Desicritics Author: Vinod Joseph

Israel's Gaza Offensive

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:18:10 EST

I believe that the air attacks being carried out by Israel on various targets in the Gaza Strip and the incursion by the Israeli army into the Gaza Strip are justified. I also believe that these air attacks and land offensive will serve no purpose at all, other than help Ehud Barak and the Labour Party in the forthcoming Israeli elections.

Ever since the cease fire between Hamas and Israel came to an end on 19 December 2008, Israel has been targeted by Hamas which started to fire around 80 rockets per day into Israel. Most of the rockets did not cause much damage and so far, only a handful of Israelis have died as a result. However, the number of people killed in Gaza has exceeded five hundred. Clearly the Israeli response to the rocket attacks is not proportionate. Why then do I say that Israeli is justified in its actions?

Imagine for a moment that you own a fertile piece of land in a desolate part of the world. You land adjoins a barren piece of land. A tall barbed wire fence separates your land and the barren land. The people who own the barren land don’t like your presence in the neighbourhood. They have a nasty habit of throwing stones into your land, a few stones every day. Mostly they don’t do any damage, but once a month or so, a worker in your land gets hit by a stone. Once in a while, your neighbours cut through the barbed wire fence and creep into your land at night and uproot a few fruit trees before returning to their barren land, all this in order to make you abandon your fertile property. How should you respond? If your response has to be strictly proportionate, you can only throw stones into your neighbour’s barren land, something which will distress your neighbour a lot less than you are distressed by the stones thrown into your land. You can also creep into your neighbour’s land at night and uproot his fruit trees, except that your neighbour does not have any fruit trees! So, you post guards on the periphery of your land, mount powerful search lights at certain vantage points and instruct your guards to shoot dead anyone caught in the act of throwing stones into your land. Intruders who enter your fertile land are also to be locked up for a year before they are released. Once this new policy comes into effect, your guards do manage to kill a few stone throwers and catch a few intruders, but the stone throwing and intrusions don’t cease. This is mainly because there is a total difference in values between you and your neighbour and your neighbour is willing to sacrifice the lives of his people in order to cause trouble for you. He just does not want you in the neighbourhood, though you have every right to be there. Soon the number of fruit trees you lose to your neighbour’s men goes up. Your workers start to quit. You start making a loss. Unless you manage to stop the stone throwing and the uprooting of fruit trees, you will have to vacate the neighbourhood. What do you do then? There is no police force worth the name in your part of the world. You have no choice but to send a team of armed men into your neighbour’s land and capture or kill everyone who has thrown stones or intruded into your land and teach your neighbour such a lesson that he does not try to harm your property ever again.

Now imagine for a moment that you acquired your fertile piece of land after a prolonged litigation. You won the legal dispute and the loser was your neighbour who owns the adjacent barren piece of land. They are many in your town who say that the court ruling was unfair, though the bulk of the local residents support the judicial ruling and are happy for you to occupy your piece of land. Does this additional piece of information make you change your mind? Do you now think that the neighbour has the right to throw stones into your land or intrude into your land and uproot your fruit trees? The answer is a clear No. Instead, what your neighbour ought to do if unhappy with the court ruling is appeal to a higher court. If further appeal is not possible, your neighbour ought to get public opinion on his side and in the meantime, try and make his barren piece of land as fertile as possible.

Israel is in the position of the owner of the fertile land. Its neighbour is Hamas, an organisation whose charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic State. I have always believed that the creation of Israel through an UN resolution was absolutely fair. If you believe that the creation of Israel by the UN in 1948 was correct, it naturally follows that Israel has the right to defend its territory and pre-empt any possible attack that may pose an existential threat to Israel. I have many good friends who ardently believe that the creation of Israel was unfair. All those friends tell me that Israel’s Gaza offensive is totally unjustified.

It must be admitted, most of what followed after the fair and legal creation of Israel was neither fair nor legal. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and its Arab minority has almost always been very, very unjust. In particular, I don’t think that Israel was justified in placing an economic blockade on the Gaza Strip in reaction to Hamas’s election victory. Though no one likes the idea of fundamentalists of the Hamas variety on their door step, Israel had no right to make life unbearable for the people in the Gaza Strip. Also, it must not be forgotten that Hamas is largely a creation of Israel. If Israel were not so desperate to undermine the secular Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Fatah, fundamentalist Hamas would not have come into existence.

The Gaza Strip is not a sovereign state, but Hamas runs it as if it is. As per the UN resolution which created Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem ought to form an independent Palestinian state. However, East Jerusalem is illegally occupied by Israel and the West Bank is under the control of the Fatah. Hamas won the Palestinian Parliamentary Elections in January 2006 and came to power. After infighting broke out between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas was evicted from the West Bank in mid 2007. For good measure, the Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas declared Hamas to be an illegal force. I don’t think Mahmud Abbas was right in doing so and I do think that Hamas got a raw deal in being evicted from the West Bank, considering the fact that they won 74 seats to the ruling-Fatah's 45 in the Parliamentary elections in January 2006. Most probably Israel played a key behind-the-scenes role in all this.

However, despite all these drawbacks on the part of Israel, the random launching of rockets into Israel with the intention of killing civilians cannot be justified. Hamas’s attacks on Israel are not just a reaction to the economic blockade. Instead, it arises out of Hamas’s determination that Israel should not exist as a state. The range of Hamas’s rockets has been increasing in range and accuracy by the month and soon there may be a day when Hamas is able to target any part of Israel at its will. When faced with such a situation, Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself against such attacks and do all that is necessary to prevent such attacks in future.

The forthcoming elections in Israel and the need for the ruling Labour Party to show itself to be as tough on Hamas as the Likud Party, has definitely influenced Israel’s decision to attack the Hamas in Gaza. Nevertheless, Israel’s right to defend itself is so fundamental that it is entitled to do so even on election’s eve.

All of what I have stated above begs the question whether India is entitled to respond against Pakistan in a similar fashion in response to the Mumbai attacks. The answer is yes, though, considering the fact that Pakistan is not the Gaza Strip and it possesses nuclear weapons, India would be foolhardy to do so.

Israeli air strikes have led to heavy civilian casualties. It is not easy to watch visuals of civilians, including young children being killed, and say with a straight face the Israel’s actions are justified. However, Israel’s actions are indeed justified. Hamas has intentionally mixed up its military infrastructure with civilian infrastructure in Gaza. Hamas seems to enjoy a high degree of civilian support in Gaza. If a near-sovereign state supported by its population launches attacks on another sovereign state using equipment and men who are mixed up with civilians, the ensuing retribution will cause civilian causalities. Hamas is as much to blame for the civilians killed in the air strikes as are the people of Gaza who voted for an organisation whole sole objective is to remove Israel from the face of this earth.

Will Israel succeed in its objective? In 2006, Israel launched an offensive against the Hezbollah in Lebanon and was fought to a standstill. Hezbollah’s survival made it a lot more popular and Israel’s aura of invincibility was badly dented. Hamas is no Hezbollah. It is not as tough or as capable as Hassan Nazarallah’s organisation. Also, unlike in 2006, this time Israel seems to be successfully avoiding battles in dense population centres where die-hard Hamas fighters could take a heavy toll of its fighters. If Israel’s only objective is to stop the rocket attacks altogether, it will not succeed. If its aim is to only make Hamas pay a price for the rocket attacks, it may succeed. However, Hamas will continue to exist as an organisation even after this offensive is over. It will also retain its ability to launch attacks on Israel, as before. Its popularity in Gaza Strip and the rest of the Arab world may even go up. In short, the Israeli offensive will most probably do nothing other than help the Labour Party and Ehud Barak win the next elections.

Book Review: Vishnu's Crowded Temple: India Since the Great Rebellion by Maria Misra

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:18:15 EST

Having liked Maria Misra’s first book on managing agencies so much, I got hold of her second and much more recent one, a couple of weeks ago. In Vishnu’s Crowded Temple, Misra undertakes the challenging task of analysing India’s history from the time immediately after the mutiny (1857) till the present. Misra proves herself equal to the challenge. Her 450 odd page tome is not only a very thorough examination of India’s history during this period, it is also crammed with Misra’s analysis of the prominent events and personalities. Irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with Misra’s various assessments, you can’t help appreciating that Misra knows her history very well and has all relevant facts at her finger tips.

Misra’s stand out achievement in this book is in examining every issue from multiple points of view. For example, when discussing partition, she explains how each of the actors, the Congress, the Muslim League and the British, performed their roles and did what they did in a manner that is entirely comprehensible, though with the benefit of hindsight, many serious mistakes were made. Equally brilliant are Misra’s description of the Emergency and the raise of Hindu nationalism in the 1990s. The personalities of Gandhi, Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Laloo Prasad Yadav, V.P. Singh and Mayawati are dispassionately analysed and laid bare. Their contributions to India are examined ruthlessly without any drama. Also of great interest (to me at least) was Misra’s examination of the (failed) attempts to have a Uniform Civil Code for India and to make Hindi India’s national language.

Misra’s language is simple, to the point, non-melodramatic, slightly sarcastic at times and in short, it’s just right for a book of this sort. For example, while describing the Congress’s (unsuccessful) attempt to remain uncorrupted and keep India unified as it neared the goal of Independence, she says, ‘By the end of the 1930s, it was clear that much of Congress politics was fast degenerating in an unedifying scramble for the spoils of office. Gandhi had not woven the tough, rough-textured and inclusive fabric he had originally designed. Rather, the Congress nation was silk not khadi. Threads from the prosperous peasantry, urban petty bourgeoisie, the progressive intelligentsia and big business had somehow been woven into a single cloth. But it was distinctly frayed at the edges. Skeins of regional, Muslim and low caste politics hung loose and it would prove difficult, if not impossible, to weave these back into a united and independent Indian nation.

Cricket does not find a mention in the post-independence part of this book and neither does Bollywood, though Sholay is discussed as are film actors turned politicians MGR and NT Rama Rao. The implied assessment here, I assume, is that neither Bollywood nor cricket has influenced post-independence India. In a sense, I would agree with Misra that Bollywood is not as much of a nation unifier as it is hyped out to be. For example, people in Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh enjoy Bollywood movies though anti-India feeling runs high in these countries. Cricket does bring Indians together and alleged Muslim support for the Pakistani team is the cause of much tension and quarrel. I do wish Misra had commented on the impact of cricket on Indian society.

Misra makes a few minor mistakes which do not have any impact on the overall quality of this book. She says that A.O. Hume, the founder of the Indian National Congress was an Englishman (when he was actually Scottish). The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) is translated as “Dravidian Forward Federation”, something which will bring a smile to any Tamil speaker. In my opinion, it ought to be the “Dravidian Upliftment Party”.

Misra’s book has a very detailed bibliography. Since I am not a qualified historian, I am not going to comment on it.

Misra ends her book with the story of how Laloo Yadav, long considered a maverick and joker, reformed the Indian railways and made it profitable. However, Laloo has no qualms about having his in-laws travel ticketless in a first class railway compartment. Misra tells us in the epilogue that her objective was to explain India’s peculiar form of modernity, one which is a mix of so many contradictions. I would say that Misra has admirably succeeded in her endeavour.

I am setting out here a few of Misra’s theories and assessments which I found to be interesting and a few facts I ‘discovered’ from this book, which the average desi doesn’t easily get to read elsewhere.

Impact of British Rule: The role of the British on the subcontinent should not be exaggerated. According to Misra, the subcontinent is too vast and too ancient and the British presence too brief and microscopic to be seen as a leading player. Initially I shook my head in disbelief, but then as I thought about this, I started to feel that Misra might have a point. However, this is a very moot point on which it will be possible to canvass a variety of views.

Caste: Till the British arrived, Indian society was very fluid. Castes were not frozen. However, the British found it easy to understand the Varna system as hard and fast. Also, the educated Brahmins were the ones the British turned to for tutorials on India. It made sense for the Brahmins to explain the caste system in such a way that they were on top, though in reality, the intermediate castes were the property owners and the generally, especially in southern India, the most powerful. Misra says that there’s a great deal to be said for the view that untouchability was an institution initially confined to some locations. As India industrialised, the poorest and lowest castes migrated to the cities where they did the dirtiest jobs and the stigma of untouchability grew.

Aryan Invasion Theory and Pre-Aryan Dravidian Utopia: The Aryan invasion theory came into vogue between 1901 and 1911. The proponents of this theory found it very convenient to explain the caste system and the hierarchy within. Soon census takers were carrying ‘nose callipers’ to measure the length of Indian noses and categorise people. The Theosophists propagated the Aryan invasion theory and the upper castes gratefully seized upon it to show that they were superior to other Indians and were linked to Europeans. Please note that Misra does not at any point express her own view on the Aryan invasion theory. I wish she had.

In the south, a British preacher Robert Caldwell pioneered the study of southern languages. Caldwell wanted to destroy the influence of corrupt priests and Brahmins in order to make conversions easy. For this, he propagated the view that the Aryan invasion had destroyed a pre-Aryan Dravidian utopia and that southern languages are totally autonomous from Sanskrit and Hindi. Tamil intellectuals accepted Caldwell’s theories, though they did not convert. They also took them further by saying that pre-Aryan Tamil possibly existed prior to the movement of the tectonic plates when Asia, Africa and Australasia was a unified landmass called ‘kumarikantam.’

Changing British attitudes to India and Indians: Prior to the mutiny, the British wanted to modernise and reform India. After the mutiny, the British only wanted to preserve the existing order, and use it to strengthen their own presence in India. The British set up a College of Arms which would produce for various Indian princes various assorted ensigns, emblems and other signs of power. The Statutory Civil Service was an attempt to make bureaucrats out of the scions of Indian aristocracy. Sons of Princes were enrolled in this service as a birth right and trained to be bureaucrats in order to avoid having middleclass Indians rule India through the Indian Civil Service. Colleges such as the Mayo College at Ajmer, modelled on Eton, were established. This attempt ended in a dismal failure since Indian princes were too much fun loving and lacked the necessary discipline to become mandarins.

British attitudes to different Indian ethnic groups is one of the topics covered in Misra’s first book. Misra takes up the same topic in this book as well. The Afridis, Dogras and Sikhs were believed to make good soldiers, since they physically resembled Europeans more than other Indians. Sikhs especially were the apples of the British eye. The British were so keen to keep the Sikhs pure that Sikh recruits to the army had to be baptised, have uncut hair, bangles, a dagger and have ‘Singh’ as the last name. The British maintained Sikhism in the army at a standard higher than it was elsewhere. Bengalis were considered effeminate and non-martial, though they had formed the bulk of the British Indian army prior to the mutiny. It was only during the Second World War that stereotypes such as these were abandoned.

The British also condemned many communities as criminal classes. In the south, the British started to prop up the Dravidian parties to fight the Brahmin dominated Congress. Reservations were made for non-Brahmin communities. British - Hindu – Muslim relations: Misra devotes a lot of time and space to explain how Hindu and Muslims came to be poles apart. Initially, the British were very tolerant of Hinduism. This morphed into contempt. With regard to Islam, the British were closer to the Muslims till the mutiny, after which there was a period of bitterness. Later, the British grew to develop cordial relations with a few select Muslims, like Syed Ahmed Khan, who benefitted a lot from their closeness to the British. Such select Muslims got British largesse and protection from Hindu domination, as the British played one community against the other. The bulk of the funding for the Aligarh University came from the British

Occasional Hindu-Muslim violence did take place in the 19th century, but such violence was local. In 1809, there were riots in Banares. British reports classified these as religious violence that erupted when a Muharram procession insulted Hindus, though in reality it was the result of a land dispute.

Till the early 19th century, Hindus and Sunnis celebrated Muharram along with the Shias. Similarly, Muslims participated in Ramlila celebrations. Towards the end of the 19th century, Tilak started to promote the Ganapati festival and made it a lavish and public affair. With that, Muharram processions and Ramlila festivities ceased to attract people from other faiths.

Regionalism among Indian leaders: At the Indian National Congress’s Lahore session in 1893, the great leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak boarded and lodged with his fellow Maharashtrians Gokhale and Ranade who were moderates and his ideological adversaries since he didn’t want to mix with Bengali leaders who subscribed to his own extremist views. South Indian leaders, almost entirely Brahmins, were fussy eaters and would not eat with others.

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, a leader of Hindu renaissance in the 1870s, attracted the cream of Bengal’s intelligentsia and preached the rejection of western values and advocated a return to a rustic lifestyle. He was a gender bender who liked to dress as a woman and flirt with his largely male followers, at times sitting on their laps. Keshub Chandra Sen was a westernised Brahmo Samaj leader who reverted to Hinduism under Ramakrishna Paramahamsa’s influence. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa advocated child marriage and Keshub Chandra Sen gave his 9 year old daughter in marriage to the ruler of Cooch Behar

Fitness First

Since the British were busy portraying upper caste Hindus as non-martial and effeminate, the Hindu renaissance brought in its wake a great deal of interest in exercise and fitness. Various akharas were started. Wrestling became a favourite pastime for many Indians. The great Indian wrestler Gama was said to live entirely on milk, ghee and almonds which he consumed in vast quantities. These were supposed to be all that was needed to make a man strong.

Max Muller was a German orientalist who promoted the theory of the noble Aryan race which migrated to India and from whom the upper castes were said to have descended. The Aryans were said to have founded in India the greatest civilisation the world has ever known, though they weakened themselves by marriages with the lower castes. Muller opposed woman’s liberation which he said would weaken the fabric of Indian society.

Bankim Chandra used to be a proponent of women’s rights, till he took a sharp U turn. After his change of mind, he went about advocating that women should not behave like babus. He advised such women to rid the earth of their useless weight by applying ropes to their necks.

The Age of Consent Bill: In 1891, the Age of Consent Bill was proposed after many child brides died after sex with their husbands. This bill made intercourse with a child below the age of 12 years statutory rape even if the girl was married to the accused. Bankim Chandra opposed this bill tooth and nail. He said that if this bill was passed “Bengal would be plagued with females in groups hanging from door to door, begging men to gratify their lust”. Many Indian dailies opposed the Bill. Anand Baraz Patrika changed from a weekly to a daily to meet increased subscriber demand. The Bangabani saw its subscription soar to 20,000, whilst Sanjivani which supported the bill had only 4,000 readers. Bal Gangadhar Tilak too opposed the Age of Consent Bill.

Aurobindo Ghose was a Hindu revivalist and Swaraj advocate who studied at St. Paul’s and Cambridge. He advocated revolutionary violence though his goals were quite vague. He talked about the golden age of the Vedas and declared that his ultimate objective was the ‘Aryanisation’ of the world

Annie Besant was a Theosophist who believed that high caste Hindus were Aryans who ought to be given the power to unify India as they had done earlier. She had a controversial attitude to non-Brahmins. She wanted to “humanise them because, as in Britain, the lower classes are a menace to civilisation and undermine the fabric of society.”

The Gurgaon experiment: Frank Bryne was a civil servant who carried out an experiment in Gurgaon to change the ‘bad’ habits of the Indian peasantry who were given to idleness and filth. To fight idleness, he made them give up canal irrigation and switch to inefficient Persian wheels. To make them conserve fuel, he promoted a magic ‘Bhoosa’ box. For disciplined defecation and fighting filth, he got them to dig latrines, though the latrines became traps for mosquitoes. Though none of his experiments really worked, a few successful monsoons meant that Gurgaon showed progress. Bryne’s books became standard texts for Indian bureaucrats.

Bombay Pentangular: So named for the five religious communities who took part, namely the Parsis, Hindus, Muslims, Europeans and the rest. In the initial days of this tournament, the Parsis refused to play the Hindus since they thought only the British were their equals. In 1939 the Hindus won the tournament and their supporters sang the Bande Mataram, which the Muslims found offensive.

Congress’s Hindu tilt and rift with the Muslim League: On many occasions Misra says that, at its lower echelons, the Congress was very much Hindu nationalist. Membership of the RSS and Congress overlapped to a considerable degree. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS was a disciple of the Congress leader Tilak. From the 1920s , there was practically no Muslim participation in Congress led agitations. The 1930 civil disobedience movement which led to a sharp fall in the demand for imported fabrics, disproportionately affected Muslims, since most importers of foreign cloth were Muslims. Misra blames the Congress for breaching its relations with the Muslim League. Jinnah was willing to renounce his demand for separate Muslim electorates if the Congress would agree to more Muslim majority provinces in Sindh and the North West Frontier Province. The Congress refused. In the 1937 provincial elections, the Muslim League cooperated with the Congress, but the Congress reneged on a deal to share ministerial posts.

Frontier Gandhi: Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and his Khudai Khidmatgars followed Gandhian principles when fighting the British. However, their fight was mainly for the reunification of the North West Frontier Province with Afghanistan and had little to do with the national movement.

Subhash Chandra Bose and the INA: Subhash Chandra Bose established contact with Nazi Germany through the Kabul office of Siemens Company. He did not really get along with Hitler who refused to delete a few bits from his Mein Kampf which Bose considered insulting to Indians. Bose then went to Japan and Singapore and took over leadership of the INA. “Relations between the INA and the Japanese were appalling. The Japanese regarded the INA troops as turncoats, inherently untrustworthy and cowardly. At best they were a propaganda unit for spreading pro-Japanese stories among Indians and at worst as coolie corps.” The INA was not particularly effective and Subhash Chandra Bose himself was regarded by the Japanese as “incompetent and stubborn”. Misra says that this view was not totally unjustified since Bose kept insisting that a march on Delhi was possible in the midst of a catastrophic retreat.

Allied Army atrocities: During the Second World War, the enormous allied army in Eastern India misbehaved. There were many cases of rape, arson and looting.

Gandhi’s approval for Indira Gandhi’s marriage: Indira Gandhi’s marriage to the Parsi Feroze Gandhi was controversial. Mahatma Gandhi gave his approval, but said that the marriage should be celibate.

Please let the Baath Party Survive

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:29:53 EST

The Arab Socialist Baath Party, called the Ba'th party or the Baath party for short, was founded in Damascus by a group of secular Arabs in the middle of the 20th century when Syria and the rest of the Arab world were still under European rule.

The founders of the Baath party included Christians and Muslims. The most prominent of the founding members was Michel Aflaq, an Arab Christian. Baath means renaissance in Arabic and the Baath party was meant to herald a new dawn in Arab politics. Relatively secular by Arab standards, it stood for socialism, Arab nationalism and modernisation and encompassed Christians, Shias and Sunnis.

The Baath party had its offshoots in various parts of the Arab world, but it has traditionally been strongest in Iraq and Syria. The Iraqi and Syrian branches of the Baath party soon diverged ideologically, with the Syrian branch more socialist (and therefore closer to the Soviet Union) and the Iraqi offshoot much more to the centre. The Baath party came to power in both Iraq and Syria in 1963. In Syria, the Assad family came to control the Baath party which soon became indistinguishable from the Syrian state. The Assad family is Alawite, a Shia sect. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein took control of the Baath party and made it his personal instrument of power. Saddam being a Sunni Muslim, Sunnis came to dominate the Baath party in Iraq.

After the fall of Saddam, the Americans banned the Baath party. Members of the Baath party were even banned from holding any position in the new government. Very recently, the New York Times reported that over 35 in the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, including some with ranks as high as general, have been arrested, after being accused of quietly working to reconstitute the Baath Party. Those arrested included Shias and Sunnis.

The Baath party is the only truly secular movement to have originated in the Arab world, which has had a pan-Arab appeal. The only other secular Arab movement is the Fatah Movement, which was formed by Yasser Arafat for the liberation of Palestine from Israel. In a region where there is a dearth of secular movements, the Baath Party stands out for having Shias, Sunnis and Christians under one roof. Saddam Hussein, for all his faults, was relatively secular and ensured that Christians and Shias had the freedom to practice their religion. In the West Bank which is controlled by the Fatah Movement, Arab Christians are similarly free to practice their faith, something they cannot do so easily in Hamas controlled Gaza strip, despite the fact that they have lived there for countless generations. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which are supposed to be allies of the West have a horrible record of religious freedom compared to Baath party ruled Iraq and Syria.

There are many vested interests in the neighbourhood who do not want secular Arab nationalism to rise again. No, I am not talking of Israel. None of the monarchies in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Oman or Bahrain, want democracy in the region. Israel too would not be cheered by the rise of pan-Arab unity. Despite all that opposition, I believe that pan-Arab secular nationalism can purge the region of many of its ills and possibly help steer the Arabs to a decent settlement in Palestine.

I always thought that it was unbelievably stupid of the Americans to have banned the Baath party. In fact, they ought to have co-opted the Baath party, after purging it of Saddam loyalists, in the fight for democratising Iraq. Currently, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a Shi'ite who is propped up by two leading Shi'ite parties of Iraq, namely Moqtada al Sadr's party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SICRI). SICRI is very much pro-Iranian and Maliki himself is very close to Iran. For this reason, the Sunnis of Iraq don't really trust him. For the moment, government armed Sunni militias are co-operating in the fight against the al-Qaeda. However, there is no guarantee that the Sunni-Shia unity will survive the departure of the Americans.

The only other secular Arab movement, the Fatah, has been totally discredited in the eyes of the common Arab on the street by its corruption and its close association with the US and Israel. It lost the Palestinian Authority parliamentary elections to fundamentalist Hamas in January 2006, though it has managed to hold on to power in the West Bank by means which are not really democratic.

There is still time to rectify the grave mistake of disbanding the Baath party, which despite the corruption and depravity foisted on it by Saddam, is still secular and is the only pan-Arab nationalist party in the world. I hope that once Obama is in office, the vilification of the Baath party will come to an end and it will be allowed to regain its rightful place in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world.

Skeletons in the Closet

Vinod Joseph — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:04:59 EST

This thought has been lingering in the back on my mind for a long time. The people who planned the Mumbai attacks must have had help from the local underworld, maybe the local representatives of Dawood Ibrahim’s gang.

It is well known that services offered by the underworld, especially money laundering services, are used by the rich and well-connected in India. If investigators are on the trail of Mr. X who provided credit cards or cash to the attackers, Mr. X might be able to call on someone high and mighty, say Mr. Y, to protect him. Mr. Y might be just a businessman with good connections who has nothing to do with terrorism. Mr. Y might or might not suspect what Mr. X is up to, but would protect him nevertheless, since Mr. X might otherwise spill the beans on him. In short, as long as India has such a vibrant parallel economy that puts the legit one in the shade, India will be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Jawed Naqvi, the Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi, one of the smartest Indian journalists today, has written a brilliant piece on this issue:

Here’s an interesting piece in the Independent which says India has not been passing on information to Interpol about the Mumbai attacks or the results of its investigation.

It makes sense for Indian investigators to want to keep their findings to themselves if sharing facts with Interpol or other foreign investigators will raise too many uncomfortable questions for India’s high and mighty, who might have had dealings with criminals and terrorists. Funnily, the Independent news report above does not say that India has been hiding its findings. Instead, it says Indian investigators have been regularly feeding the media, though not briefing Interpol

The Indian investigation into the Mumbai attacks now seems to bear a startling similarity with the way Pakistan has been investigating the Bhutto assassination. Even though Bhutto’s own party, the PPP, is in power, the investigation into the murder has made little headway. It’s been over a year since Bhutto was assassinated, but the truth behind who was responsible, is yet to emerge. Is this because if the truth were to be found, many respectable players will have to run for cover? Is this because the guilty are being shielded by those in power who have been hand-in-glove with them in various other nefarious activities?

Corruption, black money and a parallel economy are some of the things India and Pakistan have in common. Now it seems that both countries have too many similar skeletons in their closets.

What's to be Done With Kasab?

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:16:37 EST

The Indian government has decided to appease the public’s craving for revenge. All weapons captured from the terrorists are to be put inside a large cauldron and melted down. The molten steel will be used to construct steps for public lavatories in Mumbai. “Victims of Terror To Be Avenged”, says a popular tabloid, which manages to pass for a respectable daily.

Okay, I made that up, but going by the decibel levels generated by those baying for Kasab’s blood (without a trial, mid you), one gets the impression that weapons captured from terrorists will also be punished. It is not only the general public that’s baying for Kasab’s blood. Even members of the Bombay Bar Association (a non-statutory association of lawyers in Mumbai), have passed a resolution that none of them will represent Kasab in court. This despite the fact that the Bar Council of India Rules specifically say that:

“An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or before any other authorities in or before which he proposes to practise at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case. He shall defend a person accused of a crime regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, bearing in mind that his loyalty is to the law which requires that no man should be convicted without adequate evidence.”

Somik Raha has written a beautiful article explaining how every accused has the right to legal representation and a fair trial.

In all probability, Kasab (is that his real last name or did the Police make it up?), will be sentenced to death by hanging. Capital punishment is not inappropriate for the heinous crime Kasab is responsible for. However, we need to ask ourselves, is capital punishment the best possible response Indian society can come up with? Before we answer this question, we ought to understand that India and the rest of the world are in the midst of a global war against Islamic fundamentalism. The Islamists are fighting to create a global Islamic order. All over the world, they have recruited Muslim fighters with local grievances and harnessed their energies to the global cause. There is a clear distinction between the Islamic fundamentalists of today and the Arab/Turkish invaders of the past who came to India for loot and plunder. The latter were interested only in looting India and taking away its wealth. The former want India and other secular democratic societies destroyed and replaced with an Islamic state. Pakistan is the breeding ground for many of these Islamic fighters. However, Pakistan itself is not the enemy. There are many, many Pakistanis who do not want Pakistan to be talibanised. They might have a grudge against India over the Kashmir issue or the loss of Bangladesh, but they are India’s allies in this war against Islamic fundamentalists. Not only are they our allies, they are also the frontline fighters against these Islamists.

India has received enormous sympathy from the rest of the world subsequent to the Mumbai attacks. US pressure on Pakistan has forced it to place some leading Islamists under house arrest. Though Pakistan is yet to genuinely crackdown against the Lashkar-e-Tayba, the organisation most likely to have organised the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan has been expanding its war against Islamic fundamentalists to include more and more terror groups. There are two reasons for the western sympathy and support, something we did not always receive in the past. One reason is that the West recognises India to be a fellow victim of Islamic terrorism. Secondly, India is considered to be a democratic country, unlike Pakistan, where there is greater respect for the rule of law. The last thing we ought to do is to blur the distinction between India and Pakistan.

Our fight is against an ideology, the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism, and not against a state or a group of people. How do you fight an ideology? With another ideology of course! With the ideology of freedom, democracy and respect for human life.

Twenty two year old Kasab was recruited by Islamic fundamentalists when he was a teenager, indoctrinated and trained and sent over to Mumbai. The terrorists did not have much of an escape plan, since those responsible for sending them to Mumbai did not really expect them to survive. They used weapons which could easily be traced back to Pakistan, the intention being to make it clear to India that Pakistani Islamists are responsible for the attack. The organisers would have been very happy if India had retaliated against Pakistan, as India almost did in 2001 following the attack against the Indian Parliament. A war between India and Pakistan would be a blessing in their eyes.

Hanging Kasab (by his neck, until he is dead, as the Indan Penal Code decrees), would make him a martyr for the Islamists. All over the world, public opinion is building up against capital punishment since it reduces the state to the same animal level as those sentenced to death for a heinous crime. In my opinion, not only should Kasab be given a fair trial, the courts should also take into account the fact that he was recruited when he was a teenager and brainwashed, without ever having the opportunity to listen to a different point of view. Hanging Kasab would not be much different from melting the weapons used in the attacks. Instead, Kasab should be sentenced to life. While in jail, he should be treated humanely and given the opportunity to appreciate how a democracy functions. Under the Indian Penal Court, a life sentence runs for fourteen years. Kasab will be a free man when he reaches his mid-thirties and should be sent back to Pakistan. In the eyes of his Islamic handlers, he would appear to be brainwashed by secularists. This approach will not only win us brownie points from fellow western and Pakistani allies in this war on terror, but would also be the right thing to do.

Book Review: Maria Misra's Business, Race, and Politics in British India

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:01:58 EST

I came across this wonderful book while trying to learn a little bit more about managing agency houses which dominated Indian industry prior to independence and for a brief while after that. I heard the term ‘managing agency’ for the first time over 12 years ago while attending corporate law lectures as a law student in Bangalore. ‘Managing agency contracts,’ our highly respected professor told us with uncharacteristic brevity, ‘are banned. BANNED. Companies are not allowed to enter into such contracts any more.’

His eyes conveyed a sense of horror as if managing agency contracts were something very disgusting and dirty, akin to may be the slave trade, as if he could never explain to us youngsters, how horrible a managing agency arrangement was. We students left it at that, not particularly wanting to inquire into something not very relevant for us and add to our workload.

The second time I came across the term managing agency house was when I read Vikram Seth’s A Suitable Boy, the best book about India I have read so far. One of the characters in the book, snooty anglophile Arun Mehra works for a managing agency house. Seth takes some trouble to explain to the reader how a managing agency house functioned and how elitist and exclusive it was, even after India’s independence. However, even Seth does not manage to explain how managing agency houses dominated Indian industry during the British era. Maria Misra manages to do what neither my professor nor Vikram Seth could do (to be honest, they didn’t try to do so), that is, to convey to her readers an image of British India dominated by managing agency houses.

To explain in simplistic terms, a managing agency was a partnership which carried on the business of managing other business enterprises. A typical managing agency would enter into contracts with various companies for managing them. Under Indian company law, as it existed then, shareholders of a company could not challenge or override such contracts, even if they were contrary to shareholder interests. British India was dominated by 60 or so managing agency houses which controlled and managed most Indian businesses.

The usual modus operandi for managing agency houses was to start an enterprise with their capital, execute a managing agency contract with it for a term of twenty or thirty years and then issue shares in the company to investors, who would be stuck with the managing agent. These agencies were run by British businessmen, both English and Scottish, who believed in the racial superiority of the British over Indians, who epitomised the values around which the Empire was built and the ‘white man’s burden’ was discharged. Much more conservative than even the British Indian government, they were at the zenith of their dominance before the beginning of the First World War.

Misra explains in detail how these managing agency houses refused to change with the times and eventually lost out to multinational and Indian owned firms. Misra’s book is crowded with statistics. Misra tells us that senior assistants at these managing agency houses made INR. 3,500 per month, a huge amount of money for those days. Partners would typically retire with a fortune of around £60,000, whilst senior assistants could squirrel away an average of £30,000. Managing agencies paid their employees more than what the Indian Civil Service paid. The managing agents believed that the ideal businessman was a generalist, who would not be too ‘technical’ and who could take a holistic view of the business and its prospects. Technical people were distrusted.

As technology advanced, managing agents began to lose out on account of their technical incompetence. Misra gives us the example of Gillander, a leading managing agency, ordering railway engine paint which wouldn’t dry in the Indian climate for Duco Paints (an ICI subsidiary). Prudential, an MNC fired its managing agent since it did not understand the insurance business.

Managing agencies had so much contempt for Indians and their lack of ‘character’ that they refused to Indianise even after the Indian Civil Service started to do so. Few Indians were said to have the ‘character’ required to be a manager, with the exception of the Parsis. Indians were said to make good accountants and their rote learning skills gave them an unfair advantage in academic exams, though it was not of much use in real business. Frank Russell, a Calcutta businessman, took the view that Hindus had more brains that Muslims, but did not compare in character or physical courage. N. Macleod, a business witness to the 1913 Public Services Commission said that ‘instead of choosing men who are merely a bundle of bones and book-learning, the selectors should give preference to those men whose physical stature and appearance who be in keeping with the dignified and important position they are likely to be called on to fill in India. There is after all in the administration of Eastern countries, a great deal to be said for the man who looks the part.’

When an Indian businessman by the name Birla invited Basil Eddis of Gillander to join the Board of one of his cotton mills, the offer was coolly declined. When another Indian business house by the name Tata invited Gillander to collaborate with it in the production of steel, the offer was turned down. Misra’s book is filled with interesting anecdotes such as these. The most interesting aspect of the entire managing agency business was that managing agency contracts were void under English law whilst they were enforceable in India – until 1970.

An Open Letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the Sri Lankan Issue

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:26:28 EST

Dear Prime Minister, I have been planning to write to you on the Sri Lankan issue for a long time. The main reason for my tardiness has been the awareness on my part that you are in a delicate situation which requires a fine balancing act and that you are doing a decent job despite the multiple intricacies, nuances and egos involved. However, I believe that this issue has become even more important in light of the critical situation in northern Sri Lanka and that your government needs to shed its extreme caution and take a few bold steps.

Prime Minister, ever since the Rajapaksa government came to power, it has gone all out to secure a military victory over the LTTE. At the expense of letting the Lankan economy run to ruin, Rajapaksa’s government has opted for a total war on the LTTE. Even though the Sri Lankan army has scored a few impressive victories, the battle is nowhere close to an end. The LTTE is now defending its heartland and the Sri Lankan government troops have been bogged down on the approaches to Killinochi for many weeks now. Standard & Poor have recently cut Sri Lanka’s investment rating by one notch, from B+ to B, bringing it five notches below investment grade.

It is quite possible that if the Sri Lankan government fails to win a decisive victory over the LTTE in the next six months and the Island economy deteriorates further, the Sri Lankan government might collapse. In such an eventuality, the LTTE would be able to build up its strength once more and expand the areas under its control. Matters would go back to where they were a few years ago. There is also a possibility that the LTTE might declare independence unilaterally and the Sri Lankan government might be too weak to do much about it. Prime Minister, my objective here is to build a case for Indian intervention in Sri Lanka. I am strongly of the view that India should assist the Sri Lankan government defeat the LTTE militarily. India should also ensure that Tamil parties (other than the LTTE) are made stronger and that Tamil speaking areas in Sri Lanka are given a fair degree of autonomy.

I have taken this point of view for the reasons mentioned below.

I. The LTTE’s demand for a separate Tamil state is totally unjustified. If the Tamil population in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu is by and large happy to be ‘Indian’ and amalgamate into the Indian nation, there is no reason why Sri Lankan Tamils can’t amalgamate into Sri Lanka. To reverse the argument, if we are to take the view that Sri Lankan Tamils are a distinct nation who need a country of their own, then, the same could be said for Indian Tamils or Punjabis or Bengalis. Sri Lankan Tamils have faced a certain degree of discrimination from the Sinhalese community. The 1983 riots made many Sri Lankan Tamils lose faith in the Sri Lankan government. However, can this be a ground for seeking a separate country? If this argument were to be applied to India, Sikhs would be justified in seeking Khalistan, for they suffered grievously during the riots which followed Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Gujarati Muslims would be entitled to seek a separate state of their own in the aftermath of the 2002 riots. Many of the peace packages offered by the Sri Lankan government and rejected by the LTTE have sought to address this issue of discrimination by giving autonomy to the northern and eastern provinces which are Tamil dominated.

India, the largest country in South Asia, is a successful experiment in multiculturalism and nation building. If Sri Lanka were to break up on ethnic lines, separatists in India would be emboldened to seek a similar result in India.

2. If the LTTE were to succeed in breaking up Sri Lanka, they will have on their hands a small country which will have difficulty in surviving on its own. The logical next step for the LTTE in such a situation would be to seek to breakup of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu away from India and merge it with Eelam. In the beginning of 2002, when a couple of LTTE operatives where captured in Bangalore, they had with them a map of ‘Greater Tamil Nadu’ which included parts of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, which are to be merged with an independent Eelam. The LTTE has inspired a few disgruntled elements in Tamil Nadu to form the Tamil Nadu Liberation Army, which may emerge from its dormant stage at a time of its choosing.

As you know, a secessionist movement once flickered briefly in Tamil Nadu during the 1960s. One doesn’t need majority support to start an insurgency, as the insurgency in Punjab demonstrated so well. A small number of die-hard fanatics can fan the flames of separatism. Of course, such movements usually die-away after a number of years, but whilst they subsist, they do cause untold misery and suffering, not to mention the loss of lives and deterioration in quality of life. Prime Minister, it will be far easier to help the Sri Lankans defeat the LTTE now, rather than fight the LTTE when they have a country of their own. As we all know, a stitch in time, saves nine.

3. India provided training and support to the LTTE and various other Tamil separatist groups when they were at a nascent stage. India had no right to do so and even without the benefit of hindsight, India’s actions were totally unjustified and very stupid. India ought to formally apologise to Sri Lanka and compensate it for the loss caused by India’s actions. Until India does this, what moral right do we have in saying that Pakistan should stop supporting insurgents who target India from across its northern borders?

4. The LTTE cannot be trusted to keep the peace. The LTTE has always used any peace settlement to regroup and rearm itself and start its liberation movement afresh. In the last Presidential elections in Sri Lanka in 2005, the LTTE wanted the hawkish Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party to come to power rather than the moderate Ranil Wickremasinghe’s United National Party. For this reason, the LTTE called for a Tamil boycott of the elections. If Tamils had been allowed to vote, they would have voted for the relatively moderate Ranil Wickremasinghe who might have pursued a peaceful settlement. But no, the LTTE wanted a war monger in power, one who would legitimise their own violent approach.

5. The LTTE has backstabbed India on numerous occasions. To start with, when Rajiv Gandhi reached a peace settlement with Julius Jayawardane in 1987, the LTTE pretended to accept the settlement. After the LTTE found out that the IPKF was serious in enforcing the agreement and that a token surrender of a few weapons would not work, the LTTE went all out to sabotage the agreement. 8 Sri Lankan soldiers held captive by the LTTE from pre-treaty days were shot dead. On 8 October 1987, the LTTE ambushed an IPKF rations truck carrying para-troopers, took 5 para-troopers prisoner and killed them by garlanding their necks with burning tyres. It was this incident which forced the IPKF to try and disarm the LTTE. Wanton cruelty of this nature is not native to the sub-continent. The LTTE has not only lowered conditions in northern Sri Lanka to that of Sub-Saharan Africa, but has also behaved in a manner which would cause African warlords to lower their heads in shame. Finally, the LTTE assasinated Rajiv Gandhi, though in my little red book, fighting the IPKF is the greater crime.

6. More than any other organisation or group, including the Sri Lankan army, the LTTE has harmed the interests of Sri Lankan Tamils. The LTTE has forcibly recruited hundreds if not thousands of underage children and forced them to join its fighting force. It has prevented the civilian population under its control from leaving their homes and going to areas under the Sri Lankan government’s control. It has always used civilians as human shields. It has decimated so many Tamil groups that it doesn’t have any rival within the Sri Lankan Tamil community. Famous and popular Tamil leaders like A. Amirthalingam, V. Yogeswaran, Sarojini Yogeshwaran, Arunachalam Thangadurai, Sam Thambimuttu, Neelan Tiruchelvam, Ponnuthurai Sivapalan (all of the Tamil United Liberation Front), K. Padmanabha (EPRLF), Sri Sabarathnam (Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation) have all been murdered by the LTTE. Tamil Muslims have been specifically targeted by the LTTE which suspects the community’s loyalty. Many Muslim majority areas have been ethnically cleansed. The LTTE does not tolerate dissent and is centred around its leader in a manner reminiscent of North Korea or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

I would compare the relationship between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Tamil community as one of an abusive husband and a victimised wife. The wife loves and hates the husband in the same breath. She can’t live without him, yet can’t stand him. The husband is a nasty goon who enjoys giving the wife a black eye every once in a while. He keeps her in absolute poverty. He will not let her leave him and go back to the relative prosperity of her parent’s (Sri Lankan government’s) home. Prime Minister, when a woman is the victim of domestic abuse, the police have a duty to take action, even if the woman is unwilling to report her spouse.

Prime Minister, what sort of assistance can India give Sri Lanka? From various news reports. I understand that India has already given Sri Lanka a few radars and the technicians to operate them. India has desisted from giving arms or other combat weapons for fear of offending India’s Tamil community. Sri Lanka has acquired weapons from Israel, China and Pakistan. Naturally, India is very sensitive to any Pakistani presence in Sri Lanka and so far Sri Lanka has not done anything to offend India. Once again, I am sure that your government has done some deft tight rope walking and I congratulate you on it. However, India needs to do more, Prime Minister. We should make sure that the Sri Lankans have better weapons. Various Sri Lankan Air Force raids on LTE positions around Killinochi have failed to dislodge the defenders. India need to make sure that the Sri Lankan army, navy and air force get what they needs to get the job done.

Equally important, India must make sure that the Sri Lankan economy stays afloat as long as the war rages. In the midst of a global recession, India will find it difficult to find spare change. But India must dig deep and come up with the money now, else, India will pay many times over in the future. Prime Minister, I am very well aware that if your government were to step up support for the Sri Lankan government, be it in terms of arms supply or money, you will face widespread opposition from Tamil Nadu. Tamil M.Ps may resign en masse. Film actors and students, lawyers and bus drivers, will stage protests. Let’s ask ourselves why this would be so, when destruction of the LTTE is actually in the interest of the Sri Lankan Tamil community. Prime Minister, the bulk of the Indian Tamil community is only interested in the welfare of the Sri Lankan Tamil community. They don’t particularly care about the LTTE. In fact, prominent commentators like Cho Ramaswamy and Subramaniam Swamy have made no secret of their disdain for the LTTE. There are a few fanatics like Vaiko (V. Goplaswamy and R. Ramdoss) who have made no secret of their admiration for the LTTE. However, the Tamil community has not been given a choice of Sri Lankan Tamil leaders other than the LTTE. They do exist, leaders like Douglas Devanandana, S. Thondaiman even though many prominent Tamil leaders have been assassinated by the LTTE.

If the Indian Tamil community felt that non-LTTE Tamil leaders will give their brethren a better deal in the long run, they will not be offended when India helps Sri Lanka fight the LTTE fanatics. For this reason, it is very important that a new generation of Tamil leaders with no links to the LTTE be cultivated and a decent choice of democratic leaders placed before the Sri Lankan Tamil population. I do realise that this is unlikely to happen in the immediate future. Prime Minister, the peril facing Sri Lanka (and India) is immediate and great and urgent action is imperative. Even though an increase in Indian aid to Sri Lanka will cause convulsions in Tamil Nadu, in my view India should do this immediately.

In an ideal world, all political parties would team up to ensure that a few rabble rousers do not damage India’s national interest. M.Ps who resign on account of India supporting Sri Lanka should not ever be offered a ministerial post at the centre. However, we do not live in an ideal world and it is even possible that your government may fall on account of India increasing aid to Sri Lanka. Despite that risk, I would request you to step up assistance for Sri Lanka. India can also try and arrange for friendly countries like Israel to give more support to Sri Lanka. I am sure that if your government were to fall, the vast majority of Indians will recognise that you have acted in the national interest and reward you for it at the next national elections due in a few months from now.

While stepping up aid to Sri Lanka, India should ensure that the Sri Lankan government is serious about giving autonomy to the Tamil community and Tamil dominated areas. Rather than merely promoting ex-LTTE men like Colonel Karuna, the Sri Lankan government must be prevailed up on to ensure that non-LTTE Tamil organisations are allowed to flourish. India should ensure that a defeat of the LTTE is not treated as a defeat of Sri Lanka’s Tamil community. Rajapaksa‘s government has a very bad human rights record. The Sri Lankan government has of late wantonly targeted journalists and suppressed all forms of dissent. NGOs have been asked to vacate northern Sri Lanka even though they have been providing desperately needed assistance to the civilian populations there. India’s aid to Sri Lanka should have strings attached. Rajapaksa’s government must be forced to clean up its act. It’s actually a pity that India is forced to support the Sri Lankan government at a time when it is led by a fanatic.

I sincerely hope that both India and Sri Lanka remain unified for all times to come.

Yours sincerely

Symbolic Gestures Are Sometimes Necessary

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:46:44 EST

Veteran journalist Jawed Naqvi is the Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi. Highly respected and very much balanced, Naqvi has in the past worked for Gulf News and Khaleej Times. I have been a regular reader of Naqvi’s articles ever since they started appearing in the Dawn and have almost always been in agreement with the very sensible points of view he usually espouses. However, in his most recent article, Naqvi has taken a stand that I did not fully agree with. According to Naqvi, the refusal to bury the dead terrorists who attacked Mumbai is wrong. In support of his argument, Naqvi says, ‘they should know that no Constitution, other than perhaps the Taliban’s, endorses the abuse of dead bodies.’

Naqvi also finds issue with another symbolic gesture made by Delhi’s Muslim “leaders” “who have reportedly agreed to wear a black armband on Eidul Azha to mark their anguish at the carnage in Mumbai.” According to Naqvi, “nothing could be more cosmetic, meaningless and distractive than to make the token observation.”

Naqvi goes on to say that “everybody has been trying to carry on with life after the outrage.” Therefore, he wonders, why don’t Muslims do the same? In short, Naqvi gets the feeling (and he may be right) that Indian Muslims are forced to make these token gestures to prove their patriotism in the current climate.

Naqvi ends his article by making a very valid point. He says that it is inevitable that the Mumbai attacks were supported by some alienated Indian Muslims. Rather than make token gestures, Naqvi wants Indian Muslims to isolate such alienated brethren in their midst rather than demonstrating their sympathy with the Indian state. I have no issues with Naqvi’s final point. It is far more important that India's Muslim community identify and isolate the bad 'Uns in their midst rather than refuse an Islamic burial to the terrorists. Identifying and isolating the bad 'Uns in their midst is much more important for India's Muslim community than refusing an Islamic burial to the terrorists.However, I think the decision to deny an Islamic burial was essentially right. Also, symbolic gestures can do some good at times like this, though it wouldn’t do to force a community to make gestures. Let's admit it, thanks to Islamic fundamentalists and their activities, Islam and all Muslims have a serious PR issue - an image problem.As any self-respecting PR consultant will tell you, in order to fix an image problem, you need to get to the root of the problem. Getting to the root of a problem usually takes time and effort. Until the cause of the problem is identified and destroyed, it is necessary to undertake a few PR exercises which give some temporary relief.

Naqvi may not be aware of this, but refusal to grant a proper religious burial is one that is not unheard of among Catholics and Jews. If a Catholic commits suicide (prohibited by the Church), a Catholic burial is denied. Recently, the Dutch Catholic church extended this principle to victims of assisted suicide. Jews who practise Christianity will not be eligible for a Jewish burial and Christians who convert to any other religion will not be eligible for a Christian burial. I do not wish to use this forum to discuss whether the Catholic Church or the Jews are right in refusing a religious burial, but only want to stress that the decision to deny a Muslim burial is not unique. The Mullahs who denied the terrorists an Islamic burial have said that the terrorists have ceased to be Muslims by their heinous actions. I find this to be a very valid statement. Only Muslims are entitled to an Islamic burial and if one ceases to be a Muslim, one has no right to an Islamic burial.

If the terrorists were to be buried in an Islamic cemetery, even if the graves are unmarked, wouldn’t the local Muslim community be under so much more pressure for having given the terrorists a final resting place? Sure, they shouldn’t be under such pressure and they shouldn’t be forced to make such symbolic statements, but to be honest, the time for such niceties is long past.

Let me give you an example. Let’s assume a few bloggers (like me) install spy software on their blogs which allows them to hack into their readers computers and steal money from their bank accounts (yeah, I may be stretching it here, but do indulge me). Should I be forced to apologise on behalf of the rotten blogger(s)? No, of course not. What happens if the number of bloggers who play dirty goes up and they receive sympathy and support from say 25% of global bloggers? You can be sure that I would not be in a hurry to declare my blogging habit to a bunch of strangers in a pub after a few rounds. What if readers of blogs lose a lot of money due to a sudden spurt in such nefarious activity? The number of people who read blogs will be drastically reduced and I may be forced to make symbolic gestures to the public at large. I would declare that I have no idea as to who the bad bloggers are. I might donate some money to the people who lost money. I might put up the sign of a wreath on top of my blog, though fat lot of good it would do.

The decision to wear a black arm band is a symbolic gesture for sure, and the ones wearing it are in a sense forced to wear it, but such gestures are now necessary and are not to be written off, until the root of this problem is identified and destroyed.

After the Kargil war, when Pakistan refused to take back its dead, India gave the dead bodies a proper Muslim burial. Images of Indian soldiers conducting Islamic rites were broadcast to the world, giving India a PR coup. Should the Indian government at this stage step in and do what was done after Kargill? Offer an Islamic burial to the dead terrorists in a purpose made graveyard unconnected with any Muslim community in India, distribute photographs of the dead bodies and their burial to the world media and allow family members of the terrorists to visit the graves at any time in the future? The other alternative would be to cremate the bodies in an electric crematorium without any ceremony and scatter the ashes in the Arabian Sea. Let the terrorists float back to where they came from.

Children, Adults, and Other Animals

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:09:21 EST

Recently I read the results of a study on children carried out in the UK which said that more than half the British population believed that children behave like animals. More than half the respondents of the study said that children were increasingly a danger to others. More than one-third of those surveyed also agreed that "it feels like the streets are infested" with children, while 43% said something had to be done to protect adults. Half the respondents did not have much sympathy for children who got into trouble and didn’t think they might need professional help.

I was not surprised by the result of this study. In the last 6 years which I have spent in the UK, I have heard many adults express absolute hatred for children. Married couples have proudly told me that not only do they not plan to have kids, but they don’t like kids in the first place. In the UK, it is still illegal to breastfeed a child in public, though it is not illegal to drink in public (I am not against either activity). Passengers in trains and buses raise eyebrows if a baby starts bawling – why should I be inconvenienced by your child is the usual attitude, though a loud mouthed drunk will be cheerfully tolerated.

On the flip side, I have also seen gangs of children terrorise adults. Entire streets become no-go zones after dark, taken over by mobs of children whose ages range from six to sixteen. In some towns where there is high unemployment, it is common to see children playing truant and wandering around in groups even in the daytime. I’ve seen adults travelling in public transport cower into corners when a bunch of children wander in. Child gangs frequently assault people and commit robberies.

This is not to say that they are no well-mannered or hard-working children in the UK. Most children of middle-class parents in the UK are very well-behaved, in fact better behaved than children in India. I have many colleagues and friends who spend a substantial amount of their free time with their children. I had a (male) colleague who took a few weeks off to help his thirteen year old son prepare for entrance exams to a well-known public school. In all probability, the number of ‘good’ children in the UK exceeds the number of ‘bad’ children, but since the ‘good children are not as visible as the ‘bad’ ones, UK’s ‘children’ problem is bound to catch your eye if you live in the UK for more than a week.

There are various theories advanced for this state of affairs in the UK, which is not seen anywhere else even in the western world. The breakup of the family is usually cited as the main reason, though other European countries where family units have broken down do not seem to have similar problems with their children. In the UK, corporal punishment is banned in school. Parents are allowed to mildly smack their children, though any punishment that leaves a mark on a child can land a parent in jail. Interestingly, various European countries such as Norway, Austria, Germany etc. have totally banned any form of parental punishment that involves violence. The rationale is that no human being should have the right to use physical force against another and children very much fall within the definition of ‘human being’.

The situation in India and other Asian countries is in stark contrast to that in the UK. Asian children are pampered to an extent that may be described as ‘unhealthy.’ In some cases, both sets of dotting grandparents are at hand to do the pampering. Children are brought up to believe that they are the most important thing in their parents’ lives. A working woman who has her child taken care of by a nanny or in a day care centre is looked up on with suspicion, as if she is neglecting a sacred duty. Many Indian schools expect their pupils to receive full-time attention from at least one parent, which will invariably be the mother. There are some schools which refuse to admit students if both parents hold full-time jobs. I have always believed that Indian schools teach their children too much unnecessary stuff and give them too much homework (instead of wrapping up studies during school hours), but that’s for another post.

Every time I’ve travelled by air, the most unruly children are the Asian kids, who seem to be incapable of sitting still. Indian parents tend to believe that their children are entitled to make a nuisance of themselves wherever they are and others have a duty to put up with it. Recently there have been a few stories of how Indians have started to refuse to make allowances for children in public places, but by and large, strangers in India are willing to tolerate the shenanigans of children in public places.

In a way I am glad more and more Indians are starting to demand that parents not inflict their children on others, though I don’t think I would like to see India reach the same position as the UK is currently in. I have always taken the view that what’s usually branded as ‘western culture’ is actually the culture of urbanisation and industrialisation, though Japan stands out as an exception to this. As India progresses economically (at least it did till the recent recession and terror attacks in Mumbai), its culture is bound to follow a trajectory similar to that taken by western countries many decades ago. There will be more and more nuclear families, single parents and broken homes as is currently the case in the western world. However, it remains to be seen if Indian society will reach a stage where it has the sort of ‘children problems’ which UK currently has.

In my opinion, continental European countries like France, Italy and Germany are in a much better position than the UK vis-à-vis children. In these countries, one doesn’t hear of children having such a strained relationship with their parents or having serious drinking or drug-related problems. It is difficult to pinpoint the reasons for this disparity among European nations, but if India continues to industrialise and urbanise, I hope it ends up in the continental European position rather than the British one.

India's 9/11 - Rage, Retaliation, and Restraint, Part II

Vinod Joseph — Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:31:38 EST

I had written Part I of this article just after the attacks started. Now that the nightmare is over, it’s time to analyse the situation with a cooler head.

The Mumbai attacks were India’s 9/11. I say this mainly because it has suddenly become clear to me why the USA not only attacked the Taliban and invaded Afghanistan, but also went on to invade Iraq. The sheer need to find a scapegoat (any scapegoat) and lash out at that entity is overwhelming and I’m sure most readers will understand what I’m saying. However, having seen the disastrous effects of the Iraq war, it becomes all the more important that we do not try and follow the US example. India is a lot less wealthy and powerful than the US and we just cannot afford to make a mistake on the lines of what the US did in Iraq.

Till recently, I was sympathetic to the Pakistani view that the US had no business firing missiles into Pakistani territory, even if the objective was to kill Taliban. Now my eyes have been opened and I can see very clearly why it is absolutely necessary to kill the Taliban where ever possible. If American troops are being attacked in Afghanistan by Pakistan based militants, the US has every right to hunt them in Pakistan.

In all probability, the Pakistani government had nothing to do with the acts of its nationals who participated in this attack. The Pakistan based militants responsible for this attack most probably had the backing and blessings of their local chapter of the Al Qaeda. After all, what’s the Al-Qaeda but a loose coalition of Islamic insurgents who assist each other with funds, weapons and training? Massing troops on the Pakistani border (a la Operation Parakram) or threatening to launch an all-out war will not help anyone, except maybe the Taliban and the Pakhtun fighters in Pakistan’s north-west since Pakistan will switch its troops to confront India and relieve the pressure against the Islamic militants within Pakistan.

Trawling the blogosphere, one finds so many views on how India should react to these attacks. One view is that India must support as many insurgencies and separatist movements in Pakistan as possible, the idea being to cause the balkanisation of Pakistan. The idea has its attraction, but what would we actually achieve? If Pakistan were to splinter, it is likely that each of the chunks that breaks away will be economically worse off. A lot more unemployed men will be available to be brainwashed in the name of religion and used as cannon fodder in a war which doesn’t really concern them. The militants who attacked Mumbai are supposed to have come from impoverished southern Punjab. Let’s assume that Pakistan has splintered into Punjab, Baluchistan, Pakhtoonistan and Sindh. Would it mean that towns like Multan and Bahawalpur would cease to churn out men like Azam Amir Qasab? I seriously doubt it.

Another option I came up on was that India should send troops to Afghanistan to help the beleaguered Americans there. The biggest handicap the Americans face in Afghanistan is the shortage of boots on the grounds. The combined US-coalition troop strength in Afghanistan is not more than 50,000. If we could send our soldiers to help the United States (preferably keeping our soldiers in the north of Afghanistan where the Uzbeks and Tajiks are India’s allies), the fight against the Taliban would progress so much more nicely. Even after the American withdraw, the India-friendly Tajiks and Uzbeks would control northern Afghanistan and put the Pashtuns on the ropes. Making the Pashtuns insecure would revive Pashtun nationalism and cause further trouble for the Pakistani government. The problem with this theory is that it does not explain how support for Islamic militancy will dry up if the Pashtuns are on the ropes in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Internal squabbles within Pakistan may cause some of the militants to ignore India for a while, but it will not last for long. Remember, the Islamic militants in Pakistan are right now in the midst of a full-fledged war against Pakistan and the US in Afghanistan and it didn’t stop them from attacking Mumbai.

Manmohan Singh has already announced the formation of a new federal agency to tackle incidents of this sort. As if we don’t have enough agencies! We just need to reform the ones we already have. RAW and IB ought to be merged. The age-old distinction between external and internal threats is no longer there. External enemies work with internal enemies. Both RAW and IB must be run by intelligence professionals and not by police officers drawn from the IPS. I assume there will be an attempt to reinstate POTA or another avatar of this stupid law. We need to enforce the laws we have, rather than create new laws. Even if POTA were in operation when the Mumbai attacks took place, it would not have made an iota of difference.

Just as the 1962 debacle against China served as a wakeup call to modernise our armed forces, hopefully these attacks will force us to modernise our police forces and our processes for responding to such an event. There were so many things that were so patently wrong in the way we reacted to the attacks. Allowing mobs of people to surround the places under siege, permitting news channels to telecast details of the operations, most of it live, senior police officers jumping into the fray (only to get killed) rather than coordinating efforts, the list of mistakes is indeed very long. I think India was right in refusing to accept assistance from Israel or other countries when the siege was on. No, I am not saying we should be haughty or proud and say No even if we stand to gain. I just don’t think any fighting force can quickly start using new weapons or techniques, especially in the heat of battle. Now that things have quietened down, we should obtain assistance from friendly countries such as the US and Israel and plug the gaps.

There were a few points in our fighting tactics that looked silly even to a layperson like me. Our security forces kept saying that the terrorists seemed to know the layout of the Taj and the Oberoi better than they did. I have visited the Oberoi and the Taj many times and neither of them has a very complicated layout. May be some of the terrorists were locals who had visited the Taj and the Oberoi many times. Maybe the terrorists had visited Mumbai earlier and recconnoitered both the hotels. Nevertheless, there is no reason why our security forces could not have made themselves as familiar with the layout of the hotels as they wanted to be before going in. I remember reading an account of the Israeli operation at Entebbe many years ago. The Israelis obtained a blue print of the airport from the construction firm which built it, prepared a mock-up of the airport and practised with the mock-up before flying to Entebbe. Why couldn’t our chaps have done something similar? And once the militants were holed up in the hotels and NAriman House, why were we in such a hurry to complete the operation. Why didn’t we even make an attempt to capture them alive?

It is said that the local police ran way from CST instead of confronting the terrorists. It does sound like a grievous dereliction of duty, but then our policemen are not trained to fight men who fight back, are they? The average Indian policeman is good at bullying the weak and infirm, conducting midnight raids on brothels and rounding up the hapless women who work there. We need to retrain all our policemen. The armed reserve should be given combat training, rather than merely training them use firearms, whilst other policemen should be trained to understand the public and to work with them.

One kept hearing that the terrorists were armed with very sophisticated weapons. Since when did AK-47s and grenades get classified as sophisticated weapons?

Let me come back to the question I raised in Part I of this article. How do we retaliate against these attacks? We could use this opportunity to try and get Pakistan to extradite Dawood Ibrahim or someone else equally important in the underworld-ISI chain. However, the chances of Pakistan giving up someone so important and who would know so much, are not very high. The best thing to do, in my opinion, would be build a good case to prove that the attackers came from Pakistan. We should involve as many foreign agencies as possible while carrying out the investigation into this attack, including the background of the militants. Our findings will then have so much more credibility. If it is proved that all or most of the attackers came from Pakistan, the Pakistani government will be under tremendous international pressure to take some action against the organisations which planned the attacks.

Some of those involved in planning this attack were doubtless locals. Whatever maybe the grievances they have, I don’t think their actions can be justified. However, we should not condemn an entire community because of a few rotten tomatoes in their midst. Instead, we need to identify such elements and neutralise them before they do further damage. Our intelligence apparatus must be drastically overhauled for this task.

It is a fact that Indian Muslims are relatively poorer than other Indians. They have not really participated in the recent economic boom. Rather than trying to find out who’s to blame for this state of affairs, we ought to ensure that there are more Muslims become software engineers, doctors, lawyers, soldiers, bankers and policemen. If Muslims have a greater share in India’s wealth, there will be few local collaborators for such attacks. Similarly, I think that if Pakistan were to be more prosperous, with fewer Pakistanis living in poverty, the chances of Pakistanis volunteering for such missions will be greatly reduced. No, we will not be able to guarantee that the flow of suicide bombers will totally stop, but it will be greatly reduced. I am not sure though, what we should do to spread the tendrils of prosperity from India to Pakistan and Bangladesh.

It hurts to say this, but we will have to increase our defence budgets and spend more money on intelligence gathering. Rather than increase the size of our armed forces and police forces, we should train them better, arm them better and put in place better processes and a more efficient command structure. This increased defence expenditure is something our country could have done without, but it can’t be avoided after this attack.

Almost all fundamentalist attacks are funded by money from the middle-east. India must stop buying oil from that region, even if we end up paying more. India is Asia’s third largest oil consumer and we import more oil from Saudi Arabia than from any other country in the world. In the last financial year, 73.74 per cent of our oil imports came from the middle-east. India also imports oil from Nigeria and Angola. Getting oil from Russia and Venezuela may be more expensive due to higher transport costs, but at least we will not be putting money into the region that supports murderers such as these. A greater emphasis on alternative fuels will also go a long way in cutting our fuel bills. In these days of falling oil prices and growing alternative sources of energy, this is not an impossible task. With luck other countries will emulate India’s example and stop buying oil from middle-east.