Prof. Madhav Nalapat's interview with Kourosh Ziabari, an Iranian journalist

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Q.1 (Kourosh Ziabari): ISIS terrorists, and their ideological leaders, claim to be representing Islam and continually make the assertion that their pseudo-government is an “Islamic Caliphate.” At the same time, all the major Muslim scholars, both Sunni and Shiite, and the majority of Muslim world politicians, have condemned ISIS, and called it a deviant current whose practices run counter to the basic principles of Islamic faith. Has the global public believed the mantra that ISIS is really an Islamic state? What could be done to preclude the reinforcement of this conviction that ISIS carries out actions that are sanctioned by Islam, including the beheading of Christians and raping the women? 

A.1 (Madhav Nalapat): Unfortunately, several individuals, especially in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE have accepted the view that ISIS represents the "conqueror and fighting" phase of Islam, in which the Word of God got disseminated and accepted by vast territories and myriad peoples. Wahabbi thought explicitly posits that an equally sharp acceleration of dissemination of the faith ( ie Wahabbism) is feasible, and ISIS is feeding on this thought and this desire. Money comes from those who have in their personal lives been dissolute and believe that they can escape hellfire in the afterlife by helping ISIS (a view intelligently spread by the protagonists of this terrible creed), while recruitment takes place among the young already exposed to Wahabbi ideology, who regard it as feasible to engineer a second "conqueror and fighting" phase of Islam. The only way to prevent this is to return to the true meaning of the Word of God and get accepted the fact that the core qualities of a Believer are compassion, mercy and beneficience and not resort to violence and cruelty under any pretext. We must (1) separate the core qualities from the others are seek to ensure that these be universally accepted (2) excommunicate and not tolerate or pamper Wahabbis as being betrayers of the Word of God and (3) take strong action to eliminate any manifestations of this ideology, by military means wherever needed, otherwise mere statements against ISIS will not prevent the ideology from spreading. 

Q.2 (KZ): The data and figures on the foreign fighters that have joined ISIS over the past 3 years are mind-boggling and unthinkable. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported on January 29 that as many as 1,200 French citizens, 600 Britons, 250-300 Swedish nationals, 150 Austrians and more than 1,000 Germans have been fighting in the ranks of ISIS. Even the Australian government has reported that 100+ citizens of this Oceanic country have gone to Iraq and Syria to fight for the ISIS terrorists. Why have so many Westerners embarked on this risky journey of joining such a ruthless terrorist cult? Some commentators claim that they’re all immigrants and offspring of Muslim families in these countries. Is it really so? 

A.2 (MN): A few are from the indigenous population but the overwhelming majority are from the immigrant population. Since the 1980s, there has developed within the member-states of NATO a cult of Wahabbi jihadism, which has been celebrated ever since such individuals were armed, trained and funded by NATO powers to do battle against the USSR in Afghanistan. Certainly the Soviet invasion needed to be reversed, but this job should have been left to Pashtun nationalists, who are religious moderates. Instead, such healthy elements in Afghan society were ignored in favour of Wahabbi fanatics, who were empowered to fight not only the USSR forces but also those Afghans who did not accept their toxic ideology. Textbooks inculcating hatred and a predisposition towards violence were designed in US universities to ensure that young minds globally turned towards Wahabbism. Since the 1980s, an estimated $ 380 billion has been expended by individuals, agencies and countries to build up the Wahabbi International. It should not therefore be a surprise that many of the young coming from Muslim countries where this indoctrination took place are turning to ISIS, which is after all from the same ideological matrix as other Wahabbi extremist groups. The USSR having collapsed in 1991, this "demon" has been replaced by the entire non-Wahabbi population of the globe, all of whom are seen as "devils" by Wahabbi ideologists. Even a casual look at Wahabbi literature would demonstrate this fact. Hence the need to criminalize Wahabbism worldwide and roll back the Wahabbi international network, including by removing Wahabbi literature from educational curricula. 

Q.3 (KZ): In one of your pieces, you wrote that 1936-37 was the period when the Nazis could have been rolled back and eliminated efficiently. But the world didn’t take appropriate action, the Nazis rose to prominence and exterminated thousands of people. As you maintain, today is the best time for forming a global coalition against ISIS and defeating it. However, again it seems the international community is not sufficiently determined to fight ISIS and that’s why they’ve been able to grow their power and become stronger. What’s your idea on that? 

A.3 (MN): The Wahabbi International has been active in throwing money at scholars and policymakers within the NATO bloc, so that they repeat Wahabbi doctrines and seek to discredit those fighting this enemy of civilisation. For more than a century, countries in Europe and later North America have assisted Wahabbis, first against the Turkish caliphate (which is why it is ironic that Turkey now has a Wahabbi as Head of State, who is systematically destroying the Kemalist base of that country). Later, in the 1950s and the 1960s, they used Wahabbis to wage a "thought battle" against Arab nationalists such as Nasser, who were challenging former European colonial powers unlike Wahabbi establishments, who have always talked tough but acted in a slavish manner towards former colonial powers. In the 1980s, the creed was used to fuel the war against the USSR in Afghanistan. It was only after September 11,2001 that the NATO bloc understood the danger posed by Wahabbism to themselves, a danger pointed out by me in 1987 and in 1992 in the US, at a period when the Clinton administration was funding and assisting Wahabbis worldwide, especially in Afghanistan.

Even after 9/11, the US and some of its partners focussed not on eliminating Wahabbi terror groups in Afghanistan but in removing Saddam Hussein, an enemy of the (Wahabbi-influenced) GCC regimes, in 2003. In 2011, they sided with the same regimes to remove Muammar Gaddafy from power and life in Libya and are now seeking to repeat that in Syria with President Bashar Assad. Because of the well-funded influence of Wahabbi doctrines within strategic community within the key NATO allies, they regard the Wahabbi International as a far lesser threat than they do Iran. This is similar to those in France and the UK who saw Hitler under Germany as being a lesser threat than the USSR under Stalin. Such people caused the deaths of tens of millions of innocents because of such an error or perception, and these days, that same blinkered vision is causing the spread of ISIS. Hopefully, sense will dawn before it is too late and a global rather than a limited war against the Wahabbi menace becomes inevitable, in my view by around 2019. This is why I call this the "Rhineland Moment”, the period in 1936 when Hitler could have been humiliated by the French armies and sent off to prison, where his capacity for damage would be much reduced. Instead, he was allowed to once again get away with conquest in 1938 (Czechoslovakia), thereby making the 1939-45 war inevitable.

Should a global coalition not get formed against ISIS and other components of the Wahabbi International, a coalition which includes Iran, this evil will spread within populations. This will be an "atomised" war, in which small groups of individuals such as suicide bombers and suicide automatic weapons carriers create havoc through technology which ensures severe destruction at a relatively low cost, and will take place across the globe, including the heart of the US and Europe. Such a war could ultimately be as destructive to life and property as the conventional wars which took place in the past. The potential of ISIS to spread its cells across entire countries rises with each month that the organisation continues to have a safe haven carved out of parts of Iraq and Syria. My sense is that President Obama realizes this, but not yet his Secretary of State John Kerry (who has lately been seeking to assist ISIS by preventing Moscow from giving President Assad the military means to defeat its gangs) or the UK or French leadership. David Cameron was a principal architect of the Libya disaster, which is the seed from which ISIS has grown, and the UK Prime Minister still seems oblivious of reality, living in a Lawrence of Arabia world.

Q.4 (KZ): In a meeting at the European Council on Foreign Relations, the former NATO Secretary General and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana has suggested that Iran is the only country capable of fighting the ISIS terrorists. There are many others who think likewise. It’s noted by many commentators and analysts that Iranians are genuinely opposed to ISIS and have the prowess to stop its atrocities. If we accept this premise, then why doesn’t the United States ask for Iran’s help to address the concern of ISIS and eradicate it forever? 

A.4 (MN): My view is that Barack Obama and possibly Angela Merkel understand this, which is why they prevailed over Hollande and others who sought to derail the nuclear agreement with Iran. Hopefully, the next President of the US will be a realist and not a fantasist in the mould of Dick Cheney.

Q.5 (KZ): There are worrying reports of some Western and Arab governments still providing ISIS with financial and military aid, even though all of these governments have been trying to absolve themselves of the accusation. The Guardian associate editor Seumas Milne has boldly claimed in an editorial that ISIS is a by-product of Western powers’ regional operations, and this sectarian terror group “won’t be defeated by the western states that incubated it in the first place.” Do you agree with this assertion? At any rate, is ISIS going to be beaten while it can sell massive amounts of oil and receive financial and arms assistance?

A.5 (MN): My view is that the US, UK and other NATO allies did not understand the damage which could get caused globally to themselves and to the rest of the world by the Wahabbi International, which is the ideological root of ISIS. Just as a combination of the US, the UK and the USSR defeated Germany in the 1939-45 war, the world needs NATO to ally with India, Iran, Russia and China to wipe out ISIS. Certainly it is correct that NATO cannot do it alone, but its involvement would be crucial in any anti-ISIS coalition. However, time is running out. The embrace of NATO with Wahabbi-supporting regimes need to end, and Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi Arabia need to be warned that any further assistance to ISIS through giving help to so-called "moderate" fighters who switch to extremist in the battlefield should end. The world is running out of time, as it did during the 1930s in Europe.

Q.6 (KZ): A group of right-wing commentators and pundits, including Will McCants, who is being cited as an authority on ISIS and “militant Islam”, have been striving to create connections between ISIS and the Islamic theology. They claim that Abubakr al-Baghdadi is a descendant of Prophet Muhammad and is a pure Muslim trying to establish an Islamic state as part of his historic, religious mission. Is there any point in portraying ISIS as an original Islamic creation and its leader a member of prophet’s family, while the massive majority of Muslim believers don’t sympathize with them?

A.6 (MN): In the past as well, there have been multiple individuals calling Wahabbism "the purest form of Islam" when in fact it is the opposite. Why take such "experts" seriously?

Needed, Modivian boldness (Sunday Guardian)

It is likely that India will soon need to deploy forces to ensure ISIS is tackled.

he generals in Islamabad have evidently realised that military strength is worthless in the absence of economic advancement, and they are putting this discovery into practice in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Although much is being made of Chinese investment in territory that was allowed by Jawaharlal Nehru to remain in Pakistani hands in 1948, the reality is that countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia are equally big investors in PoK, but this has yet to gain traction in either MEA complaints or press coverage. So what is the way out of the problem posed by PoK? Uniting the territory with the rest of India seems unlikely, for a conventional war with Pakistan is not on the agenda of any government in Delhi. The option of fighting insurgency with insurgency would be shot down by the country's risk-averse bureaucracy, thereby leaving a third option, which is to ensure that the part of Jammu & Kashmir not under foreign occupation develop at a pace and depth which would leave PoK at the starting gate, even were some of the investments being promised materialise. The problem with the bureaucracy in India — and it is officials rather than politicians who have effective control over most of the levers of policy — is that they have superb negotiating skills where their own interests are concerned, but fail in ensuring outcomes generous to this country in international negotiations. Very often, the final negotiating position of India (usually the status quo) is given early on in the process, with the result that this gets taken as an initial negotiating stance, and the other side then demands further concessions. In the case of PoK, despite fighting words by political leaders and generals, it was clear from 1972 that the status quo was acceptable to South and North Blocks. The 1971 victory over Pakistan was an opportunity to force through a bargain with Pakistan, with perhaps territory needed for preventing easy infiltration or invasion into land controlled by India being demanded in exchange for repatriating the 93,000 PoWs captured by our generals. We do not know what the ingredients of the charm of Z.A. Bhutto were, that made Indira Gandhi not even formalise the minimalist condition of Pakistan recognising the Line of Control as the international border. Perhaps it was the cologne that Bhutto so liberally splashed on himself, or fancy outfits with weird collars, along with the 1948 shying away from the unification of Kashmir another opportunity was lost in 1972 when Indira Gandhi accepted the mere word of a practised dissembler in the matter of recognition of the LoC as the boundary between India and Pakistan. In the case of the other neighbour, with which India still has a boundary dispute, China, once again the final negotiating position (of status quo across the Line of Actual Control) was clear early on in the boundary talks. This was taken by Beijing as a starting gambit, and the extra concessions demanded of India (such as the cession of Tawang) have ensured that the boundary talks remain frozen in the same technicalities and differences as when they began over a decade ago. What is needed is a menu of concessions demanded by India so that each Chinese demand gets countered by an Indian response. However, to expect such boldness from our officials would be to ask for the impossible. In 2003, India was offered the chance to station 18,000 troops in the most stable part of Iraq, Kurdistan. This would have (a) accelerated the military relationship with the US, a necessity if the Army, Navy and Air Force are to get equipped on a scale sufficient to give India the ability to defend itself against all comers (b) given leverage in the oil-rich Kurdish portions of Iraq and (c) a significant boost in its geopolitical signature. The request was refused, just as last year, informal suggestions that India commit some of its military resources to the war against ISIS were turned down. Egypt and Jordan, not to mention Australia, are along the countries participating in the war against ISIS. Their security scenario has not been degraded as a consequence, and neither will India's be. The fact is that within the coming three years, it is very likely that India will need to place boots on the ground in order to ensure the elimination of ISIS. What needs to be conveyed to China, Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is that they need to invest not only in that part of Jammu & Kashmir still under foreign occupation but in that part of the state which still remains in the control of Delhi. Surely India is a much more attractive destination for investment than Pakistan, and certainly that part of Kashmir still under Delhi's control offers several opportunities for investment. For this to happen, not only must be there be changes in the stance and messaging of the Government of India, but the Reserve Bank of India needs to give up its opposition to such innovations as Islamic banking, permission given to which will result in a huge inflow of money from outside the country. Certainly there will be money sources that are dubious or who subscribe to the Islamabad agenda. Such groups will send money to their favourites anyway. Were Islamic banking to be legalised, such transfers would become transparent and the few who are dodgy more easily identified. These days, hawala networks and even normal banking channels are funnelling a torrent of cash to Kashmir, mostly to give oxygen to the separatists, who know that the espousing of a Kashmir divorced from India is a lucrative business, with even official agencies making donations to individuals and groups following the Pakistan line on Kashmir. New policies are needed as that will ensure double digit growth, rather than self-congratulations for still growing at 7% despite crippling regulations and taxes. Niti Aayog needs to morph into a think-tank for the Prime Minister's Office, not by filling it with retired and present officials but those who can offer an alternative view to the bureaucracy. Prime Minister Modi is different from the rest of the political pack. He needs to frame and implement policies which are bold and unique. Only innovative policies implemented in the thorough style of the PM can ensure that the potential offered by this country's young get harnessed and transformed into high growth. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/needed-modivian-boldness

Iran an Indispensable Partner in Fighting Wahhabi Terrorism Cancer

[Prof. Madhav Das Nalapat @ International Congress of 17000 Iranian Terror Victims - 2015] 

 “Some countries believe that terrorism is something that can be used and can be useful to them and they forget that terrorism is something that it may be useful in the short run, but in the medium and long run it will kill them as well,” said an Indian distinguished academic and columnist. “Unfortunately, some people and some countries believe they can use terrorism for very selfish purposes,” said Professor Madhav Nalapat during the scientific session of the 2nd International Congress of 17000 Iranian Terror Victims. Held on August 31, 2015 at the International Islamic Republic of Iran Conference Hall, the 2nd International Congress of 17000 Iranian Terror Victims gathered a group of Iranian and foreign researchers to discuss the issues related to terrorism and terrorist groups. “I am a friend of the western world, but as a friend I would also like to be honest about some of the mistakes made by the western world and on Wahhabism,” he added. “The western world has made some very bad mistakes. Long ago, it used Wahhabism against Turkey. Then it used Wahhabism against Arab nationalists. Then it used Wahhabism against the Russians. And today Wahhabism has become a monster that is threatening the West.” Referring to the Wahhabism as “terrible cancer of Wahhabi terrorism,” director of the Geopolitics and International Relations Department of Manipal University said, “When a cancer invades a body, the body can never remain healthy.” “Daesh is using bullets, ammunition in the hundreds of millions of dollars. All these are coming from somewhere. Where is the money coming from? Where are the bullets coming from? Where are the heavy weapons coming from? None of them are made by Daesh. They are being used by Daesh,” Nalapat said, adding that it is very important for every country that says it is fighting a war on terrorism to identify whose money is funding money, whose weapons are giving power to Daesh, because those who are doing this are committing sin against humanity. He went on to accentuate the role Iran played in the fight against ISIS, and said, “the people of Iran have been fighting Daesh in a brave way. As a scholar who studies these things, I am very convinced that if Iran had not been helping in Syria by now Daesh would have been in Damascus and could have been possibly in Baghdad but for the fact that Iran and the brave Iranian people have given very strong support to Syria and Iraq against this grave danger of Daesh.” “Iran is an indispensible partner in the war against global Wahhabism in the war against Wahhabi terror,” he continued. “Iran is indispensible now as Russia was indispensible in the 20th Century.” “So again I repeat, I’ve come here because you are an indispensible partner in this terrible conflict we are fighting with a terrible enemy, the cancer of Wahhabi terrorism.” 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbWTNaMBsU&feature=youtu.be 

China may escape a ‘hard landing’ (Pakistan Observer)

Geopolitical notes from India

M D Nalapat

Friday, September 18, 2015 - Around 1983, after a few years of experimentation in the Chinese fashion, Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping took a decision to concentrate on economic matters and keep aside other considerations. The following two decades of peace, when China deliberately avoided any reference to its growing military prowess, made the difference. The country became a superpower, and in purchasing power parity terms, several measures already place it ahead of the US. As the experience of the USSR has shown,a well-endowed military is of no value unless backed by a stable and expanding economy. As for the possession of nuclear weapons, North Korea has them, but this does not help the many in that country who lack adequate food each day. 

While Mao Zedong unified China in a manner not seen earlier in that country’s history, it was the pocket-sized French-language expert, Deng Xiaoping, who is the architect of modern China. The country has had a generation of double digit growth, and this has resulted in the sharpest reduction of poverty within any country in a comparable period of time. Up until the 1990s, unless a country was on amicable terms with the US, it was unlikely to grow at a fast clip. India lost the chance during the 1960s and the 1970s,when circumstances forced Delhi to prefer Moscow over Washington in the geopolitical arena. However, for the past sixteen years, unless a country has a stable economic relationship with China, that country is unlikely to witness strong growth. Even Japan, which is now in a somewhat rocky phase of its relationship with China, needs the bigger country for the prosperity of its people. 

Since the end of the 1980s,there has been an emphasis on the wealthy within a society, the calculation being that if they became even richer than they were, much of the extra cash would filter down to lower levels. Whether it be Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, whether it be India or China, the rich have grown even more wealthy while the poor remain where they are. The financial industry has perfected the science of sucking money away from the middle class and funneling it into the bank accounts of the growing number of billionaires on the planet. Stock exchanges have witnessed huge transfers of money from retail investor to the super rich. Even in China, during the past two months, retail investors (many of whom borrowed money to buy shares) have seen the value of their investments fall sharply. 

Since 2011,there was a perception that the government was unhappy with the rising cost of housing, and would take measures to cool down the market and ensure that prices fell. Indeed, some steps were indeed announced by Beijing when Wen Jiabao was the Prime Minister. This drove investment into the stock market, raising the price of equities to unsustainable levels. A crash was inevitable, and when it came this year, millions of small investors lost out. This has once more revived interest in housing, and sales of dwelling units are rising after a period of stasis The fall in equity prices has given new life to the China doomsayers, who claim that the economy of country is on brink of collapse. It needs to be remembered that in the 1960s and the decade thereafter, there were multiple learned tomes written about India, and how the country was about to break up. 

Instead, India is on track to have 800 million internet-enabled mobiler devices within the next five years,and Bangalore is as important an information technology (IT) hub as San Jose. Within a decade, the size of the IT sector in India is estimated to cross $ 1 trillion, despite the fact that several government policies have in the past weakened rather than strengthened the industry. Indeed, during the 1980s, intrusive officials sought to control the nascent industry the way they have other sectors, but were taken aback by the rows of binary numerals and cards. Eventually, they left the industry alone, with the result that in the 1990s,after Pamulaparthy Venkata Narasimha Rao liberalised some aspects of the economy, the IT sector began to boom, earning foreign exchange and creating jobs on an unprecedented scale. 

Unfortunately, from 1999,the government again tried to get control of the industry through a multitude of regulations, a process that was sharply accelerated after Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister in 2004. Sadly for the economy of the country, real power vested not in 7 Racecourse Road (the Prime Minister’s House) but in 10 Janpath, the residence of Congress President Sonia Gandhi. Officials and ministers knew that there was little consequence in disobeying an order from the Prime Minister’s Office, but that they could lose their jobs if they disregarded a command from Ahmed Patel, the quiet and super-efficient Political Secretary to the Congress President.

The new President of China has launched a campaign that has hit even the most powerful, such as former members of the Standing Committee of the CCP. The number of high officials in prison for corruption has risen to the hundreds, and the consequence has been that a window of opportunity has opened up to ensure that the SOEs be handed over to the control of those who get their jobs on merit rather than through accident of birth. Should such a re-engineering of the higher managements of the SOEs take place, these giant enterprises are likely to become competitors in several fields to the major international brands. More important, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang need to ensure a more level playing field between those entrepreneurs without political influence and those who come from well-connected backgrounds. 

Clearing SOEs of deadwood at the top and opening major sectors to domestic competition will result in a rise in performance levels, and to the Chinese economy humming once again. Given the importance of China as a producer, as a market and as a source of investment to economies around the globe, many will be hoping that a “hard landing” can be avoided and the economy enter into a Middle Income equilibrium, with domestic producers and consumers playing the key role rather than foreign investment.

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

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201509/18/comments-1.php

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=273430

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=273431

Video: Prof. Nalapat on RSTV Panel on Nepal's Proposed Constitution

Guests: Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, former Indian Ambassador to Nepal ; D.P. Tripathi, MP, NCP ; Monu Nalapat, Political Analyst ; Prashant Jha, Associate Editor, Hindustan Times ; Yubaraj Ghimire, Editor, Annapurna Post.

The Hardik Patels won’t wait for a second term (Sunday Guardian)

To ensure an Indian Microsoft or Google, what is needed is to promote a culture of freedom and innovation across India.

lthough he has been blamed for over-centralisation, the record shows that since taking over, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in fact, has given his colleagues in the party and the government perhaps too much freedom, and that this may have had the effect, on occasion, of stifling rather than serving the PM's objective of creating a 21st-century government out of the 19th-century administrative machinery. For example, the Law Ministry has been snail-slow in ridding the statute books of the colonial-era weeds that infest it in profusion, with most laws having their origin a century or more back, in an age when a hundred days can witness comprehensive change. The Telecom Ministry initially came out in support of Section 66A of the toxic Information Technology Act, 2005. Taxes, regulations and interest rates remain high, while the delivery of services is still to show the impact of the new captain in the cockpit. Small wonder that growth is lower than capacity, with even the service sector slowing down under the extra tax outgo and paperwork necessitated by compliance to the dictates of a bureaucracy that has succeeded in ensuring that India remain a country with more desperately poor people than Sub-Saharan Africa. With birth rates not falling enough, employment is not rising fast enough to ensure that the young get absorbed in useful occupations rather than loiter around sans paid work. There is evidence that Hardik Patel, who has lately been making somewhat of a nuisance of himself to Gujarat Chief Minister Anandiben Patel, applied without success to several employment websites before apparently deciding that reservation and quotas for his community was the only route to a job. There are many millions of potential Hardik Patels across the country, hence the folly of some commentators, who claim to be supporters of Narendra Modi, but claim that a steep rise in jobs will come "only in Modi's second term". They forget that there will be no second term unless the government very substantially delivers on the promises made during the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign, and this too not in the invisible and incremental way claimed by BJP spokespersons, but in large, visible doses of reform and consequent growth. Populism is not the answer, nor will it garner votes, or the Congress party would have won 300 seats last year, rather than 44. As David Cameron showed in the UK, voters appreciate reform, provided this is carried out early enough for the results to start manifesting themselves. For the Modi government, this means within the first two years of its term. Getting the Land and GST Bills passed through Parliament would have done more to encourage foreign and domestic investment than media spectaculars such as meetings between businesspersons and the Council of Ministers. It is not so much they, but the government which needs to take "risks" by implementing innovative policies rather than shelving reforms till "the time is ripe". After all, every month's delay makes the time for success in implementing reform less propitious and therefore less likely. His critics pin the blame for such every misstep on the Prime Minister, when the fact is that there is no way that a mind as tuned to the 21st century as Narendra Modi's could have initiated such ideas as a meat ban during the festival of a single community that vies with the Parsis in their smallness of size and the contrasting — and spectacular — scale of their success in business and the professions. Rather than help the Jains, such unacceptable intrusions into the personal choices of citizens of what gets passed off as a democracy will make several in other communities angry with the Jains, a community that overall cannot be held responsible for the meat ban. Temperance and vegetarianism are indeed laudable, but need to originate in the free will of individual citizens rather than steamrollered through administrative fiat. By the BJP resorting to such medieval measures, even the Shiv Sena seems in contrast more modern and more 21st century than its larger ally, several of whose state governments have followed Maharashtra in its mistake, but which hopefully the courts will speedily rectify. When the attention of government — and not in a hypothetical second term, but now — at both the national and regional levels needs to be on job creation so as to prevent more of the sort of agitation that Gujarat has been witnessing, seeking to change the lifestyle choices of citizens through administrative fiat or alterations in the law rather than through persuasion in the manner of the immensely popular "Mann ki Baat" broadcasts of the PM, this is an avoidable diversion. To ensure an Indian Microsoft or Google, what is needed is to promote a culture of freedom and innovation across India. This may not be to the liking of those who seek a return to the (public) mores of Queen Victoria, or to those few who have benefited immensely and unfairly from Maximum Government, but is the only way out if the country is to avoid the chaos that discontent brings to the street. The PM needs to step forward and ensure that the BJP and its governments function in the manner he wants, which is that suited to the 21st century. The numerous Hardik Patels who are in the pipeline will not give much more time to his government to deliver on jobs, jobs, jobs before they hit the streets across the country. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/the-hardik-patels-wont-wait-for-a-second-term

PM’s warning spooks ISI-linked hawaladars (Sunday Guardian)

Terror-funding groups based in Pak, Turkey are using the hawaladar network in India to set up extremist cells in major cities, including that of ISIS sympathisers.

MADHAV NALAPAT  New Delhi | 12th Sep 2015

rime Minister Narendra Modi's warning to the nation about the depredations of "hawaladars" is timely and it is expected that these words will be followed up by action against such networks. Experts tracking the global hawala trade warn that terror-funding groups based in Pakistan and Turkey are using the "hawaladar" network in India to set up extremist cells in major cities in the country, including those comprising of ISIS sympathisers, so as to "keep them in readiness for a coordinated attack on civilian targets". Recent media coverage has shown that "international media devotes significantly more space to mass civilian casualties than to those taking place in military conditions," and an explosion in publicity is seen by ISIS as essential to its growth. They say that Prime Minister Modi's just-issued warning of the "hawaladar" network was "extremely timely", and expect that "the Ministries of Finance and Home will take their cue from the PM and go after such networks in a manner not seen for two decades". Such a counter-strategy needs to get implemented before the "hawaladars" can implement the terror attack plans of their ISI controllers and associates. These sources claim that "eleven of the twelve major hawala networks in India are controlled by retired and serving officers of the Pakistan military's ISI", which is also heavily involved in the narcotics trade. Six of these networks were created in the 1980s to fund the Khalistan agitation, but were subsequently used to cover Kashmir in 1987. "From that time onwards, the situation in Kashmir began to boil", a key source claimed, adding that from that year, "funding was provided to any Valley youth ready to take up arms against India". Such networks are also "hyperactive in scams such as illegal betting in cricket, as well as in some sections of the film industry", both of which are "sources for the funding of ISI-linked operations in India". In order to protect the politicians involved, there was "deliberate mishandling of the Jain hawala case by investigating officials during the 1990s, despite conclusive evidence of the link of the 'hawaladars' involved to Pakistan's shenanigans in Kashmir". Such intentional laxity, made the ISI appreciate the fact that if India's political leaders got involved with the networks, they would shield and thereby protect such channels against closure, "even if they funded terror and narcotics-related activities". From around 1993, "selected 'hawaladars' themselves approached key politicians and volunteered their services in shifting cash around the country and abroad", thereby gaining protection on a scale which in effect has meant that for the past 18 years, no serious action has been taken by any Central or state authority to uproot the key (ISI-linked) hawala networks. Another reason why they have been safe thus far is that "the same channels funding terror activities are also used to transmit money to candidates during election campaigns". The sources say that since 2013, there has been a "huge increase in the business transacted by hawala channels funnelling moneys out of India, mainly because of an increase in the number of corrupt officials seeking to park their wealth offshore rather than keep it within India". Such elements are afraid that Prime Minister Modi — who emerged into prominence as the future leader of the country during that period — will locate and punish them, and believe that they and their assets are safer abroad than in India. The expert sources claim that such hidden capital flight has persisted "because since 2011, most big ticket bribes are getting paid abroad rather than in India". They say that over the past few years, "most senior politicians and officials insist on payment abroad", and that "the rise in (post-2011) frequency of visits and length of stay abroad to key offshore banking centres of the family and associates of key officials and politicians will demonstrate this, as also their call records". Interestingly, these experts pointed out that "hawala has yet to be made illegal in India", and that the Foreign Exchange Management Act 2000 and Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 are "wholly ineffectual" in curbing this menace, so much so that "the major operators function from Dubai, London and Singapore and not only visit India regularly, but are hosted by top leaders of political parties and high officials on such visits". The investigating authorities have to prove that the proceeds of hawala come from criminal activities, and this is often impossible in the absence of tangible evidence. According to those tracking the industry in India, "not a single major 'hawaladar' has been seriously pursued and prosecuted", although they expect the immunity to end now that Prime Minister Modi has himself warned the nation of the danger from "hawaladar" networks. They claim that "from 10% of hawala transfers in India going to foreign countries in 1998, the figure is now close to 60%". Large sums of money are being repatriated abroad rather than kept in India by officials, businesspersons and politicians through ISI-controlled networks, "as these have the best access to London and Dubai". Increasing sums of cash are also coming into the country in order to fund potential terror networks. According to them, "the six top cities for hawala trade in India are Delhi, Mumbai, Surat, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Kanpur", the latter being the preferred channel for the Nepal route. "In most locations, local police and other authorities get neutralised through bribes or by influence, including that exercised by more senior officials on their subordinates", an expert warned, adding that "often officials using the networks (for example to fund children studying abroad or for visits by family members to exotic locations) are themselves not aware of the error links of the hawaladars, and believe them to merely be conduits for businesspersons and politicians". Human couriers are being used, and these days, "much of the travel of cash couriers is by luxurious cars rather than by air or rail, as big cars seldom get checked, out of fear that those inside have influence". They say that both "the hawaladar network as well as the human carriers used to ferry cash around come from all communities and even comprise foreign nationals, especially those from Europe, as in India they seldom incur suspicion of being involved in criminal activity". Although the trade done by "hawaladars" has wreaked significant damage to national security and other interests, thus far "no government has revealed to the public the facts in its possession about the networks", with even the 1993 Vohra committee report still kept secret. Occasionally, courts have got into the act, as in 2014, when the Gujarat High Court issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on a PIL seeking the investigation of two police cases in Surat in connection with a Rs 10, 000 crore hawala scam, but "which still remains under investigation". Another ploy of the ISI-linked hawala networks is to "channel the money through religious organisations, as experience has shown that the police are more reluctant to move against such bodies because of the political and societal sensibilities involved". This is apart from the fact that the personnel assigned to investigate such cases usually have scant understanding of such subjects, which are in several cases too complex even for specialised agencies such as the ED, DRI and the RBI. The latter has comprehensively failed to curb the hawala menace in India and has paid little attention to the fact that several overseas financial entities patronised by its top echelons are in numerous instances "facilitating such transactions in order to increase profits". Thus far, monetary authorities in India have not followed the example of the US and the UK in curbing such practices through steep billion dollar fines but have administered only a "slap on the wrist", that too in a "very limited number of cases that have mostly been flagged first by the media". The revelations made by the experts include the fact that "10-15% of the money made by some ISI networks in India, including those run by the D-Company, gets paid as protection money to select politicians", and that the "agencies have evidence of this", but have thus far refused to act against such politicians. After years of governmental inaction, experts feel heartened by Prime Minister Modi's forthright condemnation of "hawaladars". They expect the PM to begin the process of rolling up the ISI-linked hawala networks operating in India, so that these may (a) cease trying to create mayhem within the country at the behest of their controllers, (b) facilitate corruption and capital flight, and (c) seek to use popular pastimes such as cricket and feature films for multi-million dollar gains which thereafter get recycled in the terror and narcotics trades. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/pms-warning-spooks-isi-linked-hawaladars

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