Religious fundamentalist in the US (Pakistan Observer)

Geopolitical notes from India

M D Nalapat

Saturday, September 12, 2015 - A country clerk in Kentucky, Kimberly Davis, has become the darling of several religious fundamentalist groups in the US after she went to jail rather than sign a certificate permitting a couple of the same gender to legally marry. This was despite the fact that the US Supreme Court, despite its conservative majority, ruled that such unions are legal in the US and hence cannot be blocked by state authorities. Calling herself an “Apostolic Christian”, Ms Davis said that the tenets of her faith made it impossible for her to carry out the Supreme Court’s verdict. After a few days and much television coverage later, she was released into the presence of perennial Republican Party Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who believes that Charles Darwin was deranged in suggesting that human beings evolved over time rather than got created as they are in a period not specified by Huckabee or the authorities he relies on. There is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and the divine creation of human beings, for even in the latter case,there will be changes over time caused by differences in climate and other factors. 

However, to US religious fundamentalists, the world is binary, either black or white, either true or false. And now we have the spectacle of a senior politician seeking a job that seeks to uphold the laws of the land actually encouraging an individual who has broken the law because of her personal faith. What would happen in the US if a citizen were to say that he or she belongs to a faith where adultery deserves to be punished, not with a wink as in that country, but by stoning the offender to death? 

Each religion has a set of beliefs that in several respects are different from those of others. For example, in the Jain faith, monks move around without any clothes, so deep is their commitment to austerity. Many Jains carry the doctrine of non-violence to the point where they will not even kill mosquitoes entering their residence, as the taking of life is banned by a faith whose practitioners are among the most forward looking and the most successful in India. Would Mike Huckabee be as indulgent as he has been to Ms Davis towards an individual who refused to disinfect a hospital ward because the process would involve the killing of myriads of insects, something prohibited by his or her faith? More to the point, would that person get the avalanche of favourable coverage in the media that Kim Davis got, or the kid glove treatment of the courts and the penal system, which let her free within days of her openly defying the law of the land despite being under oath as a public official to enforce it? 

The fact is that Kim Davis has set a precedent that in times to come can create severe problems for the US and other countries where others may seek to follow her example of basing even her official decisions on faith rather than on the laws and the constitution. If she has any objection to obeying a policy deemed to be legal by the Supreme Court, the correct path would have been for her to resign rather than set an example of fundamentalist disobedience of the law in a secular country. Just as “Apostolic Christians” (whatever the term implies) have clearly defined views on matters in which laws take a different stance, so may those of other faiths. In India, those belonging to the Muslim faith are legally entitled to marry up to four wives at a time, while divorce is simply a matter of repeating the word “talaq” three times, as quickly as may be desired. However, such liberty is not present in the US. Now, following the Kim Davis precedent, those men wishing to have four wives at a time can say that such is their faith,a nd it is their religious obligation to go by its tenets.

The Republican Party in the US seems to be in thrall to its fringe, which is why (as forecast several weeks again these columns), Donald Trump seems poised to become that party’s candidate in the 2016 US Presidential elections, overshadowing the aseptic Jeb Bush, who has the added disadvantage of being the elder brother of the US President who thought Al Qaeda was led by Saddam Hussein and allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup in his obsession with taking out the toothless (to US interests) Iraqi dictator. Taking out those who pose zero threat to security interests seems to be a pastime of NATO, for Iraq was repeated in Libya, while in Syria, although the Assads (Hafez and Bashar) have kept the peace on the Golan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are trying to remove Bashar Assad from office and replace him with a Libya-style cocktail of warlords and religious fanatics. By placing Church over State, Canon Law over Constitutional Law, politicians such as Mike Huckabee (and he is scarcely alone, for most Republican Presidential candidates have endorsed the disobedience of Kim Davis to the law) are putting in place a precedent which will come in handy not just for “apostolic Christians” (whatever this means) but for those with similarly deep-rooted theological views who practice a different faith. 

A Hindu official can refuse to clear a shipment of beef for export, and a Muslim do likewise with pork,as both are repugnant to their respective faiths. Where will such disobedience stop, for surely it would be illogical to claim that only “apostolic Christians” have the right to go by the tenets of their faith despite being in the service of a secular state. The Kim Davis precedent is worrying for those opposed to the competitive religious fundamentalism which seems to be spreading across the globe. Certainly there will be others on that same lawless path, and not all from the Kentucky clerk’s faith. Such exercises in action on the basis of theology can do serious damage to the secular foundations of the US at a time when it is in danger of hosting myriad cells of silent fanatics preparing to strike through techniques honed in Sri Lanka and Iraq to perfection.

—The writer is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Haryana State, India.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=272959

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201509/12/comments-2.php

Dick Cheney is losing the Iran argument (Sunday Guardian)

These days, it is the Iranian formations that are proving the most deadly against ISIS in the field.

hat this columnist is not an admirer of Ayatollah Khomeini is not a secret. Nor is it entirely unknown that in his very first lecture to students in Teheran almost a decade ago (at the Shahid Behesti University), he made explicit the fact that he was a friend of both the US as well as Israel, and that those wishing to leave the hall as a consequence were welcome to do so. In a sign of the strength of Iranian civilisation — where the practice of debate has originated millennia ago — none did, and the talk (on the importance of secularism) was listened to with attention. Hence, it was a surprise to receive an invitation from the Habilian Foundation to participate in the Second Congress of 17,000 Terror Victims in Iran, in Teheran this week. After the Deputy Chief of Mission of the Iranian embassy in Delhi took all of ten seconds practically on the day of departure to issue a visa for the spouse of this columnist, the last excuse for non-participation ended, as did another of the many precooked conceptions about 2015 Iran, such as that its bureaucracy was almost as cumbersome as the world's worst (after Zimbabwe and North Korea), India's. Certainly, Iran has not in full measure been friendly to the US or to Israel, but what sometimes gets forgotten is that this is a country whose government has faced an existential threat from the US, Israel and the EU for three decades. The tensions began after the takeover of the US embassy in Teheran in 1979 by students angry at the asylum given through Henry Kissinger in the world's biggest superpower. It did not help that those working in the embassy were held for nearly a year and a half, or that Iranian television lingered almost daily on scenes of their being interrogated by youths who apparently never went to Charm School. Given the attempt to destroy its system as comprehensively as Saddan Hussein's or Muammar Gaddafi's was years later, it is a wonder that Iran remains a peaceful country in a zone of chaos. But for the efficacy of the security services in Iran, the country would long back have resembled Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria and other countries, which the US, the UK and other NATO powers have sought to "improve" through the use of the military. Contrast the Iranian policy (of providing substantial protection to its key personnel) with India, where too a large number of those associated with the nuclear programme have died in opaque circumstances, but have been ignored by a government machinery which sees such a spike in deaths as routine. Perhaps it is a blessing that PMs such as A.B. Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh used to indulge US dictates, for if we had been covertly or otherwise attacked by a country less dysfunctional than Pakistan, our governance system would have folded up. Among the "freedom fighters" the US and its allies in the anti-Iran crusade back are organisations such as Mujahideen-e-Khalq and Jundullah, who share the Al Qaeda belief that the most effective method of persuasion is to kill as many innocents as possible, in Iran's case about 17,000, who are remembered in that country as much as such victims of terrorism have been forgotten in India. In a world where ultra-Wahhabi terror groups have become a security nightmare across continents, Iran is as indispensable an ally as the USSR was against Hitler.  It must be said that although most at the conference saw the US, Israel and some EU countries in less than flattering terms, there was no effort whatsoever to silence the few (such as this columnist, and interestingly, Hussein Shahid from Pakistan), who spoke in warm terms of these foes of Iran. For the sake of fairness, it must be said that arguments supporting India's policy of friendship with Iran are usually listened to in Washington with a degree of understanding, if not agreement, although there exists a fringe which sees any stance less than hostile to Iran than that of Benjamin Netanyahu or Dick Cheney as "selling out to the mullahs". Fortunately for the globe, President Barack Obama does not agree with such a duo, and with good reason. In a world where ultra-Wahhabi terror groups have become a security nightmare across continents, Iran is as indispensable an ally as the USSR was against Hitler. Had some of today's leaders been in office during the 1940s, the US and the UK would have refused to give Moscow the material which enabled the Russian people to overcome the Nazis. These days, it is the Iranian formations that are proving the most deadly against ISIS in the field, which is why in the emerging coalition of countries — hopefully including India — that will get formed to fight ISIS on the ground, Iran is indispensable. The nuclear agreement has led to a change in the atmosphere of Teheran, from disquiet five years ago to hope. Sanctions and isolation help the extremes and choke the middle, which is the very segment which needs to be encouraged in order to ensure moderate policies, hence it is to be welcomed that this time around, unlike in the case of Iraq, Libya and partly Syria, Dick Cheney has lost the argument over Iran. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/dick-cheney-is-losing-the-iran-argument

Iran coming out of isolation (Pakistan Observer)

Geopolitical notes from India

M D Nalapat

Saturday, September 05, 2015 - The 1979 takeover by students of the US embassy in Tehran had grave consequences for Iran. For many centuries,diplomats enjoyed immunity even in countries where relations are tense with the other side, and the fact that the government of the country supported the embassy takeover. The harsh treatment meted out to the captured diplomats caused anger in Washington,with the result that Saddam Hussein,the dictator of Iraq,saw an opportunity in 1980 to launch a war on Iran. This conflict was conducted by Saddam with extreme brutality,and nearly a million citizens of Iran died as a result of the conflict,which carried on from 1980 to 1988 before a cease-fire took place. Despite the fact that the US and its allies helped Saddam Hussein (including through the supply of chemical weapons), the Iranian military formations were able to prevent the takeover of its territory by Iraq. 

Instead, what took place was a coming together of different sections of society in defence of their country, and a strengthening of the hold of Ayatollah Khomenei’s followers over Iran The 444-day captivity of US diplomats by students in Tehran resulted in a state of undeclared war between the US and Iran that has gone on since 1979. The US and its allies have tried to assist the process of regime change in Iran, sometimes by helping with money and armaments groups that in the time of the Shah of Iran’s rule used to target US interests. Of such organisations, the most important was the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MKO), an organisation claiming to be marxist in its ideology but which since the 1990s has set up offices in countries such as France and the US. Whatever following the MKO had within Iran was eliminated once the organisation began to help Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. This wasregarded by the people of that ancient country as treachery, and they turned against the MKO. 

There are reasons why the security network in Iran has become so all-pervasive. While the US is the most powerful country on the globe, Israel has the most efficient secret service in the world, and these two countries have been joined by others in a joint effort to create enough chaos, especially in Tehran, as would lead to the collapse of the regime now led by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Any visitor to Iran can see that such an effort has failed. The cities of the country are peaceful and acts of terror are much fewer than in some countries in Europe, despite continuing efforts by countries hostile to Iran to destabilize the country. Just as the declared war on Iran by Saddam Hussein made the country more resilient and able to bear hardship, the undeclared war on Iran by the US, Israel and the EU has paradoxically strengthened rather than weakened the institution of the Supreme Leader, as this system is seen as able to block foreign efforts at creating chaos in the country. Although the purpose of the sanctions imposed on Iran by a coalition of countries led by the US was to weaken the central government, such an effort has failed.

Sanctions and the isolation of a country usually have the effect of making the extremes stronger, both on the right and on the left, and weakening most the middle groups which are important for growth and social stability. While it is a fact that the takeover of the US embassy by students in 1979 was an act which had a lot of harmful consequences for Iran, the fact remains that the policy of isolation pursued since then by Washington and its partners has not been able to change the system of government in Iran. This failure of the tactics of three decades has been understood by President Barack Obama of the US, who partnered with President Rouhani of Iran to work out a nuclear agreement that is a plus for both Iran as well as the US. With the steady shrinking of the US-led sanctions regime, the Iranian economy can grow much faster, so that the country emerges as a global knowledge hub because of the high quality of the Iranian people. 

Having nuclear weapons without a strong economic base is disastrous, as was clear from the example of the USSR, which collapsed despite a huge stockpile of such weapons. Iran has made the correct choice by choosing peaceful development over a North Korea-style obsession with nuclear weapons. By focussing for the next fifteen years on economic development, Iran can by 2030 emerge as a global power that has strong influence in both its own region as well as elsewhere. The EU benefits from a reduction in tensions with Iran, for were such tensions to cross safe limuts, the global economy would feel the shock. President George W Bush had the opportunity of working out a nuclear deal with Iran in 2003 that would have been far less favourable to Tehran than the present deal, but he clearly believed that within his term of office, the US and its allies would launch a war with Iran in the same way as they did with Iraq. With the global financial crisis of 2008,that opportunity was lost.

Today, a conflict with Iran would tip the global economy into recession and cost tens of millions of jobs, many in the US and Europe. This is why it is almost certain that the nuclear deal will pass the US Senate and escape a veto-proof majority in the House of Representatives. Those voting against the nuclear deal with Iran are voting for mass unemployment and economic misery for their constituents. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel put his personal dislike of Barack Obama ahead of the interests of his country. Because of the show of partisan politics by Netanyahu, there is considerable anger against the Israeli government in Washington. President Obama was correct, the alternative to the deal is war, a war which would result in economic hardship for millions. Apart from the economy, Iran is as indispensable a partner in dealing with Daesh as Russia was in the previous century, during the war against Hitler. The rise of Daesh has helped ensure a change for the better in the global equations facing. Iran, thereby giving it the opportunity to become by far the largest economy in the Middle East in five or six short years.

—The writer is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Haryana State, India.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=272268

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201509/05/comments-1.php

A Clinton-Sarkozy-Cameron human flood (Sunday Guardian)

The trio are at the root of the chain of events that led to the formation of ISIS, and as a result , the violence that followed soon after.

t must be difficult to escape from visions of grandeur, when one is the leader of a country which controlled a significant portion of the globe's land area less than a century ago. Each of us has known a compulsive do-gooder, who is never at ease unless he or she seeks to "make things better" through interventions, which usually end up making a bad situation worse. Having crammed the histories of France and the UK in their school years, it is obviously difficult to let go of the illusion that a similar degree of influence (of course, this time of the "soft" variety) can still be conjured up within former colonies. In 2011, there was a frenzy of do-gooding among the former colonial powers of Europe, joined by the US, whose foreign policy was being substantially shaped by an individual who from the start has been more European than American in her reflexes, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The cry to "make things better" was initiated by a French thinker, who passes off as a philosopher, who called on French President Nicolas Sarkozy to "save hundreds of thousands of innocent people at Benghazi". How was this very commendable task to be achieved? By unleashing bombs and missiles at clusters of human beings in Libya identified by secretive local agents as being "Gaddafi men" (and therefore not deserving of life). Sarkozy, eager to prove that rumours that he had received lavish gifts from Muammar Gaddafi were false, led a lynch mob joined by David Cameron and Hillary Clinton who finally got their man, who just years ago had turned over his WMD supplies and his military secrets to his future executioners. Having rid Libyans of dictatorship and introduced "democracy" via rule by local warlords and terror gangs, the do-gooder trio turned to Syria, marking Bashar Assad for the same fate as the Libyan dictator. In Libya, about a fourth of the country's tribes — mostly located in the east and to a smaller extent, in the centre — wanted Gaddafi to go, mainly for tribal reasons, or because he was seen as an apostate by Wahhabis. Together with targeted attacks by NATO, such support proved sufficient to defeat Gaddafi. However, in Syria, the proportion of Wahhabis within the Sunni population is less than 15%, while this time around, Moscow growled in menace at the prospect of one of its closest allies being taken down and replaced by a hitherto nameless individual chosen by a half-dozen secret services for the single quality of docile obedience to their commands, which were often delivered in public, on the Iraq model. From the start, the fighting was done by the more fanatic amongst those who sought the ouster of Assad, mainly because he was an Alawite, a sect regarded with as much hatred amongst Wahhabis in Syria as Ahmadiyas are in Pakistan. These were gifted cash, weapons and training under the supervision of Turkey, France, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and in a year, morphed into what is now termed ISIS. This transformation from ersatz moderate was predicted (for example, by this columnist), but the Clinton-Sarkozy-Cameron trio did not bother to check on the possibility that — as in Afghanistan — those given weapons may some day turn against their benefactors. Soon, Syria became as unsafe for non-fanatics as Libya had become after the do-gooders completed their work of ridding the globe of Gaddafi and much of his family and friends. The forced removal from office of a dictator, who, by that time, posed zero threat to the security interests of the US, France and the UK, led to the effort to do likewise with Assad, beginning a chain of consequences that are these days ending up as corpses in refrigerator vans across the western part of Europe. Each such death is the direct consequence of decisions taken by Hillary Clinton, Nicolas Sarkozy (later followed by Francois Hollande) and David Cameron, but in obedience to the principle that members of the NATO alliance cannot by definition be guilty of human rights violations, blame is being placed on "people smugglers". These creatures are far down the chain of responsibility for the situation in Libya, Syria and now Iraq, and while they deserve jail and worse, what about those who took the decisions which led to the present chaos? Cameron has been re-elected, although he appears to have lost somewhat his appetite for missiles and bombs as instruments to promote human rights. As for Hillary Clinton, her objective is to become the lawful occupant of the White House office once occupied by her husband. Thus far, there seems to be little talk of the way in which decisions taken by the former Secretary of State have led to misery and violence across huge swathes of territory. But of course, like Cameron and Sarkozy, Clinton has a "007" licence to take decisions which lead to a horrendous loss of lives without any visible consequences. By 2017, more than three million people from the locations "improved" by the do-gooders in Paris, London and Washington are likely to reach some shore or the other of Europe, and practically all of them will over time become permanent residents of countries within the EU. Perhaps that was the intention of the trio, to reverse population decline in Europe and populate the continent with the young, this time from North Africa and West Asia. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/a-clinton-sarkozy-cameron-human-flood

First Trans-Himalaya Development Forum (Pakistan Observer)

Geopolitical notes from India

M D Nalapat

Friday, August 28, 2015 - The first Trans-Himalaya Development Forum (THDF) was held in the picturesque town of Mangshi in the Yunnan province of China on August 25 and 26, with scholars and experts from nine countries participating. These were India, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Maldives, and the discussions focussed on ways of boosting the economic synergy between these countries, so as to lead to a higher overall growth rate for a region which has a population of 3 billion and a combined GDP more than that of the US. The conference was organized by the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) in collaboration with the Government of Dehong-Jingpo prefecture. This is a part of China where 48% of the population belong to ethnic minorities, each speaking their own language and having a distinct culture and tradition from the Han majority. Although there have been phases in the 65-year history of China as a Peoples Republic where local cultures were frowned upon by Communist Party officials, the period since 1983 has seen a relaxation in such measures. 

Connectivity is central to economic transformation. The effect of internet communications has been to create a web of linkages conducive to increased participation in growth activities. In India, because of online booking of tickets, corruption in the sale of railway tickets has come down substantially, and the same is happening in other sectors going online, such as the issue of visas and passports. However, while the information superhighway has reached almost every part of the globe, physical infrastructure has lagged behind, with the result that several regions are not able to leverage the advantages that their populations can bring, were there better road, rail and air connectivity. China has moved ahead at a very high rate of speed in improving physical infrastructure, and this experience would be useful to its neighbors, were it to be reproduced in countries with far lower levels of infrastructure. 

The recent setting up of an investment bank by the BRICS powers ( which should be expanded to BRIICS, so as to include Indonesia) provides a vehicle for funding such ventures. Together, India and China have the strengths to ensure fast and effective development of infrastructure across the trans-Himalayan region, and the conference represents a first step in such a process of cooperation between them as well as the other countries involved in the initiative. Fortunately, discussions at the meeting took place in an atmosphere free opt geopolitical tensions, with the Indian and Pakistani delegations having a cordial exchange of views. While the suggestions diverged on occasion,. there was a substantial amount of commonality between them, reflecting the fact that poverty is the most deadly foe confronting the two subcontinental neighbours.

President Xi Jinping’s concept of “One Belt One Road” is a bold plan, and to succeed, needs to be seen as an entity rather than regarded as two separate segments, one in the west and the other in the east. There has to be an integration of west and east, and for this to happen, there needs to be seamless connectivity across both sides. Thus, Pakistan would gain access through India for its land trade with Bangladesh and ASEAN, while India would gain access to Afghanistan and Central Asia for its commodity exports and imports from these important locations. Certainly there are questions of sovereignty still to get decided, but the fact is that access is at the core of such discussions, and if access gets given, talks about more difficult problems will take place in a more cordial and cooperative atmosphere. President Xi’s “One Belt One Road” is in truth “One Belt and One Road”, and needs to be implemented in a comprehensive and cooperative way for the countries of the region and beyond to gain the benefits possible from the plan. 

Interestingly, both the Indian and Pakistani delegations were broadly supportive of the suggestion for access through each country for the other. Such a move would be a game changer, creating jn the process several hundreds of thousands of new jobs in both India and Pakistan that are linked to trade and commerce with each other and through each other, rather than - as now - through trading ports such as Dubai. It was pointed out that after decades of differences of view, India and Bangladesh have agreed to use each other’s territory to ferry trade and people across each other country’s territory. Should a similar situation take place between Pakistan and India, both countries may be able to cool down the superheated rhetoric which often takes centre stage while discussions on mutual ties take place in each other’s country. The Trans-Himalaya Development Forum saw some very clear exposition of different points of view by the Indian and the Pakistani participants, but in an atmosphere of calm and friendliness. Alka Acharya from India began the dialogue on the question of Indian access to Central Asia and Afghanistan through Pakistan, a stance which found understanding among others.

Water was an important focus, with Khalid Rehman of the Pakistan Institute of Policy Studies raising the matter initially, and being followed by this columnist, who pointed to the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan as a possible model for a water treaty between China and the lower riparian states, so that tensions related to the sharing of water would be reduced in future. Overall, the breadth and depth of the connectivity suggested in the “One Belt One Road” initiative has transformational potential, provided it is imll; emanated in a manner that is deemed to be equitable to all participating countries. For too long, arguments on geopolitics has held up trade and commerce in the Himalayan region, and this approach needs to get replaced by a series of measures that recognize the fact that cooperation for economic development is force multiplier for stability in the region. 

The expectation is that the suggestions made during the August 24-25 conference will be communicated to the governments involved, such that cooperation rather than conflict, And that the focus changes not on differences over geopolitics but on the need to expand the boundaries of growth. The internet has shown how boundaries have become less and less of an obstacle in the crafting of ties between the different countries of the globe. In present, links are getting established both west and east of the region,such as that between India and Myanmar and between China and Pakistan. Truly can it be said of the countries in the region that economic imperatives are driving forward the agenda of connectivity that was the subject of discussion at Mangshi.

—The writer is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Haryana State, India.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=271738

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201508/28/comments-1.php

It’s jobs, and not sainthood, that count (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat M.D Nalapat is the Editorial Director of The Sunday Guardian. It’s jobs, and not sainthood, that count It is time for Modi to show the same innovation in his economic principles that he has shown in foreign policy matters. hose who have been tracking Narendra Damodardas Modi since 2001, and few even earlier, have mostly been surprised at the difference between his foreign policy initiatives and the manner in which the Prime Minister has been tackling the domestic problem of the economy. By 2022, India will have as many citizens as China, with barely a fifth of that country's gross output. Unemployment is an illness that works steadily and insidiously on the determination of an individual, with prolonged periods draining it away and often replacing effort with ennui. The jobless are fodder for extremist groups of all faiths, as witness what took place in Germany in the 1930s. A country that had gifted the world some of its finest musicians and philosophers, morphed into a nation run by thugs, with hundreds of thousands joining in the annihilation of the innocent. If we consider how many inventions useful to humankind were developed by Jewish minds, the scale of the loss becomes clear. Those six million Jews murdered by Hitler and his party could, had they been alive, created countless additional works of art, literature and science to enrich the world. The spiralling cost of bread was a key driver of the "Arab Spring", much more potent than any mass reach-out towards democracy, as otherwise organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood could not have been elected to office in an ancient country such as Egypt, of course, with a nudge from the United States and its NATO allies. For Prime Minister Modi, the first three items in any ten-point agenda needs to be jobs, jobs and more jobs. The top layer of decision makers in government, including politicians holding paid office in legislatures, Parliament and elsewhere, need to be intensively — and subtly — monitored, and wrongdoers punished rather than be allowed to continue in their posts. The IAS is an organisation having several who have the will to effect changes beneficial to the public. However, it needs to be changed from the present form, in which promotions have become a matter of ritual, and horizontal entry from elements of civil society barred. In foreign policy, it is apparent that Prime Minister Modi followed his own instincts rather than the diktat of officials, although on matters relating to fiscal and monetary issues, he seems to be going by the consensus evolved by officials, rather than following his instincts. Hence the paradox of a Modi government continuing with the high tax, regulation and interest rate regime of its predecessor. The best way to double and then again double the number of those in the formal tax net would be to lower rates, while an effective way to boost the service economy, on which so many jobs depend, would be to slash rates rather than boost them. Not only are high interest rates making the products of Indian businesses non-competitive, so are tax rates. Prime Minister Modi has not favoured any particular business house over others, as a look at balance sheets would reveal. However, he needs to do more, for example, by asking government banks to convert long-outstanding loans in selected companies into equity and disposing these of in the market in a fashion designed to avoid a slump in prices. The top layer of decision makers in government, including politicians holding paid office in legislatures, Parliament and elsewhere, need to be monitored and wrongdoers punished rather than be allowed to continue in their posts.  While the babus of the Finance Ministry still believe in the P. Chidambaram model, their counterparts in the Home Ministry seek to make this country even less welcoming of individual liberty than it was during the UPA period. How else to explain the focus on pornography at a time when attention ought to be on the multiplying websites attracting youths to ISIS and like ideologies? As for the Telecom Ministry, it was a shock to see its defence in the Supreme Court of 66A of the Information Technology Act, so to expect it to defend net neutrality in the absence of a public outcry against efforts to dilute it would be unrealistic. As for the Law Ministry, officials there need to read their Constitution of India, and try and reconcile the thrust of this with their UPA-style defence of colonial laws such as Criminal Defamation. What is one to make of BJP-ruled Maharashtra, where diet is regarded as being as much a responsibility of the state as it is in Somalia or Afghanistan and where even those who are married are made the subject of unwelcome attention by the police if they so much as hold hands in public? While zealots are welcome to seek — through peaceful and non-intrusive persuasion — to seek to convert the 1.26 billion people of India into saints, the Prime Minister and his party will be principally judged by the success or otherwise of his economic policies. It is, therefore, time for Narendra Modi to show in his core economic policies the same spirit of innovation that he has displayed in matters of foreign policy. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/its-jobs-and-not-sainthood-that-count

UAE’s Sheikh Zayed leads the way (Pakistan Observer)

Geopolitical notes from India

M D Nalapat

Friday, August 21, 2015 - In warfare, what counts is less territory than minds. Capturing land without winning the loyalty of those resident in that area would be of little value, as was clear in Iraq after the 2003 defeat of Saddam Hussein’s conventional forces by the US. Almost every tenet of psychological operations was trampled underfoot by the George W Bush administration, which could not understand the pride of the people of Iraq, a land that has a recorded history of more than three thousand years. The people of Iraq are enthusiasts of argument, and it is not uncommon to see them debate issues with each other in a very loud voice. Unfortunately for them, this aspect of Iraqi behaviour was not communicated to the 20-year olds in the US army who were in charge of security in Baghdad and other locations. 

Some of the armed groups that have emerged in what is termed the Middle East owe the bulk of their recruitment to resentment at such disregard for life, although these cannot be compared to Daesh (ISIS) or Al Qaeda, which owe their origins to a sense of mission, however twisted the objectives of such an endeavour be Interestingly, some scholars seek to distinguish between Al Qaeda and Daesh , and even to claim that the former can be used to defeat the latter. It is true that in a formal way, ultimately Daesh - the way it is progressing in the permissive climate created by the US and its European and regional allies - will subsume Al Qaeda. The overwhelming majority of adherents of the latter will desert Al-Qaeda and head for Daesh. Indeed, the danger posed by the new organisation is far greater than that which had been present when earlier variants of this school of extremism flourished. 

While the Taliban were the least likely to attract adherents from outside a defined geographical and societal pool, what was termed Al Qaeda had more pulling power, and used social media much more expertly than Mullah Omar’s men. However, the latest version (which has morphed from the earlier variant) is potent enough to attract individuals from across the globe, including those with less than an elementary grounding in theology. Daesh can proliferate in cities across the globe, including in the most developed corners, and with minimal contact and ideological reinforcement, would be able to create cells which would operate as a complete unit, choosing from a basket of tasks from suicide bombing to bombing to seeking to join battle units in Syria and Iraq. 

Just as the AK-47 was deadly in its simplicity and its deadly effect, Daesh is the most potent threat to confront the globe since Adolf Hitler took power in Germany. Unlike that country, which fought a conventional war, Daesh would fight a war that was atomised, that was separated into small actions, such as the bombing in Bangkok, which appears to be its handiwork. The only remedy would be todeprive the organisation of the territory which gives it legitimacy, the way Afghanistan conferred status on Al Qaeda from 1996 to 2001.

Sheikh Zayed, the titular head of the UAE has shown the way in ensuring that modernity and moderation prevail over extremism and exclusivism. After all, as has been made clear in the past, the mind is the battlefield. In this context, it was of relevance to note that the United Arab Emirates has sanctioned the setting up of a Hindu temple in that country. It needs to be remembered that every human being is a child of the Almighty, and therefore we are brothers and sisters of each other, no matter what belief systems we hold to. 

The fact of every person in every part of the globe being brought to life under the wisdom and control of the Almighty is clear, and hence the reason why those who accept the mercy, compassion and beneficience repeatedly taught in the Word of God will show those qualities to other human beings. To do otherwise would be to go contrary to the foundational message revealed fifteen centuries ago. The people of the GCC, in common with Arab people everywhere, are tolerant and friendly, and have shown this by welcoming into their lands tens of millions from other countries, including those who profess a faith different from the regional norm. 

There are Christian churches in the GCC countries, as also Sikh gurudwaras, and these will be joined by a Hindu temple. By this single action, Sheikh Zayed has shown the falsity of the claims made by Islamophobes, that adherents of the faith are intolerant. Across India, those who thought that such a gesture was impossible in that part of the world are now re-evaluating their impressions, and this can be expected to have a very beneficial effect on relations between Hindus and Muslims in India. 

The GCC and South Asia form a synergistic alliance, for the countries within both regions have multiple strengths, the impact of which could be magnified several times were they to cooperate. After 34 years of neglect, Prime Minister Narendra Modi became the first PM to visit the UAE, a country far more important than many of the countries which Prime Ministers in India visit frequently. 

Hopefully, he will visit the GCC several times each year, for the Council is crucial to the success of his Make in India policy. Having lost trillions of dollars in the 2008 financial crash caused by Wall Street greed, and at risk of losing an equal sum because of the turmoil besieging the euro, India offers an investment opportunity with significant long-term potential. Prime Minister Modi has already cut through the knot of commercial links with China by overriding the security agencies and granting e-visas to Chinese nationals. He has also welcomed investment from China, in contrast to Manmohan Singh, who never failed to look to Europe and the US for guidance in the making of policy. Both East Asia (Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan) and West Asia (the GCC) are on course to become the biggest investors in India, with promise of overtaking the US and EU by a significant margin, and this has been factored in by Prime Minister Modi in his outreach to both regions. 

Meanwhile, those who used to go about complaining about the “narrow mindedness” of the GCC Sheikhs where it came to freedom of religion have been silenced by the noble gesture of Sheikh Zayed, of allowing a Hindu temple in his land, under the same sky and close to the same seas and breathing the same air which has been created by the Almighty for all living creations.

—The writer is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Haryana State, India. 

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=271196 
http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201508/21/comments-1.php

Modi must change Delhi to win Bihar (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat

M.D Nalapat is the Editorial Director of The Sunday Guardian.

The fear of continuing blockage in the working of government were the UPA returned to a third term, was crucial in several tens of millions of voters entering the BJP corral, thereby giving the party a workable majority in the Lok Sabha. But after 16 May 2014, the excuse of "coalition compulsions" cannot be used to justify lapses in performance by the BJP. The skeletal presence of the Congress in the Lok Sabha will not be accepted by voters as reason enough for important legislative enactments to get put off session after session, including GST, the Land Bill, the Real Estate Bill, the Whistleblowers Act and several others. Contrary to the impression of paralysis, the reality is that several administrative initiatives have been taken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in several ministries. However, perceptions differ. And the most common is the view that the change in the chemistry and mechanics of governance between the UPA and the NDA has been marginal. In reality, Prime Minister Modi has done much to ensure that the gears and sprockets of the administrative machinery operate at a much higher level of efficiency than was the case under his predecessor. However, few of these changes are visible to those outside the government, with the consequence that many who voted for the BJP last year feel disappointed. The cautious approach of the BJP leadership towards making the transformational administrative changes expected of the new government has given rise to the view among his admirers that the Prime Minister is in the process of working out a Modi Model for all-India governance in the same way as he did within two years of his taking over the Gujarat administration, when a state-level model of governance was crafted that delivered enough to ensure the continuing loyalty of the electorate to him and to his party. In contrast, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao as Industry Minister downsized the powers of this and other ministries to kick-start the 1990s reform process, although the credit went to Manmohan Singh, whose image as a reformer was damaged somewhat by the damp performance of the gentle economist as PM. The excuse was that "Sonia would not allow it", as though a Prime Minister in India lacks the instruments to enforce his will. Interestingly, despite a raft of criminal charges hurled in the direction of Sonia Gandhi and her closest collaborators in the two years leading up to the 2014 polls, thus far they have escaped legal retribution at the hands of Team Modi, thereby gifting the Congress a chance to turn the tables and accuse Prime Minister Modi himself of "not doing anything to battle corruption". Clearly, the reliance of the new government on the bureaucracy for not simply the implementation but even the formulation of policy has not helped the process of transformation in governance expected of Modi, for bureaucrats are known to be cautious to a double fault, and to shy away from change. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, with both of whom Modi has been compared, set about implementing their ideologies within a short time of assuming office. Although Prime Minister Modi is known to believe in low taxes, low regulation and reliance more on private than state initiative, thus far such a philosophy does not seem to have been reflected in the working of his government. It is time that this changed. There is a focus on Bihar within the BJP, and it is a given that a defeat there would damage not simply the reputation but the ability of the Central government to effect change. Progress needs the system to work at a high level of motivation, and unless officials believe in the transformative will of Narendra Modi, they will not put in the extra effort needed to nudge the economy onto the double digit track. Thatcher or Reagan did not allow either traditionalist colleagues or change-resistant bureaucrats to slow them down, and neither should Modi. For a start, a special session of Parliament should be called by month-end to pass key bills which have been stalled for more than a year, and these without the restrictive clauses (for example in the Whistleblowers Act) put in by a bureaucracy intent on retaining its colonial-style control over the citizen. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was not elected to tweak the system, but to alter it, and the best way of achieving this would be to downsize the powers of several of the agencies of the state far more comprehensively than Narasimha Rao could. Rather than seek to out-Lalu Lalu through the use of the caste card, the BJP must show that it is bringing about the change that voters sought when they gave the party their mandate. Not passing the Land Bill, for instance, would just confirm the impression that it was "anti-farmer", when in fact, it is pro-growth in a context where two hundred million now working on farms need to move to other occupations to escape poverty. Modi has to deliver on the ideology of "Minimum Government, Maximum Governance" that secured him the vote of tens of millions aspiring for a life freed from penury. The voters of Bihar showed in 2014 that they could transcend caste and community in choosing a leader who promised to deliver. Now that PM Modi has a majority in the Lok Sabha, he needs to show that he can deliver results at the Centre, so that voters in Bihar give his party a mandate to rule. After all, it is his ministry's performance in Delhi that will count with the voter in a state with glorious roots in Indian history and traditions. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/modi-must-change-delhi-to-win-bihar