister I K Gujral’s decision to discontinue RAW’s covert action capabilities on Pakistan’s western border (a policy started by Indira Gandhi and supported by every Prime Minister after her until 1996) that freed ISI to focus on the eastern border at Kashmir and

5. Failure by New Delhi to stop the alienation of Kashmir Muslims (unlike the successful stopping of the alienation of Sikhs in Punjab thanks to several leaders amongst the valiant Sikhs themselves).

(c) Raman thinks that the Bangladesh war did not provide India strategic advantages. We ended up having a nuclear armed Pakistan and an ill-disposed Bangladesh in the neighborhood. Worth pondering this thought. Nor does he think the win against Soviets provided US any strategic advantage. Raman is convinced that “if ever there is an attack in US soil using a weapon of mass destruction, it would have originated from Pakistan”. Worth pondering this thought as well.

(d) Raman accuses both ISI and IB of ill-treating suspected sleuths from across the border. He avers that ISI’s suspicion that RAW had a hand in the Sindh disturbances is misplaced. According to him, this was Pakistan stewing in its own sectarian juice.

(e) Some interesting behavior “behind the scenes”:

1. Prime Minister Chandrasekar secretly agreed to refuel US aircrafts proceeding to the Gulf war theater in 1990; but backed off when a newspaper broke the story

2. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, after a massive rejection of her “emergency” rule in the 1977 elections, considered sending Rajiv and Sanjay Gandhi out of India and gave up the idea at Kao’s advice.

3. Several bureaucrats had fallen prey to money, alcohol and sexual companionship to compromise security or not return to India.

Raman’s book clearly brings out the stellar role Kao’s men played in serving India’s territorial integrity and geopolitical interests.

Organizing the nation’s sleuths (blending the plays abroad, the plays within the country, using people, using technology, warding off others’ spies, working with military intelligence, working with India’s diplomats abroad, working with others’ diplomats in India), steering through the political power play in New Delhi and staying above suspicion are big challenges.

However, India is always able to get good leaders at political level, good leaders at institutional level (like Kao) and good workers at the field level (like Raman). Let wisdom prevail over interests and transparency prevail over power in organizing our intelligence forces.

V K Singh on the other hand is disappointing. He is rightly offended by the corruption (that arises from lack of public scrutiny), nepotism and factionalism. However, his book is a laundry list of “dirty linen”. Apart from putting to shame the offenders (which is not a bad objective really), the book does not provide any “secret” of the RAW or an insight into “India’s external intelligence” as the cover claims. Waste of time. Funny the Government should waste time and tax payers’ money in attempting to remove this book from the shelves!

"Battle at Kruger" by David Budzinski and Jason Schlosberg

2007-08-08T15:27:00.000+05:30

You are having a fun vacation in Kruger National Park in South Africa. You brought that videocamera you received as a corporate gift (taking some time to figure out where the record button is) just in case something interesting happens.

Your jeep reaches a serene peaceful watering hole. You see a herd of cape buffalos ambling along from your left. You see a small pride of lions on the right. The lions are crouching forward. The buffalos sense and run for their lives. A calf does not make it and is caught and held by the lions near water. Out of the blue (pun intended) spring a pair of crocodiles trying to take the lunch away from the lions. A battle ensues. The crocodiles give up. The lions are about to settle for a peaceful lunch. The cape buffalos come back with strength and surround the lions. Have you seen a cape buffalo leverage its head to catch and throw a lion into the sky? This time the lions run for their lives. Life is far more precious than lunch in African Savannah. To top it all, the calf has survived the sharp teeth of the lions and the crocodiles. It slowly rises and joins the herd.

You managed to keep the entire thing recorded focusing on the right subject all the time in spite of a mileu of players and a script that no one could have anticiapted.

How would you feel?

David Budzinski was elated and ended up with the most popular viral video that "Disney could not have scripted" thanks to fellow traveller Jason Schlosberg's initiative in putting this on YouTube.

If ever you want to teach someone about the effectiveness of teams, just play this video.

Have fun. Dont miss it.

"Indian Summer" by Alex von Tunzelmann

2007-08-04T23:18:00.000+05:30

Alex von Tunzelmann, student of history at Oxford and editor of OSU’s Cherwell newspaper in 1998, passes this book as “the secret history of the end of an empire”.

“Life and times of Mountbattens in India” would have been a more apt title. The book contains no secret and is not about the end of the empire in entirety.

The book places too much importance on the roles of three individuals: Mountbatten, his wife Edwina and Nehru. The long struggle, mostly non violent, to evict an alien rule by a wide and deep political leadership (some meriting reverence for decades after their death) has been trivialized to a vane member of British royal family sent to unwind the empire; his flirting wife and an equally flirting visionary who led India during and after the transition.

However, one must compliment Alex von Tunzelmann for the sheer objectivity she brings into describing the events in the last days of the Raj.

Alex starts with a funny perspective: There were two countries in 1577. One was a vast, mighty and magnificent empire, brilliantly organized and culturally unified, which dominated a massive swathe of the earth; and the other was an underdeveloped semi-feudal realm, riven by religious factionalism and barely able to feed its masses. Guess what! The first is India and the second is England. In 1857 it was the other way about! Now you know what alien rule does to the ruler and the ruled!

However, a country divided by religion, divided by tribe, divided by caste; a society whose equilibrium derives from repulsion and exclusiveness is, as Karl Marx rightly observed, predestined to be a prey of conquest.

Did Britain rule India in discharge of “the white man’s burden”? Not really. The Prince of Wales, visiting India in 1921, found the princely states far better than British India! Quite a royal endorsement against the inept colonial rule that kept the GDP stagnating for over 70 years at the time of this observation!

Is the British attitude toward India patronizingly affectionate as reflected by Edwina’s kindly love for Nehru? Not really. Winston Churchill astonished everyone in a dinner party by suggesting that he would have “Gandhi bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi and let the Viceroy sit on the back of a giant elephant and trample the Mahatma into the dirt”! This reflects the kind of thinking that political leadership in India had to face! (Oh yes, I found one opinion I share with Churchill: Gandhi is a Mahatma!)

Did Mountbatten handle his role reasonably well? Mostly no; occasionally yes.

(a) In mid July 1947, while negotiations about partition, defence, finance, future of princely states and the future of 400 million people raged around him, Viceroy Mountbatten was “busy fussing about flags” seeking Union Jack in the upper canton of the flags of India and Pakistan!

(b) Ten days before independence, in the midst of the violence in Punjab, Mountbatten bothered Nehru with a list of dates upon which the Union Jack might continue to be flown in India after independence!

(c) However, he deserves some praise. In less than one year, Patel and Mountbatten achieved a larger and more closely integrated India than what had been achieved in 130 years of Mauryan rule, 180 years of Mughal empire or 90 years of British Raj.

Alex steers clear of bias in her book to an admirable extent.

One reason why, I would recommend a reading of her chapter on Kashmir.

"India after Gandhi" by Ramachandra Guha

2007-07-29T23:48:00.000+05:30

Ramachandra Guha, Stanford/Yale professor turned writer, has done an outstanding job covering the history of India since 1947. The book is very engaging and informative. If you want to understand the evolution of modern India, you ought to read this book.

India’s journey in the last sixty years could be described as a journey between two books: from Katherine Mayo’s “Mother India” (dismissed by Mahatma Gandhi as a drain inspector’s report) to Thomas Friedman’s “The World is flat” (with adulations about a confident and growing economy).

The journey has several good and bad milestones:

(a) Good news: The country dealt with the messy partition – a great human tragedy that displaced 8 million people. Handling the bi-directional migration in Punjab was easier than the uni-directional immigration in Bengal.

(b) Good news: India, the political entity was created by unifying the various bits of the jigsaw puzzle left behind by the British; a country that the nation never had in several thousand years of history .

(c) Good news: A style of government based on rule of law, secular principles and a stable constitution was fashioned. A constitution based on liberty, democracy, emancipation and equality was created. Democracy has been the biggest strength of India in the last 60 years.

(d) Good news: The country was re-organized into linguistic states. Linguistic bonding created strong states under a federal structure and is one of the reasons why democracy has had a deep rooted existence in India.

(e) Good news: Nehru set in place political sensitivity that a heterogeneous population requires to hold the country together. Muslims in India went on to play a great role in India.

(f) Good news: Nehru laid the foundation for democratic traditions by conducting general elections every five years by universal adult franchise. Popular mandate dictated public policy and politics. Transfer of government from one administration to another was civilized.

(g) Good news: The Hindu personal code was reformed and standardized; a true revolt against the oppressive features of the Hindu society. Nehru/Ambedkar achieved in 17 years what could not be achieved in the preceding 1,700 years.

(h) Bad news: Nehru empathized with but desisted from reforming Muslim code; he preferred to leave it for a later day and to Muslim leadership. The Supreme Court judgment in Shah Bano case offered an opportunity. Muslim leadership was in support of this reform. However, Rajiv Gandhi, fearing electoral defeat, reversed the judgment by legislation in spite of the protest and resignation of his Muslim minister Arif Mohammed Khan.

(i) Good news: India got the ruler of Kashmir to sign on to join India when Pakistan sent “trained insurgents” to take Kashmir by force. Nehru got the popular Muslim leader Sheikh Abdullah to support accession to India. Nehru held general elections in Kashmir to ensure governments in Kashmir were backed by popular mandate.

(j) Bad news: Democratic principles and civil liberty were severely challenged by Indira Gandhi.

1 Constitutional rights and civil liberty were suspended for two years. However, these were restored by a wiser government that followed.

2 Political leadership in opposition was imprisoned but opposition leadership rose to the challenge; and the electorate rejected Indira’s actions by voting her out; her defeat was near total.

3 Political leadership in Congress party itself was weakened; inner party democracy weakened and power shifted to a coterie of advisors and members of the family. The party is yet to recover from this; however, the weakening of the Congress party has strengthened Indian democracy. Since 1989 no party has been able to form government on its own and coalition governments have come to stay widening and deepening democracy but rendering public policy slightly incoherent.

4 Political leadership at state level was weakened; and nominees of “high command” were “elected” by obedient legislatures to power as Chief Ministers. However, strong leaders like N T Rama Rao rose to protect “Teluguwala gopatnamu” and brought back pride to leadership at state level.

5 Government executives were pressured to be “committed” to political agenda (instead of being neutral in a multiparty democracy). Government executives were too glad to co-operate and several of them have turned to political careers after retirement.

6 Judiciary was pressured to be “committed” to political agenda. Though there have been a few instances of favored promotions, the Judiciary has substantially held its independence.

7 Gag rules were enforced on press for two years by Indira Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi attempted, in response to stories of corruption, legislation to jail editors for “scurrilous publication”. Fortunately protests in Parliament prevented the legislation.

(k) Bad news: Corruption became endemic in the system. State’s control over economic assets, and State’s leverage over private enterprise were enhanced ostensibly to fight the rich on behalf of the poor; but with a more obvious consequence of decision-makers in government being able to convert their influence over the direction and timeliness of the decisions into personal or political wealth.

(l) Bad news: India saw two pogroms. Against Sikhs in Delhi in 1984. Against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Both arose due to willed breakdown of law. The PM in Delhi and the CM in Gujarat issued graceless statements that in effect justified the killings. Very unfortunately both reaped electoral rewards.

(m) Bad news: Rising Religious fundamentalism, by Hindus and Muslims, affected peaceful co-existence. A sixteenth century mosque around a Hindu sacred site has been a trigger for religious divide in India for long. Destruction of the mosque by Hindu fundamentalists stepped up the divide. Mahatma Gandhi’s advice to a pluralistic society to not seek benefits for the maximum; but maximize benefits for all was sadly forgotten.

(n) Good news: Backward castes who benefited economically from land reforms have started asserting themselves politically (Karunanidhi, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo Prasad Yadav). Dalits found new leadership in Kanshi Ram and Mayawati. Increasing political assertiveness would influence the differences to vanish in the long run.

(o) Bad news: Territorial integrity of India saw a few challenges that stemmed from:

1 Departing British rulers encouraging princely states and hill tribes to remain independent and have a dominion status with Britain so that the empire survives the Raj. Churchill’s support to Hyderabad and Nagaland are examples.

2 Political insensitivity of federal government to the pride, claim to common resources, border or leadership as in the case of Punjab

3 Pakistan’s agenda to avenge the loss of Bangladesh by supporting religious divide and sponsoring terrorism.

4 Kashmir.

(p) Bad news: The economy was mismanaged for first 35 years and is dogged by a “blow hot blow cold” view for next 25 years.

1 Indian economy, second largest in the world from time immemorial to 18th century stagnated with zero growth from 1857 to 1947 thanks to inept British rule.

2 The young nation pursued socialism (centralized planning, state ownership of big ticket industry, state control over private enterprise etc) for two reasons: Nehru truly believed in it; Indira Gandhi saw an opportunity in it to get defined as pro-poor and win elections. End result: Economy grew at a stately pace of 3.5% pa for the first 35 years.

3 The mid sixties famine was a shock to India. However, the “green revolution” helped India achieve self sufficiency in food production. Wheat production doubled. Rice production grew 50%.

4 Rajiv Gandhi started with right ideas by liberalizing trade, reducing duties, incenting exporters, simplifying license regime, lifting curbs on businesses and reducing tax rates; but reverted to populism closer to election time. (He did not win, however).

5 The 1987 drought affected 200 million people and entailed a few starvation deaths.

(q) Good news: A severe economic crisis forced politics to take back seat and introduce economic reforms in India that pushed India into a growth path.

1 The coalition governments inherited a crisis and had to take “significant” steps in opening up the economy, inviting foreign investment, and liberalizing trade.

2 However, there is a continuing debate between “reformers” and “populists”.

3 Economy is growing at a faster 6-8% in the last ten years.

4 There were success stories. The software service exports, aided by Nehru’s education system and linguistic policy, Rajiv’s emphasis on telecommunication and George Fernandes expulsion of IBM giving rise to indigenous players, grew from $ 0.1 billion in 1990 to $ 13.0 billion in 2004.

We have today a confident and rapidly growing India; well integrated with global markets for goods/services and capital. Democracy has taken a deeper root and some tradition in the country. Several malaises prevail and pose challenges.

Will India survive?

So long as the democractic traditions remain, secularism prevails, citizens remain free, market is respected and civil service/army remain; and Hindi film songs are sung, India will survive” says Guha.

Let me add my contribution to India with a Hindi film song: "so jo kabi aisa ho to kya ho?"

Just dont miss the book. If possible recommend the book to a young Indian.

"Criminal" directed by Gregory Jacobs

2007-07-13T09:30:00.000+05:30

This 2004 movie is a remake in English of “Nueve Reinas” (Nine Queens) the Argentinian heist movie written and directed by Fabian Bielinsky.

The movie is unique amongst heist flicks. A senior con artist and his understudy start the day in sunny Los Angeles with small time operations. The unfolding day gives them an opportunity to do a big ticket scam on a rich “mark”. A series of characters (not one of them honest) and rapid turn of events pose several challenges.

The movie grabs your attention right at start and holds it firm right to the end. The movie progresses along predictable lines for a brief while; and then it takes you on an unpredictable roller coaster ride.

Don’t miss it. Have fun.

"Confessions of a Swadeshi reformer" by Yashwant Sinha

2007-07-01T16:20:00.000+05:30

The book is indeed written by a “reformer”; am not sure this is however a “confession”.

Yashwant Sinha is one of the unsung heroes in the history of India’s economic reforms.

After 24 years in civil service as an IAS officer, Sinha switched to politics in 1984. He had two short spells as Finance Minister; in both instances the governments were brought down by moral low points of Congress party. In the first instance, the Chandrasekar administration (supported by Congress from outside) was brought down by Congress ostensibly because two sleuths were spying on Rajiv Gandhi. In the second instance, Gomango, a Congress MP who had taken office as CM of a State (and therefore was morally obliged to resign from Parliament) voted to bring down Vajpayee government by a wafer thin margin of one vote. Sinha came back as Finance Minister when Vajpayee formed his second government after winning elections; and went on to become the fourth man to present five budgets.

Sinha inherited an insolvent economy the first time; and had to pledge 20 tonnes of SBI’s gold with the Bank of England to get $ 400 million foreign exchange to tide over the crisis. He did not flinch in making hard decisions in spite of the negative popularity that would entail. Sinha swore to himself that he would not let that happen again. Sinha prepared, as per Dr Arjun Sengupta, an eminent economist, a truly revolutionary budget after the crisis; but was unable to present it because the government fell. Otherwise, it would have been Sinha, and not Dr Manmohan Singh, who would have become the poster boy of economic reforms.

The five budgets that Sinha was able to present later did not, unfortunately, have the same revolutionary edge.

The book however is certainly not a “confession”. There is nothing in the book that was private prior to disclosure and nothing that is sensational that would give a different perspective to the reader.

The book is still a good read because this is a reasonably honest account of a hero who thought more about strategic wins than immediate popularity. The alleged statement of Jana Krishnamurthy when he listened to Sinha’s economic agenda sums up Sinha’s philosophy: “It is good to implement your agenda; but we need to stay in power to implement your agenda. Your agenda may not allow us to remain in power for long”. The true dilemma of a statesman who has to however keep getting elected.

Three disclosures disturb a reader:

(a) Sinha claims that the budgets prepared by several of his predecessors were known ahead of turn to an industrial group.

(b) “Someone” close to PM Vajpayee’s office called Sinha to direct him to reduce tax on a product (that would have been useful to an industrial group). Sinha checked with the PM. No such directions were given. Sinha did not comply with the request. Sinha does not name the person who conveyed the alleged directive. The reader can understand Sinha’s reluctance since he is continuing to be in politics. But the book is not yet a “confession”. It would become one when Sinha is ready to name the person and get him/her out of politics.

(c) Chief Minister Jayalalitha slipped a note (listing all the income-tax disputes and cases Sinha's Finance ministry had with Jayalalitha) to Sinha after a lunch Sinha had with Jayalalitha in her home. Sinha claims he did not act on the note. If she indeed gave a note as Sinha claims, that is a low point in Jayalalitha’s political career!

Sinha is one of my favourite politicians in India. He had the moral timber to resign at the whiff of a suggestion of involvement in a havala case that was orchestrated by wily Narasimha rao. He did not contest elections until he was cleared by courts. He did not do a piggy back ride on a party. He won elections in Bihar each time he played a role in the government. He was a true reformer with a vision that went beyond the next elections. Above all, he did not strive to bring his children into politics – a clear sign that politics is not of economic advantage to this politician.

"Dancing with Giants: China, India and the Global Economy" by World Bank

2007-05-20T10:51:00.000+05:30

This is a report by the World bank (and a think tank) to study the impact of the growth of China and India on other countries in the World.

Provides a good insight into the China and India story:

(a) Sorry, China and India are not Giants. Though they house 38% of world population they account for 6.4% of World GDP (yes, purchasing power parity is not useful in evaluating your impact on other countries since size of trade and exchange rates are more important than price levels).

(b) Sorry, this will not change even after sustained growth in the next decade. India would grow from being 1.7% of World economy to 2.4% in 2020 (okay, 3.2% if you are optimistic). China would grow from 4.7% now to 7.9%.

(c) Sorry, India is not a dominant player in providing services to the world. India’s export of services is just 1.8% of global trade in services.

(d) Sorry, IT just accounts for 6% of India’s service revenue. Nope, it is a myth to believe growth in IT sector would transform Indian economy. It did not. It may not.

(e) Nope, energy economists don’t need to worry. India accounts for just 3.4% of global oil usage. In the next ten years any hike in oil price is more likely to come from supply side hitches than from increased demand for oil in India or China.

(f) Nope, US current account deficit is not due to China’s import barriers or an undervalued currency. US is just not saving enough.

(g) Nope, China and India are not competing head on for their products. The top 25 exports of China and India have only one product in common! (Yes sire, refined petroleum).

(h) Nope, Dhirubhai Ambani alone is not enough to reform our textiles industry. Our textile exports is $ 10 billion a year. Wal Mart alone buys $ 18 billion textiles from China. Did you know one major impediment is the delivery time from India to US? Yes, 24 days!

(In passing, the economists say that the movie industry in India is not known to produce world class movies; though one did come recently: “Bend it like Beckham”! Apologies Mani Ratnam, economists do not know as much about movies as about GDP!)

Have we handled our economy well? We made some mistakes in the way we managed our economy.

(a) We started with one major disadvantage. Inequality.

(b) Economic growth is rarely balanced. It often results in enhancing inequality.

(c) There are good inequalities (differences in income and wealth because some earned more than others) and bad inequalities (lack of access to education or credit to pursue an economic activity). Good inequalities are necessary to maintain incentive for growth. Bad inequalities prevent people from escaping poverty.

(d) We got our philosophies mixed up. Instead of attempting to eliminate bad inequalities by providing access to opportunities for the poor, we went after good inequalities by suppressing incentive for economic growth.

(e) We restrained firms from freely pursuing economic activity (by reserving several activities for the State or for small enterprises and by introducing a license raj that required government permission to start or expand a business).

(f) We prevented efficient allocation of resources (by protective trade policy that perpetuated advantage to existing players, by a directional tax policy, by state control of all funding and by restrictive labor laws).

(g) On the other hand, we did not provide access to education or market driven micro finance delivery to the poor to acquire human capital to escape poverty.

(h) End result: We did not grow enough; but the inequality went up. The poor did not benefit from economic growth at all.

(i) Since our political system depended on popular support, political administrations “blamed” a variety of targets (businessmen, upper caste, land holders, foreign hands) for the failure to eradicate poverty and used the resultant “popular anger” to consolidate their power base.

(j) Thank God we had a crisis in 1991. Debt service rose to 21% of receipts. Interest burden rose to 20% of expenditure. We ran out of spendable currency. No one was willing to lend.

(k) Prime Minister Narasimha Rao went beyond curing the immediate disease. Rao government cut back industries reserved for State; removed licensing requirements; devalued rupee; allowed current account convertibility; removed quotas and reduced tariffs; and lifted restrictions on foreign investment.

(l) Fortunately the reform process, despite vigorous debate, has developed sufficient consensus to stay on track in succeeding administrations.

(m) We have some more miles to go:
(1) We need to provide access to education and credit to facilitate people escape poverty. Spending money on rural infrastructure alone will not kill “bad inequality”. If this is not done, India would continue to be a miracle of “jobless growth” and political consensus for reform would evaporate diluting growth prospects. Equality is not just a nice thing to do; it is essential for going after growth.
(2) We need to get “government” out of “business” even more. Subsidies will have to reduce. Buredensome state enterprises cannot be funded by public expenditure. Bad loans in banks will have to reduce. Regulatory rigidity in labor market will have to reduce.
(3) We need to step up “governance”. We need to step up government effectiveness and bureaucracy quality.
(4) We need to manage our “balance sheet” well. We cannot be an economy whose liabilities are in “high cost equity” (FDI and portfolio investments) and whose assets are in “low yield reserves”. This asymmetry is expensive.

China has one advantage over us. An early start. China has built a strong manufacturing base with an eye on the global market (40% of its GDP is from exports vs 15% for us). However, in the end, China has one disadvantage. In China the State is determining who will pursue economic activity and who will not by its “hukou” system (license to live in special zones) and “TVE system” (town and village enterprise owned by local governments with limited authority to retain and reinvest super profits). This was useful in creating "private firms" in a socialist economy.However, this past success is going to be a burden for China in the future. A very large population, distinguished by party discretion, got left out in the growth process and resentment is bound to build up. Building political consensus to the reform process is going to be quite a challenge in China. This may hamper growth. To this extent China is in a "trapped transition".

India has a higher chance of sustaining and growing political consensus for reforms because it has the political institutional framework to let differing voices debate vigorously before building consensus. The pace is bound to be slow but the traction is firm.

It is nice to think that Leftist leaders Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury, with their wisdom and ability to disagree, play an important role in this long term competitive advantage for India over China!

"Planet Earth" by BBC/Discovery Channel

2007-05-13T18:36:00.000+05:30

This DVD issue is awesome.

Discovery Channel/BBC team use state of the art technology to take us through the various eco systems of our planet - polar ice caps, mountains, plains, rivers, caves and deserts. You get to see the regions from the space, from the sky, from a tree top, on land and on occasions from down under. Rare events (births, first moments, hunts, survivals) have been captured with great alacrity and patience and presented in one seamless flow.

Ever seen Niagara falls from various observation points? Right atop the horse shoe falls? On a "maid of the mist" boat tour taking you as close to the falls as possible? On the temporary wooden platform of "hurricane deck" where the secondary spray itself is powerful to knock you off and the huge mass of flowing water above your head "scares" you? On a "journey behind the falls" (on the Canadian side)?

Ever seen the Grand Canyon at sunset time from "Hopi point" with the Colorado appearing as a nice serene silver ribbon barely visible in the total landscape? Ever trekked down "Hermit's rest" to realize how rugged the terrain is? Ever took a "white water rapids" ride to experience the thunderous flow that the silver ribbon has become? Ever took a helicopter ride over the canyon to see Peak Brahma and Peak Vishnu in their inspiring splendour lording over the rocks?

Ever snorkelled in the Great barrier reefs in Australia? Ever did an underwater glass boat ride over the Arlington reefs (and get teased for it because your kids got to do the more adventurous 50 m scuba dive around the same time)?

Ever spent a day to reach Jungfraujoch (through the Eiger tunnel up the Eigher North wall) to see the picturesque view atop the mammoth Sphinx observatory deck? Ever saw the same stuff from a flight tour over the Swiss alps and realize that this huge observatory is a tiny toy in a massive blanket of snow?

Ever stood on an Alpine farm land with a parasail (and a tandem pilot, of course) attached to you and run at breakneck speed toward the edge of a cliff? Ever experienced the magic moment when your feet are off the ground and you are flying/floating/sailing/gliding with nothing between your feet and the lake town 2,000 m below? Ever moved from the embarrassing moment when you have self doubts (while your little girls and wife have taken off smoothly) to the moment when you are in air catching a thermal and getting a big uplift?

Every time you have an awesome moment like this in your life your respect for Planet Earth goes up. So does your fun in living in this ecosystem.

This exceptionally entertaining DVD series brings those magic moments of joy you experienced (and those you have not) right into your living room.

Grab one. Watch in a big screen TV. Enjoy.

"Benazir Bhutto, daugher of the east" by Benazir Bhutto

2007-05-13T17:46:00.000+05:30

In his book “Prisoner without a name and cell without a number” Jacobo Timerman says that oppressed population go through three stages during the course of oppression: anger, fear and apathy. For "anger and fear" Pakistan did not have to look beyond General Zia-ul-Haq. For apathy they did not have to look beyond Benazir Bhutto.

Benazir, in 1988, was Mannah coming down from heaven for Pakistan.

She was the first born of the elite aristocratic Bhutto family. (Charles Napier, famous for his “Peccavi – I have Sinned” pun writes that Bhutto landholding was so extensive that he would travel for hours in Sind and yet be in Bhutto land). She went to Radcliffe and later to Oxford. She was the first woman president of the Oxford Union.

Young Benazir, 23 when her father was murdered by Zia, was kept in prison by Zia for several years. Undaunted by all this, she provided leadership to PPP, her political party. When allowed to go out of Pakistan in 1984 she continued to run the party from her Barbican apartment in London.

In 1986 she decided to return courageously to Pakistan when Zia was ruling. People defied military rulers and gave her a welcome that remains unrivalled. She continued to whip up her agenda for bringing democracy back to Pakistan for the next two years.

1988 proved to be a turning point for Pakistan and Bhutto. Zia’s role for Pakistan to be a frontline state in the war against communism proved to be temporary. Zia’s role for Pakistan to be a frontline state in evangelizing Wahabi Islam proved to be permanent. Zia died in an air accident. Benazir Bhutto became the first woman PM of Pakistan when she was just 35 yrs.

Until this time her life is a story that inspires. After becoming PM hers is a story of lost opportunities.

She did not use her power base to enshrine democracy and was comfortable securing a position of power in existing autocratic frameworks. This allowed Ghulam Ishaq Khan (a civil servant who succeeded to become President) to dismiss her once and Farooq Laghari (an underling who got elected to be President due to Benazir’s support) to dismiss her again.

She did not ensure her husband was above suspicion. Pakistan government had detained her husband in prison for more than 6 years on 90 charges of corruption though it has not secured conviction in even one case . However, it is not easy to ignore the fact that Zardari, not rich at the time of marriage to Benazir, owns a 355 acre property south of London according to Wikipedia.

Benazir is a good writer though. Some interesting snippets:

The feelings of an educated young Muslim girl wearing a barkah for the first time are vividly described. The world was not the same through gauze. The build up of humidity inside the cloak was uncomfortable. Her relief when her father tells that she does not need to wear a barkah is immense. However, it was her father’s decision; not hers. Who is the liberal?

Benazir Bhutto rightly feels that the West does not care for freedom in frontier states as much as freedom at home:

(a) In 1958 US trained Pakistan Army in “immobilizing” a government through strikes. The operation was titled “Operation Wheeljam”. Why would US want to do that? Why would Pakistan army want to get trained in that?

(b) Margaret Thatcher, in a trip to Pakistan, praised Zia and declared Pakistan to be the “last bastion of freedom”. An example where a leader's wisdom has not kept pace with knowledge.

(c) Undersecretary of State James Buckley testified before US Congress that “elections were not in the best interest of the security of Pakistan”. Another example of paucity of wisdom.

Pakistan had a long term price to pay. After the Afghan war, Kalashnikovs were available, according to Benazir, for $ 40 in Karachi. One can rent by the hour too. Landowners and Industrialists began to employ private armies to protect themselves. By 1983, Pakistan had become the major supplier of heroin to the World with some support from the State. (Abdullah Bhatti, one of the two drug bosses, was arrested and sentenced by a military court. But Zia intervened and gave him a Presidential pardon, a power he never used for anyone else!). Narco terrorism was born.

The second major impact was on women. Zia introduced the Hudood ordinances whereby a woman charging a rape should prove it with four male witnesses; otherwise she would face adultery charges herself. Safia Bibi, a blind servant girl was raped by her employer and his son; and could not prove it – rape rarely being conducted in public. The two men went free and Safia was charged with adultery. Campaigns by outraged women saved Safia Bibi; but not other less fortunate women.

However, Benazir is not as eloquent about her times as PM as about her times as a prisoner. There is very little about her challenges as a PM: her failure to get a good constitution written, her failure in dealing with Presidents who never had public mandate, her failure in dealing with traditional power brokers in the army, in the ISI, her failure to rein in her husband; her initiatives for development of social and economic aspects of Pakistan and her failure in engaging with India. In the end, she got consumed by the very forces she tolerated as a prisoner and as a PM. Pakistan did not revolt when she moved out to Dubai.

The book is interesting when it deals with the anger and fear till 1988; and gets boring when it reaches the stage of Jacob Timerman’s “apathy” after 1988. Benazir too does not think the period is important and devotes 90% of the book for her first 35 years till she becomes PM and just 10% for the next 19 years as PM, Opposition leader and Leader-in-exile.

When it was first published in 1988, I liked the book. Today, am just bored.

"Kundun" by Martin Scorsese

2007-04-06T07:01:00.001+05:30

In 1985 I was hosted by Dr Tom Bailey and Dr Judy Bailey in Rochester Hills, Michigan in a student exchange program. Judy is a lawyer (truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth) and Tom is a dentist (tooth, the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth).

World was divided then between two super powers. Ronald Reagan was talking of "evil empire" and "star wars". Mikhail Gorbachev was tinkering with "peretroiska" and "glasnost".

Judy had just then returned from a tour of the Soviet Union and was presenting her photographs at the local church on a Sunday evening.

One photograph would stay in my mind forever. It showed a very small group of people congregating to pray; and a nice small Cross in a well decorated alcove. Sixty eight years of an atheistic political rule could not destroy religious faith and emotions.

The ability of human faith to stay alive across generations when such a faith is denied a chance to exist is amazing! Someone somewhere always keeps tiny little sparks alive for causes forced to be forgotten.

Therefore, Tibet has hope.

No matter how many years China rules Tibet; no matter how many Chinese settle down in Tibet and convert Tibet into a Chinese territory, someone somewhere would keep tiny little sparks alive to keep Tibet's identity as a peaceful serene temporal/religious system.

Kundun is the story of Dalai Lama.

The young boy is discovered to be the reincarnation of the earlier deceased Dalai Lama; is taken to Lhasa and coached in the ways of Buddhism. How does the peaceful wise leader of a non violent nation fight the aggressive plans of an ambitious, efficient and modernized army of Red China? Is the nation important? Or is "ahimsa" important? It is exceptionally difficult for a young Dalai Lama to decide.

In the end, Red China occupies Tibet and Dalai Lama is forced to move to friendly India and form a government in exile. He is yet to return to Tibet.

Tibet is forgotten by World because the aggressor does not play by its rules and the offended would not resort to terrorism.

However, nations never cease to exist. Someone somewhere keeps a tiny spark alive. Martin Scorsese's 1997 movie: Kundun is one more spark for Tibet's continued existence.

The movie stays away from melodrama. China is not portrayed as a villain. The way some Chinese narrate how Chairman Mao brought justice to their life is likely to win respect for communism. The young Lama is portrayed in life like terms: a vivid mixture of curiosity, anxiety and mischief. The maturity of the young adult Dalai Lama is nicely portrayed when he tells his mother that women cannot stay in the monastery after dark in a stern affectionate tone.

Lovely movie.

"Frontline Pakistan: the struggle with militant Islam" by Zahid Hussain

2007-03-27T15:14:00.000+05:30

Zahid Hussain touches on an important topic: Pakistan’s ongoing and impending war with its own self and the tough choices ahead of President Musharraf.

The support from Public Opinion in Pakistan for terrorism as a tool to further beloved causes is worrying. The ease with which sundry pet agendas could be converted into beloved causes is twice worrying.

In order to contain global terrorism emanating from Pakistan or having a safe haven in Pakistan two things need to be done:

(a) Public opinion will have to undergo a change in Pakistan. Public opinion is useful only when it derives from the "wisdom of the crowd". This benefit would not arise unless opposing thoughts and beliefs can “co-exist peacefully”. Good leaders “discredit” public opinion if it denies room for such peaceful co-existence. Mahtma Gandhi did. Bad leaders, on the other hand, whip up public opinioin to radically extreme positions using intolerance. Adolf Hitler did. Military rulers in Pakistan are guilty of whipping up public opinion to take a self righteous radical form that destroys opposing thoughts, reasons and emotions.

(b) Defending one’s religion is one’s right. Giving one’s life for one’s religion, one’s country or one’s society is a noble deed. This is true for Americans dying for the Flag and Muslims dying for their holy causes. However, immature leadership is quick to provide its pet agenda a higher purpose to merit the label of a "noble cause". In Pakistan this seems to be too easy. Military, whether in rule or not, has used religious leadership to provide the “emotional ammunition” to enlist support for every thing including a proxy fight against Soviet Union on behalf of USA, a proxy fight against the perceived foreign policy of USA, a proxy fight against one faction of freedom fighters in Afghanistan in favour of another, a proxy fight on behalf of Pakistan’s army itself in various engagements in/with India.

As a result, the postal address for global terrorism is somewhere within Pakistan.

President Musharraf is now forced to:
(a) appear to the outside World to be firm in dealing with relgion based terrorism and
(b) appear to Pakistanis to not succumb to international pressure

Quite a funambulation even for the skillful Musharraf. Musharraf does appear sincere in attempting to weed out terrorism; but does not appear sincere in having a go at modifying public opinion in Pakistan. His challenges in doing so cannot be underestimated.

Zahid Hussain is the Pakistani correspondent of The Times, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. His dispassionate insightful analysis of Pakistan’s struggle with militant Islam is excellent. As with most books about Pakistan, there is excellent analysis of the present but no thought from anyone in Pakistan on how to solve the problem. The absence of an alternative thought or the unwillingness of such thought to express itself is hardly Zahid Hussain’s fault.

"Scoop!" by Kuldip Nayar

2007-01-05T17:32:00.000+05:30

It was a wrong time to be a teenager.

Socialism, seeded in by lofty intellectuals in pursuit of an utopian dream of equality, was failing to deliver. Yet this failed economic solution was a good political platform to secure a constituency.

Political standards were at their lowest. A son became more important than a country. Democratic traditions were killed. Fundamental rights were suspended and held inferior to State policy. State policy was of course as decided by a small coterie. Opponents were imprisoned. Newspapers were censored. There were a few who were elated because trains ran in time and because there were no strikes. The worst moment was when a sycophant Deb Kant Barua proclaimed: “India is Indira and Indira is India”. The leader was hopeless. The country was without hope.

And then, people spoke. Indira's actions and her coterie were firmly rejected. (She herself was not rejected; she was later able to come back to power).

In that first whiff of freedom, it was fun to rediscover hope in life.

There was an eagerness to understand what went wrong; how did it go wrong and what made everything right. Kuldip Nayar provided the answers in his book “Judgment”.

Kuldip Nayar never disappoints. The young lawyer from Lahore who migrated to India, studied his Masters in Journalism in Northwestern University in Evanston Illinois, returned to be press secretary for G B Pant and later Lal Bahadur Shastri and went on to be editor of Statesman is a well balanced analyst of political events just as they happen.

In “Scoop!” he provides an “inside angle” to events in the subcontinent. Some are thought provoking. Some are a revelation. Some are of no interest beyond the heat of the moment.

Some snippets:

(a) Mountbatten concedes his inept handling of partition caused the death of a million people. However, he claims his net score with his Maker is positive because he saved two and a half million lives in World War II. To imagine this "convoluted thinker" was making policies in ruling a nation is scary!

(b) Radcliffe says that Lahore (with a majority of Hindus/Sikhs at the time of partition) should have come to India and was given to Pakistan because the new nation did not have a big city. Do we hold a plebiscite in Lahore now?

(c) Morarji lost a chance to succeed Nehru because a press interview made him sound ambitious because it reported that “he threw his hat into the ring” and tilted the votes against him in favour of Shastri.

(d) Zulfikar Ali Bhutto concedes that “he started the war with India in 1965” by orchestrating the infiltration!

(e) When Congressman Sardul Singh Kaeshwar wondered whether he should repay a Rs 500 loan that was time barred, Mahatma Gandhi was firm in saying this was not a legal issue and this was a moral issue. Nehru dumped Keshav Dev Malavia because Malavia could not account a political contribution he received for Congress party from a businessman. Moral standards in politics were high. Modern day politicians demand proof of corruption charges in a court of law. That an average adult would have reasons to deduce there was corruption is not sufficient.

(f) Indira Gandhi suspended fundamental rights. Gandhi and Nehru would not have approved. Yet four people did! Justices Ray, Beg, Bhagwati and Chandrachud agreed that suspension of fundamental rights did not imply suspension of rule of law. Ray opined that when there is “public danger” protective law should give way to interests of the state. There was hope however. Justice Khanna dissented. (Khanna was superceded when a junior Beg was appointed Chief Justice. Khanna did not oblige the government by resigning. He stood tall by staying). In my mind, Justice Khanna is a hero.

A good read.

"India's foreign policy 1947-2003" by J N Dixit

2006-12-03T18:41:00.000+05:30

We don’t have in India “transparent” debates on public policy by “vested interests” (with opposing views) as they happen in more evolved democracies like the US. Our politicians are yet to appreciate that public policy should contribute to and draw from public opinion. There is very little information available in public forum on the thought processes that lead to evolution and management of public policy. Foreign policy is no exception.

J N Dixit, an erstwhile Foreign Secretary (and later political advisor) with several decades of experience in civil service provides a rare opportunity to get an insight into the evolution of India's foreign policy in this book. The reader is rewarded with informed anlaysis from someone with erudition and a ringside view.

Dixit’s book is enjoyably high on anlaysis and enjoyably low on episodes and anecdotes.

In a democracy any public policy is formed by a judicious mixture of brain (the right move), heart (the right feeling and the right principle) and lips (the right thing to say). Foreign policy, again, is no exception.

The infant India, initially tended to prefer the heart and the lips. Principles were considered more important than interests. We tended to pontificate and made a few mistakes:

(1) In 1947, it was India, not Pakistan, that took Kashmir to the UN in the expectation that the UN would uphold India’s claims on merits. Lt General Kulwant Singh pleaded with Nehru to give him “just a few more days” to free the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistani presence. Nehru did not listen. US and Britain used procedural gimmicks to transform invasion by one member state against territories of another state as a territorial dispute between two member states. India ended up converting Kashmir as a dispute while Tibet, Falklands and Grenada were not.

(2) In the 1950s India promoted “non alignment” as a guiding principle. In truth, India did not practice this principle. India was quick to criticize invasion of Suez Canal but hesitant to criticize invasion of Hungary. India’s credibility was challenged. Indira Gandhi modified this approach by aligning with Soviet Union to protect India’s defense interests cutting across ideology differences.

(3) In the 1950s India missed an opportunity to get the border resolved with China as a quid pro quo for recognizing Tibet as a province of China. Several mistakes were made: Chinese annexation of Tibet was recognized without a quid pro quo; the protests against border intrusions were not firm enough; the military action was silly and adventurous; choosing to open all fronts with China was a tactical error; not using the air force was a tactical error. The military defeat by China was total. It was US intervention that saved India.

(4) In mid 1950s US wanted India to replace China as a permanent member of the Security Council. India declined this offer in view of its friendship with China.

(5) In 1963 US advised India to develop nuclear weapons (as a strategic counter to Soviet and Chinese designs). India declined the offer on grounds of principle.

This tendency to project principles ahead of strategic interests did affect India. However, as the country’s leadership gained a mature understanding of why societies work together or against each other, the precedence to interests prevailed.

Thankfully several of our foreign policy decisions were guided by realpolitik interests and not by “lofty principles” and “moral high ground”:

(1) India got the princely states, especially Hyderabad, to accede to India to form a wholesome territorial entity instead of letting India look like an unfinished jigsaw puzzle of a five year old (only the British could think of such a solution!).

(2) India annexed Goa (after wasting 13 years in negotiating with Portugal’s Salazar) and Sikkim.

(3) India won the support of Kashmir’s ruler Hari Singh and its popular leader Sheikh Abdullah to support accession of Kashmir to India

(4) India’s escalated its response to the 1965 attack by Pakistan by opening all fronts and reaching Sialkot and Lahore unmindful of international opinion against disproportionate response.

(5) India engaged with Pakistan to liberate the eastern wing of Pakistan, unmindful of discouragement from the US, when 9 million refugees poured into India when Pakistan’s army unleashed a reign of terror on its own citizens.

(6) India aligned with the Soviet Union to protect its interests in an “unrepresentative” UN and to protect its defence interests cutting across ideological differences.

(7) India firmly refused to sign multi-national treaties (on nuclear weapons, fissile materials and missile technology) that attempted to prevent proliferation while enshrining a state of permanent competitive advantage for the “early birds”

(8) India exploded nuclear devices in 1974 and 1998, unmindful of international opinion, to firmly establish India as a nuclear weapons state to prevent a few “early birds”, using loftier principles, attempting to enshrine their advantages on a permanent basis.

(9) India dealt with Pakistan in Kargil, unmindful of its nuclear weapons potential, to again send a message that the territorial integrity of India cannot be compromised.

Dixit is substantially pleased with the way Indian foreign policy has been managed.

In a democracy where political leadership changes quite frequently, it is only to be expected that there would be some faux pas. There are a few contenders for the “ugly” moments: Gujral’s embrace with Saddam Hussain in 1989, George Fernandez’s proclamation that India’s nuclear testing was driven by potential threats from China in 1998, Rajesh Pilot and General Krishna Rao pursuing self defined paths instead of working with a larger team while handling Kashmir in 1990s are a few.

In the end the foreign policy establishment seems to have understood one essential tactic. Every country acts in its own interest. Ensuring a friendship with India is in the strategic interest of those who matter is the best way to manage international relationships.

If that can be done without compromising with principles that would be lovely.

"Pakistan: Eye of the storm" by Owen Bennett Jones

2006-11-28T17:52:00.000+05:30

Owen Bennet Jones was BBC’s correspondent in Pakistan for three years till 2001.

His book is a wonderful way to understand Pakistan. It is not a typical chronological list of facts. It is a set of nicely grouped perspectives on the issues in Pakistan’s politics: the power players – army, politicians, feudal lords; the public opinion issues – Kashmir, Bomb, Bangladesh, Muhajirs; and their impact on Pakistan so far.

The reader can pick any chapter and start with it.

It is difficult to write a book about Pakistan (or India) without leaving in the reader’s mind a sense of disappointment at a biased perspective. Was partition the right thing to do? Different views may emerge based on who you ask.

It is even more difficult for a British author to keep a balanced perspective on the history of the sub-continent given the influence in his own ambience. Is Winston Churchill a wise statesman or an arrogant imperialist? Different views may emerge based on where you ask.

The author seems to have struck a fine balance between multiple views.

However, in a few instances, the author disappoints:

Pakistan does feel insecure about India’s intentions. The religious divide is a thin argument since India has more Muslims than Pakistan; and they are not raring to quit India. The divide stems from a public opinion that got shaped by the shameful violence during partition; that got nurtured after the partition by the army and politicians in Pakistan as a pet hate agenda for self serving reasons. Today, no politician or general in Pakistan can take a softer friendly stand towards India and survive in Pakistan. This is true to a lesser extent for politicians in India too. Feeding a public opinon for political convenience and in turn being fed by it is the vicious cycle that Pakistan has gotten into. The author misses this point and suggests that Pakistan’s insecurity stems from India responding to Pakistan’s invasion in 1965 by crossing the border and coming to occupy Lahore; and from India’s role in liberation of Bangaldesh. This world-view befits a public relations spin master and not a political journalist.

Pakistan’s view is that Mujahideens causing mass deaths in Kashmir are “freedom fighters” and not “terrorists”. This view suffers from several fallacies:
(a) Pakistan’s claim as homeland to the sub continent’s Muslims is not valid any more. Not after 180 million in East Pakistan walked away. Not after 200 million Muslims have stayed back in India and have played a big role in India’s growth. Pakistan has lesser Muslims, 150 million, today than either India or Bangladesh.
(b) The Mujahideen are trained and equipped by the State of Pakistan. This is low intensity proxy war. Not freedom fighting. Not terrorism.
(c) The Mujaihideen are not citizens of Kashmir. They are "outsiders" coming in for a shared religion. They sincerely believe they are fighting for the noble cause of their religion. They believe religion prevails over the State. This view raises challenges to several States. In the end this may prove to be a bigger challenge to Islamic States than other States.
The author’s sympathetic description of the events in Kashmir as “tribesmen crossing the border to fight for their muslim brethren” reflects one view reasonably well; but ignores an opposite view that may have a greater dosage of wisdom.

Pakistan’s army, in the words of Benazir Bhutto, has a better track record in fighting its own citizens than fighting other armies. The army’s response to this potential for doubt is made up of: (a) a signature tactic of proxy war – in defeat there is a cover of deniability; and in success there is glory and (b) lack of transparency on events during the war and a “spin” that could obfuscate truth. The author is willing to be a facilitator. Did Pakistan’s army lose its positions in Kargil? Or, did they walk out because Nawaz Sharif ceded to pressure from the US? The author says that Indians claim Pakistan army was dislodged in 80% of the positions before Sharif met Clinton; but “neutral” observers, relying on Pakistan sources, believe that India had dislodged Pakistan in just 12 of the 132 positions implying that the army won it and politicians lost it. Neutral observers relying on Pakistan sources? There are better neutral analyses like Arthur J Tellis’ book “Limited Conflicts Under the Nuclear Umbrella”.

The author parrots a view he heard in Pakistan army: that Pakistan army uses tribesmen in its engagement with India because the Indian army is more afraid of the tribesmen than Pakistan’s regular army. Steve Coll in “Ghost wars” has a different story. Officers in Pakistan army preferred to get posted to the Western front than the Eastern front where they need to meet the tough professional army from India.

Aside from these minor biases, the author has done a very good job in portraying Pakistan’s history and the issues this young nation faces.

"The true face of Jehadis: Inside Pakistan's network of terror" by Amir Mir

2006-11-26T14:55:00.000+05:30

Several Pakistanis have written courageously critical analysis of intolerant dictatorships and terrorism in Pakistan.

Hassan Abbas’s book “Pakistan’s drift into extremism: Allah, the Army and America’s war on terror” and Hussain Haqani’s book “Pakistan between Mosque and Military” are two good examples. So are Tariq Ali’s “Clash of Fundamemntalism” and “Jehad and Modernity”.

However, Hassan Abbas and Hussain Haqani were part of Pakistan’s politics and policy for a while and have written their books from the safe shores of United States. Tariq Ali wrote his books from the free and safe environment of England. (To be fair to Tariq, the man who inspired Rolling Stones to write their song “street fighting man”, he was critical of Pakistan even when he lived in Pakistan; but his family moved him to the UK for higher education and his years in Oxford have only rendered him a more balanced and more respected critic. Yet his best books were written when he was in the UK).

Amir Mir is different. He lives in Pakistan. He is no politician and has the reputation of being Pakistan’s leading investigative journalist. It is quite difficult for Amir Mir to be honest without fear of reprisal – by the State, by the power brokers or by the offended terrorists. It is difficult to “not belong” in Pakistan. Imagine if its Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz had to swear in public that he was instructed in his childhood by a certified orthodox Sunni cleric to avoid the dangerous allegation of being a Shiite.

Amir Mir’s courage in writing this critical analysis of Pakistan’s network of terror while living in Pakistan is a vindication of his love for his country.

Elected prime ministers as well as Military dictators are influenced by “public opinion”. One conforms to it to win popularity. Another conforms to it for “legitimacy”. Public opinion in Pakistan hovers around "religion" and "Kashmir".

The Jihad of the 1980s in Afghanistan ended up empowering the “religious right” as a major influence of public opinion in Pakistan. The religious right used zakat funds to harvest a crop of fighters willing to die for pet causes. United States was myopic to believe communism is worth thwarting using communalism. Pakistan’s ISI provided the institutional framework to assemble all this together and execute the objectives.

The current Jihad against a wider array of enemies – the United States, Israel, Afghanistan and India is an improved version with a public opinion even more supportive of religious right and intolerant of alternative view points. The State is trying to be a supporter of international opinion in containing terrorism and a supporter of Pakistan public opinion by not overdoing it. End result: an assorted list of small groups, all equipped with very powerful motivation to destroy civilization elsewhere for causes the groups firmly believe are moral and honourable.

Amir Mir provides a mosaic of news about the rise of various terrorist groups, their pet causes, operations etc.

The picture one gets makes one feel sad for Pakistan. Because terrorism has always failed in achieving its objectives and has alienated the vital support of public opinion to causes that otherwise would have been very moral and very supportable. On the other hand, terrorism has rarely failed to suppress quality of life at its point of origin. This is true of almost every theater where terrorism was practised.

Amir Mir is rightly frightened of terrorism’s impact on Pakistan.

"Shameful Flight" by Stanley Wolpert

2006-11-19T21:34:00.000+05:30

This book is about the last years of British rule of India – an unwise partition, an incompetent colonial government, and a botched up migration leaving bitter legacies. The author is UCLA’s Professor Emeritus teaching history with several other books about India to his credit.

The book is outstanding for many reasons: It is written in an easy style that would force you to read it one go, quite rarely seen in books covering history. Yet the book has sufficient background research that can only be expected from UCLA’s professor of history. It has a balanced presentation of facts by a scholar far removed by geography and time from the events.
Stanley Wolpert provides some interesting insights:

British rule of India is a tale of incompetence:

In 1943, India produced 50 million tons of food grains – enough to feed its population of 400 million. Yet 1.5 million people died of starvation in Bengal that year primarily due to mismanagement.

Bengal’s governor Herbert and Viceroy Lord Wavell pleaded for food grains. Britain’s war transport minister Baron Frederick James Leathers kept 6 million tons stored in ships in Indian Ocean but did not spare it for the starving. Wavell’s report to an uninterested Prime Minister Churchill says “the famine in Bengal was largely due to ministerial incompetence”.

The incompetence was acknowledged in London as well. Churchill’s Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery confesses in a private letter to the Viceroy Linlithgow “nothing has convinced me more than the Cabinet meetings…. of the fundamental incapacity of a British cabinet to try and govern India”.

Viceroy Wavell condemns Churchill four years later after sitting in one cabinet meeting: “He hates India and everything to do with it. Winston knows as much of the Indian problem as George III did of the American colonies!”

British rule of India is a tale of political insensitivity.

The best example of this insensitivity is Winston Churchill’s peevish telegram to his Viceroy asking “why Gandhi has not died yet?” after releasing the Mahatma from prison because of medical conditions. Not a class-act in international politics.

Partition could have been avoided with greater wisdom in Indian/British leadership.

In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won clear majority in six of the eleven provinces. Jinnah’s Muslim league failed to win a single province. Jinnah appealed to Nehru to agree to a coalition Congress-League ministries in the multicultural provinces. Nehru refused and retorted that there were only two parties left: “the British and the Congress”. Jinnah devoted the next ten years to create Pakistan. If Nehru had pursued an “inclusive style of politics” there would have been no opportunity to “divide and rule”.

1946 offered another opportunity to unite. British Secretary of State, Lord Pethick Lawrence advocated a coalition cabinet (made up of Congress and Muslim League) that decides by consensus (as coalitions normally do) and not by majority vote. Nehru declined to cede parity to Muslim league and share power. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad sadly reflected in his autobiography that “Jawaharlal’s mistake in 1937 had been bad enough. The mistake of 1946 proved even more costly”. This resolved Jinnah to insist on partition.

Britain played the “divide and rule” card to the long term detriment of India. Viceroys were quick to ignore good examples. Chief Ministers Sikandar Hayat Khan and Fazl-i-Husain governed Punjab province by using local patriotism and common language to unify the multi-religious Punjab society. It was the same Punjab that recorded the largest death triggered by inept governing.

British rule had no strategy to deal with partition.

Britain, as a colonial ruler, has a history of shameful behaviour. In 1942, when Britain exited Burma “the civil administration suddenly collapsed and those in charge sought their own safety. Private motor cars were commandeered for the evacuation of Europeans, leaving their owners stranded. …. The city of Rangoon was left at the mercy of …. hardened criminals”. There was no thought for life after British rule.

Months ahead of independence most of the British staff were evacuated to Britain leaving no credible law enforcement mechanism for the infant governments of India and Pakistan to deal with the migration induced violence and death.

Mountbatten was aware of the likely violence and the lack of a plan to deal with this. Though Cyril Radcliffe’s maps with the boundary lines of India and Pakistan were ready earlier, Mountbatten kept it under lock and key until the pageantry, splendor and photo opportunities of the Independence day were over and the British could no more be blamed for the violence or the ineptitude with which it was handled. His reasoning: “the earlier it was published, the more the British would have to bear the responsibility for the disturbances which would undoubtedly result”. Reasonable opportunity to manage the migration was denied for the sake of glory.

Says Bengal Secretary John Dawson Tyson, “Mountbatten’s focus was on withdrawal in fairly peaceful conditions….. the India after 15 August will not be the kind of country I should want to live in”

Rear Admiral Viscount Lord Louis Francis Albert Victor Mountbatten expressed what he thought about the way he had done his job in India to BBC’s John Osmon in 1965. Thirty nine years later Osman says that though he dislikes using vulgar slang, the only honest way of reporting accurately what the last Viceroy said was “I fu….d it up”.

Stanley Wolpert concludes that both India and Pakistan are still saddled with the bitter legacies of Great Britain’s hasty, shameful flight.

Excellent book.

"The Shawshank redemption" directed by Frank Darabont

2006-10-30T10:20:00.000+05:30

I had the DVD with me for a while but did not see the movie because the title and the blurb were not helpful in understanding what this movie was about. Got curious last year when a nephew's blog proclaimed his interest in the movie. The curiosity was not enough to vault over the mental stumbling blocks.

Yesterday I got lucky. Saw the movie.

Wow. Wow. Whew.

No wonder this 1994 Morgan Freeman/Tim Robbins movie is voted as Number 2 in the 250 all time best movies by participants in the "Internet Movie Database".

The story is about an innocent banker being sentenced to life imprisonment in the Shawshank prison system; his journey through the sentence; the "hope" he carefully nurtures against all forces in the prison; the protection of "something inside him" that he does not allow others to touch; and his clever adaptation into and manipulation of the system.

I bet this movie would "touch" you in a way you dont expect it to; and would leave you with a faint smile.

I plan to see this movie again. And again.

Funny the movie, an adaptation of Stephen King's novel, did not do that well in the box office (thanks to Pulp Fiction and Speed); but had a dream run in the home video market.

If you have not seen it so far, you are lucky. You could enjoy seeing it for the first time!

"A Call to Honour: in service of emergent India" by Jaswant Singh

2006-10-28T16:49:00.000+05:30

Jaswant Singh is a solider turned Statesman inspired by another soldier turned Statesman: Charles de Gaulle. No wonder the book’s title mimics de Gaulle’s war memoir “The call to honour”.

The first paragraph is erudite; scholastic and a put off. After that the book gets very warm, inviting and enjoyable.

Early days in Jasol and Khuri are described in a vivid Arundathi Roy style. The sense of freedom and joy a young bride (Jaswant's mother) feels when traveling from her in law’s place to her parent’s place; the mild anxiety of a grandfather to get his weekly fix of opium; the anguish of a grandfather whose peace and prosperity is challenged by a mindless partition in 1947 are all conveyed in a style that would win attention.

Jaswant Singh does not waste your time. He moves fast forward from his younger days in Jasol and Khuri to becoming a Minister in Vajpayee’s cabinet.

The reader gets a first person’s account of

(a) India’s explosion of nuclear devices; the philosophy behind the bomb; and the management of the impact the explosion had in India’s relationship with US, G8, China and Pakistan
(b) Blow hot blow cold relationship with Pakistan where people are courteous to each other in person and vitriolic in their public postures
(c) The Kargil war in 1999 and the Military stand off with Pakistan in 2001
(d) The Kandahar hijack incident
(e) Building a relationship with US that is independent of US relationship with Pakistan and
(f) Building a relationship with China.

One gets the comfort that politics is not all that bad in New Delhi:

(a) R Venkatraman, Minister of Defence in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet, takes into confidence Jaswant Singh in the Opposition benches of the cabinet’s decision to explode nuclear devices in 1980 (though the explosion was cancelled in the last minute by Indira Gandhi)

(b) Prime Minister Narasimha Rao while transitioning Government to Prime Minister Vajpayee says “I wanted to explode these devices but could not. Now it is up to you”.

Both incidents point to a deep respect for other players in politics and a willingness to put India ahead of competitive advantage in politics.

Jaswant Singh too displays this maturity. He has strong criticisms against Congress party and Jawaharlal Nehru. However these criticisms seem to stem from anguish and not hatred; does not reduce the respect a reader may have for Congress or Nehru.

The book has some disappointments. Jaswant Singh does not talk about Ayodhya incident or Godhra incident in great detail. He does not talk about divisive politics between Vajpayee and Advani. Or the Tehelka scandal and how his party tried to stifle an investigative reporter. They too were part of India’s history when Jaswant Singh was in the ring and the reader would have had a more balanced understanding of Jaswant’s time.

All said, an outstanding book by an outstanding son of India who served his country well.

His grandfather who told him to “Go to Delhi and tell them that this (partition of India and Pakistan) was wrong” would be very proud of Jaswant Singh.

"Kargil: from surprise to victory" by General V P Malik

2006-10-26T16:40:00.000+05:30

The head of Indian army is one of the best persons to provide a first person’s account of the Kargil war. If he happens to be an engaging writer, even better. If he has the intellectual honesty to be truthful, it would be a delight.

General V P Malik has done an exceptional job in this book.

He is quite honest, without being critical, about the flawed intelligence; flawed reporting from the frontline; a few failures; and lack of sufficient equipment. However, the story of how the armed forces mobilized its response; how every point was captured back reads well.

Malik gives due credit to the political leadership in India for having the courage to increase the intensity of response without the fear of a nuclear backlash; but is frustrated with the moral high ground of not letting the army cross the line of control into Pakistan.

Malik gives an insight into the strategic thinking in India. Pakistan has the advantage of surprise in a low intensity conflict. Pakistan has parity (thanks to its bomb) in a high intensity conflict. However, India has the advantage in a medium intensity conflict due to a much larger armed forces. (India is a $ 3,800 billion economy while Pakistan is a $ 374 billion economy; in the end, sheer budgetary support would differentiate the two armies in a conventional war).

Pakistan’s thinking was that its nuclear capability would prevent India from escalating the war from low intensity. The political leadership and military leadership in India surprised Pakistan by escalating the response and engaging in a medium intensity conflict without being worried about nuclear responses.

Malik excels at the anecdotal level too. There are heroic stories about how individual peaks and points were captured back. The photographs of the terrain show how difficult the job was.

Reading this book along with Musharraf’s book “In the line of fire” would provide a contrast between India and Pakistan.

One, Malik appears proud of working under his political leadership and seems happy with their support though there are a few disappointments. Musharraf thinks all his political masters were useless.

Two, Malik does not describe Pakistan as an enemy in a passionate way. Malik sounds like a person who would not have minded a vacation in Pakistan if the two nations were friendly. Musharraf whips up passion in Pakistan by painting India as an arch enemy.

Three, Malik is happy to vanish into the wall paper in the political process. The highest level of interference Malik was willing to do was to call the Election Commissioner and complain that it would have been convenient for the army if the EC fixed the election dates after the war was over! Malik and his colleagues are apolitical professionals. Musharraf has emerged as a military dictator.

Four, Malik is quite critical of his country, his army and his political bosses – because he wants his successor to have a better probability of protecting his country. Musharraf cannot find one fault with Pakistan army.

Good book. Reads well.

"Ghost wars" by Steve Coll

2006-10-24T16:35:00.000+05:30

One of the best books written about the emergence of religion based terrorism directed against several causes and several societies. Steve Coll provides a balanced dispassionate analysis and profound insight into the new menace that is powerful enough to challenge peace everywhere.

United States has two kinds of friendships in world politics:

(a) Friendships founded on shared values
(b) Friendships founded on shared interests

Friendships founded on shared values (such as those with UK, Canada, Australia, Germany and Japan) last forever. These friendships do not leave a trail of destruction behind. Friendships founded on shared interests (such as those with Iran under the Shah, Philippines under Marcos, Pakistan under Zia, Saudi Arabia above oil) last short periods of time but leave a trail of destruction somewhere.

US friendship with two such shared interests (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) has created a monster that is likely to be a greater challenge to peace and security everywhere than anything humanity has seen so far.

Saudi Arabia has been funding radical Islamic groups around the world to appease its domestic constituency of religious right. Saudi donations helped create radical Islamic groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan to attract, train and equip youth who are willing to kill and willing to die.

Pakistan provided an intelligence service that could orchestrate insurgency against a conventional army; provided a limitless supply of youth willing to die for holy causes; and an efficient supply chain of high tech arms.

United States used this friendship to create a "jehad" against Soviet expansionism. The mission was successful. But there were unfortunate side effects.

The Jihadists, assembled against Soviet Union, did not go home to become investment bankers and stock brokers. They stayed and sought new causes. Fight for Palestine. Fight against America. Fight against the House of Saud. Fight for Islamic rule in Afghanistan. Fight for liberation of Kashmir.

Pakistan had a field day. The ISI could use the jihadists for its favourite causes: Hekmatyar, Taliban, Kashmir. State sponsored terrorism was born. Funding was available from Saudi Arabia and from narcotics trade. State sponsored terrorism gave way to a multinational radical Islamic terrorism when Pakistan tainted every political objective with a religious colour (a lesson learnt from the jihad against Soviets). It is now possible for a Mullah in a village in Pakistan to issue a fatwah by fax that could motivate a young British Muslim to enroll in an ISI sponsored terrorism training center in Pakistan and undertake a mission to destroy social fabric in a nation that is probably busy with a super bowl.

A foreign policy shaped by shared interests is probably not that good an idea.

This book provides a well researched insight into the rise of radical Islamic terrorism.

The best on the subject. Easy to read. Disturbing to think about.

Shall look forward to the next book from Steve Coll.

"DC Confidential" Christopher Meyer

2006-10-21T15:32:00.000+05:30

Christopher Meyer was UK's ambassador to USA during the run up the Iraq war.

You would have thought this is likely to provide an insight into the alignment of views between the two leading democracies of the World, right?

Forget it. This book is boring.

All you get to read are:
(a) Britain's embassy in Washington DC; and next house neighbour Al Gore's copter disturbing peace in the neighbourhood
(b) Meyer's tracking of Presidential polls in USA to find out who is likely to win
(c) Political infighting between PM's office and Foreign ministry occasionally denying Meyer presence in high level parleys
(d) Germany's insensitivity in helping Her Majesty's Ambassador's wife winning a custody battle in German courts

Anglo American relationship is an important force in world polity. We shall await a book from Tony Blair or Dubya Bush to get insight into that.

As to this book, let it remain confidential.

"In the line of Fire" by Pervez Musharraf

2006-10-20T16:32:00.000+05:30

A memoir by a ruling Head of State of Pakistan! Without the measured expression by seasoned diplomacy! This is an exciting opportunity to discover what is ahead for Pakistan, mankind's fight against terrorism and for neighbour India.

Written in a racy style that keeps the reader engaged, the book does not disappoint.

Pervez Musharraf is quite outspoken about Pakistan. A few examples:

"Bhutto was the worst thing that happened to Pakistan. He did more damage to the country than anyone else, damage from which we have still not fully recovered"

"President Zia, in the 1980s, completed what Bhutto had started in the dying phase of his regime - the total appeasement of the religious lobby". "Zia found it convenient to align himself with the religious right and create a supportive constituency for himself".

"The four changes of prime minister involved two cycles of alteration between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Never in the history of Pakistan had we seen such a combination of the worst kind of governance - or rather, a nearly total lack of governance - along with corruption and the plunder of national wealth".

"We stood at the brink of being declared a failed state, a defaulted state, or even a terrorist state".

In four short quotes he disapproves the governance of Pakistan from 1971 to 1999.

Musharraf does admire one ruler of Pakistan however: Pervez Musharraf. He does make moderate claims to qualities of head and heart as a leader - to the extent one can expect in an autobiography. Every dictator or despot nurtures an ambition to claim legitimacy by seeking backing from his/her constituency. Musharraf claims his by bringing in the right mixture of national interests, a poor "state of the union", army support, a referendum and a convenient quote from Abraham Lincoln!

However, what surprises this Indian reader, is an antipathy toward India supported by misrepresentations and deceit:

Musharraf claims that India attacked Pakistan first in 1965 and was given a "bloody nose". Some might say that Pakistan sent its 2nd tank regiment into Jammu first. India halted it and advanced just miles short of Lahore and Sialkot when a UN brokered ceasefire stopped the war.

Musharraf also claims that India, with USSR alliance, invaded Pakistan in 1971 at a time when Pakistan was dealing with mass public uprising in the East. Musharraf ignores the millions of refugees that poured into India thanks to severe threats to normal life from Pakistan's Army. He claims India had an alliance of war with USSR and Pakistan's ally US was not supportive. Truth is different. The only super power to enter the war theater was the US. However, the Indian Army took complete control over the war theater for the US 7th fleet to play any active role and US backed off in the absence of achievable objectives.

Musharraf's recollection of Kargil is at best funny. He claims that "local freedom fighters" occupied Kargil in a maneuver that was "flawless tactical marvel of military professionalism" and Nawaz Sharif lost it in a truce brokered by US. Fact: It was Pakistan's army (Northern Light Infantry) that occupied Kargil. It was a tactical win at a Captain's level and a strategic failure at a General's level. The Indian Army discovered this late (and was criticized in India for this); but the Indian Army fought back and re-occupied all strategic heights. The US brokered truce happened after the re-occupation.

Musharraf stakes a final claim: That the Indian nuclear program used Dr AQ's design. This is a bit mixed up. India exploded its device in 1974. Dr AQ was at that time a young and brilliant metallurgy engineer in Delft in the Netherlands; it would take him another fifteen years to get a dirty bomb for Pakistan.

Musharraf, as a loyal Commander in Chief, tries to paint a larger than life size image for his Army. That is understandable. However, he does not worry about its impact on those who look to him for peace in the neighbourhood and elsewhere. That is worrying.

The leader of Paksitan is quite an important person for humanity's future. Because he can make a big difference on two major issues affecting humanity:

One, Pakistan is the biggest supplier of terrorists today. This supply chain misuses a great religion to provide motivation, drug trade to raise capital, and a vast accumulation of equipments from the cold war era for ammunition.

Two, Pakistan has the power to destroy. This power will have to be carefully handled. By wise, stable and mature hands. One would have thought Musharraf is the best person to control Pakistan's bomb. This book reduces that comfort.

Everyone would agree with one thing Musharraf says in his book. When one sees young Shahid Afridi hit sixers in a cricket match at will, one does feel like jumping with joy like a child. That, at least, is unquestionably true.