"Scorpion's tail" by Zahid Hussain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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"

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

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!