Desicritics Category: Politics: Empire

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.

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.

poem: hatred and love

temporal — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:18:42 EST

Reuters – A clock is seen in front of the
logo of Swiss bank Credit Suisse at
the Paradeplatz square in Zurich …

we have to wait a second longer
for 2008 to end
those who exude hatred
would have more
time
                           to maim
                                 to hate
                                 to kill

i hate hatred
                                 but understand the necessity
without                       hatred
love would have no place to flourish

if hatred was a sacrificial goat
it should be rescued and protected

despite the century of holocausts
armenians, gypsies, jews, hindus, muslims,
cambodians, rwandans, bosnians, chechenians...
despite the murders and mayhems
hate should be protected and mirrored

sorry t.s.e. april is not the cruelest month
                                 november is...

each hateful act, each act of violence
enhances the resolve
                                 to hate hatred
                             to love love
even if it be with moistened eyes

Book Review: The Enemy at the Gate by Andrew Wheatcroft

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:53:39 EST

In 2004, when Turkey’s admission to the European Union was being debated, Frits Bolkestein, a Dutch member of the European Union's executive committee objected on the grounds that Europe risked becoming "Islamized" and the Battle of Vienna would have been in vain.

The Battle of Vienna took place in 1682. At that time, the Ottoman Empire had crossed the zenith of its power and glory. Almost 600 years ago in 1071, at a place called Manzikert in Turkey, Turkish forces had defeated the Byzantine troops of the Eastern Roman Empire. It was the beginning of the end for the Eastern Roman Empire, which had outlived the Western Roman Empire by almost 6 centuries. The Ottomans considered themselves to be the heirs to the Roman Empire, though other western powers did not share that opinion. The Ottomans moved from one victory to another. Murad I and his Christian vassals defeated Lazar, the Prince of Serbia at Kosovo Polje in 1389. Serbia became a vassal state until 1521 when Belgrade was captured. At the Battle of Mohács in August 1526, Sultan Suleiman I (Suleiman the Magnificent) defeated King Louis II and occupied southern Hungary. Vienna blocked the Ottoman route to the heart of Europe. At the height of its glory, the Ottoman troops led by Suleiman the Magnificent tried to capture Vienna in 1529, but the siege failed.

Andrew Wheatcroft’s book The Enemy at the Gate chronicles the second attempt by the Ottomans to capture Vienna, this time in 1683. Wheatcroft is uniquely positioned to describe this conflict since he is an expert on both the Habsburgs, the then most powerful ruling power in Europe with control over Vienna, and the Ottomans. Wheatcroft’s previous works include books on both the Habsburgs and the Ottomans. In clear, lucid style using limpid prose, Wheatcroft builds up the battle settings, giving us an inside view of the players and politics involved.

The Thirty Years War had got over just a few decades earlier and there was not much warm feeling towards the Habsburgs from the Protestant powers. It was even said that Protestants living in Ottoman Europe were treated better than Protestants under the Habsburgs. Even Catholic France was not very supportive of the Habsburgs. The Ottomans too had a major enemy in the form of the Persian Empire with whom they were constantly fighting The main difference between the European wars fought by the Habsburgs and the Persian wars fought by the Ottomans was that the Habsburgs learned a lot from their experiences. Their armies had an organisation and chain of command which the Ottoman armies lacked. The art of generalship was well developed. The Ottomans relied on individual bravery and skills, while the European forces relied on teamwork, organisation and methodical preparation.There were so many areas where the Ottomans were much superior to the Habsburg forces. Their supply chains were much better, with Ottoman soldiers on the battlefield put up in much more comfort than the average Habsburg soldier, though the Ottomans were so far away from home. The biggest advantage which the Ottomans had was that there was a central authority in command, usually the Grand Vizier who acted in the Sultan’s name. In the case of the European forces, the soldiers were supplied by many nation states, some of whom were reluctant to do so and all of whom required payment or other rewards.

The Ottomans lost the battle for Vienna, one of the most intense battles ever fought. There were various reasons for this loss, the main one being the incompetence of the Turkish Grand Vizier, Kara Mustafa. Do read the book to find out the various mistakes which the Ottomans committed. Both sides were charged with zeal, religious and nationalistic. Wheatcroft cites quite a few examples of bravery, but I don’t want to describe them here and spoil the fun. Wheatcroft’s descriptions of battles and troops are second to none. For example, when Wheatcroft describes the Polish hussars who arrived just in time to relieve the siege, he says:

The Polish hussars were heavy cavalry par excellence and they had no equivalent in 17th century Europe, In effect a holdover from the great age of medieval chivalry, man and horse together were a missile with their lance or wielding their long spear like triangular swords more than four foot long – they existed only for the charge. Facing the disciplined volley fire of western armies, they had largely become a liability, but against the Janissary infantry of the Ottomans or their loose flowing formations of sipahis, they could be as devastating as artillery fire.

Wheatcroft does not stop after the Battle of Vienna. He goes on to describe how the Europeans capitalised on their victory and went on to win more battles. Hungary was freed from Ottoman power, though the initial attempt to take Budapest was a failure. As the Ottomans became weaker and weaker, they began to be regarded as just another European power. The Habsburgs and the Ottomans discovered various mutual interests. After Napoleon was defeated by Czar Alexander I, the Russians became stronger and this led to the Austrians and the Ottomans growing closer. During the Crimean war, the Turks fought on the side of France and Britain against Russia. Finally, in the First World War which resulted in the destruction of both the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman empires, the Habsburgs and the Ottomans were on the same side.

An Open Letter to the Dalai Lama

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:49:38 EST

Your Holiness,

I hope this letter finds you in good health. You must be very busy right now, Your Holiness, preparing to attend the six day meet you have convened for members of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in Dharamshala from 17 November 2008 to discuss the future course of action for Tibet. I assume you are not in the best of spirits, Your Holiness. You underwent a surgery for removal of a gall bladder stone last month. You have publicly stated that you have lost hope of reaching a settlement with China through dialogue. Ever since March 1959 when you left Tibet and went to India, you have been trying to obtain a better deal for Tibet and its people. You have not only always stuck to the path of non-violence, but you have also insisted that your followers do the same. All of this is admirable until one realises that, as you recently admitted, you have not managed to wring a single compromise out of China.

Your Holiness, are you worried that history will judge you harshly for not having achieved anything much for the people of Tibet, despite struggling for almost 50 years? I don’t have an answer to that, Your Holiness. Before we respond to that question, why don’t we take a quick look at Tibet’s history?

The Tibetan language belongs to the Tibeto-Burman branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Tibetan is as much distinct from Mandarin as Burmese is. Tibet has always been an independent country. In the early 9th century, Buddhism reached Tibet after a Tibetan king invited Buddhist preachers and artisans from India. There have been occasions when Tibetan kings have defeated Chinese rulers in battle. From the 13th century onwards, Tibet was under the control of the Mongols who also controlled vast stretches of China. It was when the Mongols controlled Tibet that Buddhism spread to Mongolia. In the seventeenth century, the fifth Dalai Lama became the spiritual and temporal head of the whole of Tibet. Tibet has had wars with the kingdoms of Ladakh, Bhutan and Nepal, losing many battles and winning a few.

Since the early eighteen century, the Manchu rulers of China have made claims on Tibet. However, China went into a period of decline after that and Tibet managed to assert its independence. In the early 20th century, the British led a few expeditions into Tibet in order to prevent any Russian influence in the region. The British forced the Tibetans to sign a trade treaty which opened Tibet’s borders to British India. In 1907, Britain also entered into a treaty with Russia which recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.

After China was defeated by Japan in a series of battles in the early twentieth century, Chinese control over Tibet waned. Britain, Tibet and China held negotiations in Simla in 1913 and 1914 to resolve the boundaries between India, China and Tibet. The negotiations broke down and Henry McMahon, the then British Indian foreign secretary and the chief British negotiator, unilaterally demarcated the Indo-Tibetan border. Approximately 9,000 square kilometres of traditional Tibetan territory in southern Tibet (the Tawang region) was given to India (which now forms the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh). McMahon also recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and affirmed that Tibet was a part of China. China did not agree to this Simla convention and hence, this treaty became a bilateral agreement between India and Tibet.

Immediately after the communist takeover of China, the communists took over parts of eastern Tibet and initiated a process of land reforms. Landlords were publicly humiliated and at times executed. However, the traditional Tibetan aristocracy was allowed to remain in place till public unrest in eastern Tibet led to a military crackdown, which in turn led to the Lhasa uprising. It was at that time, Your Holiness, that you fled to India.

Your Holiness, at the time of the communist takeover of Tibet, Tibet was a corrupt and undemocratic theocracy. Monks held all the powers and abused them. The peasants were oppressed and lived in extreme poverty. One of the reasons the Chinese were able to takeover Tibet so easily was because it was a backward, feudal and theocratic state. The blame for this should lie primarily on the Buddhist clergy which kept Tibet in the dark ages. Your Holiness and your predecessors were always at the helm of such a state of affairs.

After Your Holiness came over to India, you set up a Government-in-Exile consisting of a legislative assembly (the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies), an executive (the Kashag), and a judiciary (the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission). You have categorised the Government-in-Exile as a constitutional monarchy. Elections were held and exiled Tibetans voted. You have gone into semi-retirement and if rumours are correct, you would like to retire permanently. Considering the fact that prior to the Chinese take-over Tibet was a full-fledged theocracy, I feel that you have done an admirable job in injecting a decent dose of democracy into the Tibetan community. Since almost all Tibetans are Buddhists, not many Tibetans have objected to having you, the Dalai Lama, a living incarnation of the Lord Buddha, as the head of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. This would mean there is a shade of theocracy in the Government-in-Exile, but I feel this was inevitable.

Your Holiness, your emphasis on non-violence and peaceful negotiations won you not only many admirers all over the world, but also the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. Until you threw in the towel last week, you have always stated that you would be happy with greater autonomy under Chinese authority (on par with what Hong Kong has) and would not press for independence. However, it cannot be said Your Holiness, that all Tibetans have been happy with your approach. Organisations such as the Tibetan Independence Movement, the Students For a Free Tibet led by exiled Tibetans and supported by celebrities like Richard Gere have insisted that Tibet should be independent. They have rightly said that China has been diluting Tibetan culture by flooding Tibet with Han Chinese. Tibet’s natural wealth, especially its forest wealth, has been eviscerated. Most importantly, they say that Tibet has historically been an independent state.

Your Holiness, it must not be forgotten that Chinese rule has brought some benefits for Tibet. There are a lot more roads and railways and industries, though it can be argued that all these developments further Chinese exploitation of Tibet and facilitate Han Chinese expansion into Tibet. We all know that sadly, in Tibet, the Han Chinese outnumber the Tibetans.

Your Holiness, even though you have won international acclaim and admiration, you have not been able to persuade a single country to take concrete measures for Tibet’s independence. Measures such as imposing sanctions against China and not trading with China. Please don’t laugh at me, Your Holiness. I do realise that the mere thought of not trading with China sounds silly. Who can afford to not trade with China? It is not only nation states who can’t afford to antagonise China. A few months ago, the London Metropolitan University awarded Your Holiness a doctorate in recognition of your outstanding achievements in promoting global peace. The threat of a boycott by Chinese students forced this British university to express regret for any offence caused to the Chinese government.

Were things always like this Your Holiness? No, Your Holiness. It is only in the last ten years that China became so powerful. Twenty five years ago, China was an unknown country, tolerated because it was a counterweight to the Soviet Union. Your Holiness, for a couple of decade after you went over to India, there were many armed groups of Tibetans carrying out guerrilla operations against China. These were not on a very large scale and were funded by the CIA. However, they slowly died down due to various reasons. One of the reasons was that India slowly distanced itself from the USA and became friendly with the USSR, which meant that the CIA could no longer use India as a base for attacks on China. Your Holiness, I wonder if your insistence on non-violence as the only option has been mainly because you’ve known that neither the USA nor India would provide the quantum of commitment and support that would make it feasible for Tibetans to fight China.

Your Holiness, even during the period when China was yet to become an economic powerhouse, you could not persuade Buddhist majority countries like Thailand or Sri Lanka to boycott China. Even though Buddhists believe that you are a living incarnation of Lord Buddha, you have not been able to build up any following within the Buddhists among the Han Chinese.

Your Holiness, would things have been different if you have played a less key role right from the time you went over to India? I doubt it Your Holiness. Your personality and charisma gave the Tibetan cause the sort of publicity and respectability that no secular leader could have obtained. It is tempting to speculate on what could have been achieved if a secular person who believed in using all options had headed the Tibetan Government-in-Exile right from day one. At a time when China was fighting the USSR, could such a person have obtained independence for Tibet through armed action? I doubt it, Your Holiness, but we will never know.

Your Holiness, I believe that the head of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile must not be the Dalai Lama. It must be headed by a secular individual. If you are to head this Government-in-Exile, it becomes a theocracy and there is no place in the modern world for a theocracy. However, the Tibetan movement still needs your help. You must not retire completely, though you have expressed your wish to do so. You must work with the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in order to keep the Tibetan cause in the limelight. History has been unkind to Tibet and its people. You have, in my opinion, performed a stellar role in fighting for their rights. I don’t think history will judge you harshly.

Where do we go from here, Your Holiness? I don’t believe that there is a magic solution to the Tibetan issue. I wonder what advice you will give your fellow delegates at the forthcoming conference.

There will be some hotheads who will want armed action against China. Around eight months ago, in March 2008 there were orchestrated riots in Tibet. Nothing much was achieved, but it did scare the Chinese government a lot, since it was so close to the Olympics. Next time your followers try something like that, the Chinese government might not be as restrained, since the Olympics are now over and the Chinese couldn’t give two hoots about public opinion.

I assume muscular lobbying is an option. The Tibetan cause has supporters and well-wishers all over the world. Your Holiness, things can change very quickly. If the current economic recession were to continue, China will not be able to provide employment for many of its restless millions. If economic unrest were to spread in China, which now has a vast rich-poor divide, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile might be able to bargain a certain degree of autonomy for itself. There might even be a fortuitous turn of events which enables Tibetans to get their country back.

I wish Your Holiness and the people of Tibet all the best for the future.

With warm and sincere regards

A blogger from the World Wide Web

Some Thoughts on Uri Avnery's "Manifest Destiny"

Ruvy — Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:40:13 EDT

I first read Uri Avnery's work, Israel Without Zionism: A Plan for Peace in the Middle East in 1971 or 1972, not long after it was published. At the time, Avnery was the publisher of the Hebrew newspaper העולם הזה ha'ol�m hazé - This World. The title of the publication was not without irony. Jews pray for Redemption and to be deserving enough to live in the world of truth, the world after the messiah's arrival, and regard this world as "the world of lies", העולם השקר ha'ol�m hashéker. Avnery's publication was very much concerned with "this world", a world of scandals, sex crimes and politics. His publication set the standard for the preesent day surviving Hebrew dailies, מעריב ma'ar�v and ידיעות אחרונותyedi�t aHron�t, which scream headlines in huge sized font, but are as all forgettable as the paper one uses to wrap fish in. Only הארץ ha'�retz has retained its reputation as a real newspaper that writes in literate Hebrew.

Avnery's politics were "pro-peace" and revolutionary for his day, in that he envisaged Israelis as adopting a "Canaanite" identity whereby they rid themselves of the essential tenets of the "ingathering of the exiles" and worked at integrating themselves into the Middle East as Hebrew-speakers in a world of Arabs. He proposed withdrawing from what was then the barely settled Judea and Samaria and the Heights of Golan, and renouncing the special law that grants citizenship to any Jew coming home within ninety days. He believed then, and still does, that an Israel without its Zionist ideological underpinnings would be accepted by the Arabs in the region. In all truth, I no longer have this book, and forgot what he proposed to do about Jerusalem, but at the time, religious belief seemed on the decline all over the world and I suppose that he imagined that both Judaism and Islam would be consigned to museums in some dusty corner somewhere while folks enjoyed life, eating shwarma, drinking Turkish coffee and dancing the debka.

Thirty-seven years ago, any philosophy that proposed to strip Israel of its Zionist underpinnings seemed heretical and ridiculous to most Jews and to most Israelis. But a number of Israelis did read his book and it planted the seed of what became known as "post-Zionism", a deconstruction of Israeli history that paints Jews (and Zionists in particular) as imperialist agents from the west with no real right to live in the Middle East. The white and blue k�va tembél of the kibbutznik was doffed and the black hat of the evil robber tying the Arab woman to the train tracks while robbing her of her home was donned. Ths is the predominant view today of most of the teaching staff at the various universities in the country, of much of the rich Ashkenazi business elite, many commanders in the IDF, as well as that of the publishers of the Hebrew dailies in Israel. For a time following the signing of the Oslo Acords, many work-a-day Israelis tried to persuade themselves of this idea as well, as difficult as it was to swallow, however the bloodlust of the Arabs in their terror attacks awoke most of them from the delusions of peace. But I get ahead of myself here.

Avnery espouses views which I tend to view as traitorous, but one cannot just label someone like Avnery as a traitor without first acknowledging that he fought for the indedpendence of this country from the British, first with the Etz'el, the city-based Revisionist Zionist military force of Ze'ev Jabotinsky and later MenaHem Begin, and then with the IDF in the Sinai campaign. After the war of independence, he watched, as did most Israelis in the 1950's, as the Algerians fought against the French and he drew his ideas from the fact that his sympathies were with the FLN, the force fighting an imperial power, and from the possibilities that he felt that he saw rise from the existence of the FLN and other nationalistic Arab organizations.

Avnery seeks peace. One cannot condemn a man for following the mitzv� (commandment) of seeking peace. But, it is necessary to look with whom he seeks to deal. Is it realistic? Loving a woman who spurns you continually is seeking love, but it is not practical. The Arabs, in most parts of the Arab world, reject peace with Jews and with Israel. Thirty-eight years ago it was on nationalistic grounds - today it is on religious grounds. But either way "the Arab woman" is spurning "the Jewish man" courting her love. Avnery pursues this course anyway, despite 68 years of experience that tells him the contrary. That he does so is insanity. After nearly seven decades, he should have figured out that his overtures will be spurned and that he is nothing but a useful idiot. But unfortunately, it is also treasonous and endangers the lives of his fellow Jews. Nevertheless, I still get ahead of myself here.

In April 2008, Avnery wrote a piece published at Global Research called "Manifest Destiny?" dealing with what he believed to be the problem facing the Israeli establishment in dealing with what he views as their Arab peace partners. For all my disagreements with the venerable Mr. Avneri, he makes a fundamental point in this essay that needs to be emphasised and re-emphasised to anyone looking at the issues that face Jews in this part of the world.

Avneri sifts through the positions ot various Israeli leaders and comes up with what he views to be the the common thread that creates the problem: their refusal to agree to a fixed border. This is what he criticizes the late and unlamented Moshe Dayan of expressing in a speech to kibbutzniks years ago, this is what he criticizes David ben-Gurion of when fighting for the independence of the country sixty years ago, this is what he criticizes even George W. Bush of in that Bush appears to "buy" the stance of the present "power-holders" in Israel. Let's look at Avnery's words:

That is the reason for David Ben-Gurion's refusal to include in the Declaration of Independence of the new State of Israel any mention of borders. He did not intend for a minute to be satisfied with the borders fixed by the United Nations General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947. All his successors had the same approach. Even the Oslo agreements delineated "zones" but did not fix a border. President Bush accepted this approach when he proposed a "Palestinian state with provisional borders" - a novelty in international law.

In this respect, too, Israel resembles the United States, which was founded along the Eastern seaboard and did not rest until it had reached the Western shores on the other side of the continent. The incessant stream of mass immigration from Europe flowed on westwards, breaching all borders and violating all agreements, exterminating the Native Americans, starting a war against Mexico, conquering Texas, invading Central America and Cuba. The slogan that drove them on and justified all their actions was coined in 1845 by John O'Sullivan: "Manifest Destiny".

This then, is the "secret" agenda against what Avneri views as "peace". In his final paragraphs of his essay he states

Dayan, who was well versed in the ancient texts, probably had in mind the phrase in the Chapter of the Fathers (a part of the Mishnah, which was finished 1,800 years ago and formed the basis of the Talmud): "It is not up to you to finish the work, and you are not free to stop doing it."

That is the hidden agenda. We must haul it up from the depths of our unconscious minds to the realm of consciousness in order to face it, to reveal the terrible danger inherent in it, the danger of an eternal war which may in the fullness of time lead this state to disaster.

Approaching the 60th anniversary of the state, we must draw a line under this chapter of our history, exorcise the dybbuk and say clearly: yes, we have ended the chapter of expansion and settlement.

This will enable us to change the course of the river. To put an end to the occupation. To dismantle the settlements. To make peace. To effect a reconciliation with the neighboring people. To turn Israel into a peaceful, democratic, secular and liberal state, that can devote all its resources to the creation of a flourishing, modern society.

And first of all: to agree on a border.

Avneri is not wrong in all that he says here. We Jews, in dealing with the outside world, must honestly face our past. We must honestly face our heritage and stop trying to weave around it like garden snakes sneaking into a patch of greenery. At bottom here is a call for honesty. And just a day or two before Yom Kippur, when we Jews ask G-d for forgiveness of our sins against Him, honesty is a very good policy. Our biggest problem is not the Arabs, nor the Americans, nor the Russians. It is our fear to face ourselves honestly in the mirror and be honest - brutally so. That is what G-d demands of a people who would call themselves "chosen"; a people who would view themselves as high priests to the peoples of the world.

But Avneri has provided a border, or rather he has quoted one from Yisrael Eldad, a member of the Stern Gang, the smallest military group that fought the British in days of the Mandate. Let's have one more look at Avneri's essay.

Israel Eldad, one of the Stern Group leaders, distributed for many years a map of the Israeli Empire that reached from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates and included all of Jordan and Lebanon, with great chunks of Syria and Egypt thrown in. His son, the extreme right-wing Member of the Knesset Arieh Eldad, has not given up this map.

I have not given up that map either - for it is drawn from our holy books. The exact lines are less important than the concept - that in the world of truth, Israel will control all of the Holy Land, both banks of the Jordan River, a good hunk of Lebanon and a good hunk of Syria extending all the way to the Euphrates.

In the World of Truth העולם האמת ha'ol�m ha'emét, we will live in peace with our neighbors and the foreign nations that stir war between the Children of Abraham will no longer have a voice here. The occupation - the Arab occupation of our land - will end, and the Children of Nevayot and Kedar will sacrifice at a rebuilt Temple on our Temple Mount just a few kilometers south of here in Jerusalem. Jewish and Arab children will play together near the mountains of Moav as their parents pray together in the afternoon sun.

It is time to recognize at long last that there is no such thing as Palestine. It is time to recognize at long last that seeking "peace" with the terrorists who now control the Arab population in the Land of Israel is nothing less than insanity. It is time to be honest and forthright with our Arabs neighbors and tell them that the Prophet David will be ruler here. They will listen, and they will understand - they too respect Sheikh Da'�d el-Nebi.

If we are honest and forthright with ourselves, we will be able to be honest with our Arab neighbors, who deserve to live in peace, prosperity and security, just as we do.

And all of us, all of us Children of Abraham, will be able to look to our Creator and seek forgiveness for our transgressions and hope for a lenient judgment from He Who sits on the Throne of Mercy - rather than stern condemnation from His Seat of Judgment.

Finally, as a Jew who has had a very difficult year, I must ask forgiveness of those of you whom I have hurt. I apologize for the hurtful actions that I may have done, or the hurtful words I may have uttered, in the past thirteen Hebrew months.

g'm�r Hatim� tov� May you all be inscribed in the Book of Life for goodness.

The Voice of America & Other Voices

Shantanu Dutta — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:57 EDT

It was another day and age when the cold war was still raging and the world was still multipolar. Sitting in my Air Force base, I would twiddle my radio knobs in search of some entertainment. Sooner or later, the radio would settle into one of four stations, the BBC, the Voice of America, Radio Moscow and Radio Beijing. Leading the pack would be the venerable BBC with an eclectic mix of music, news, book readings, and even live concerts like the BBC’s Proms in the Park. Radio Moscow was strong on classical music and Radio Beijing on orchestral music and the Voice of America for talk shows.

Each of those stations had their niche and loyal fans and although except for the BBC, even though the other stations were unabashedly propagandistic, listening to two or more stations helped to form a some what more well rounded view of the world. Where else would you hear coverage of Cuba’s health care system? Or the land reforms in the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Laos? Not surely on CNN.

Over the years the world change the radio stations have changed and of course technology has changed. All these stations broadcast on short wave frequencies and listeners had to battle static, fluctuating signals depending on local weather conditions( political or meteorological weather, both ! and stations with more powerful signals broadcasting on a near by frequency.

Over the years, all the stations have changed their character and focus as the cold war ended and other broadcasting platforms became available. The BBC has adapted to the era of the cable television and the satellite radio but the others have not – not in their original avatars and one of them… the Voice of America died a silent death for India as VOA’s Hindi service comes to an end at the end of this month.

The Voice of America, more the Voice of the US Government than its people of course has in a review of its priories in the post 9/11 era decided to wind up the fairly popular Hindi service. I suppose that it has in ways outlived its strategic utility. In the cold war time, with the Indian government firmly tilted towards the Soviet Union, the VOA was a helpful tool for the American media to connect with the Indian public. I suppose that with no Soviet Union left today and both the major political formations in India today – the NDA or the UPA firmly looking to the USA for anchor, the VOA is no longer needed to whisper Uncle Sam’s sweet nothings to Indian ears.

While that may be so, the radio programs always have had loyal listeners’ clubs in the country and these will be devastated. Many of these clubs have been nurtured through the generations and indeed “VOA listeners clubs" have existed in small towns and villages across India, where radio is still a part of daily life. People there have no internet, cable television or even reliable electricity. But they have radio and the defining point for many is to on air for a brief while in the “Call In” programs. VOA pampers its listeners with pens, caps, diaries, T-shirts and key chains. Probably the most popular freebie is the colorful VOA calendar that adorns the mud walls of many homes.

Meanwhile the big daddy of broadcasting in India, the venerable BBC is extending its footfall by engaging further with radio in the FM Mode. BBC has a stake in one of the local stations Radio One and although the Indian government still does not allow the broadcast of news by private channels, the BBC is positioning itself to do just that hoping for the policy to change some day soon. Of course the BBC has always been a commercially run business house and is making its business decisions based on long term business goals and not political agendas. The Voice of America and many of the other voices have been muted because their political objectives have been met. And yet for all the propaganda and the blatantly one sided coverage of news – these voices will be missed; if only they taught you to recognize propaganda well when you heard it over the air waves.

Book Review: When We Were Orphans

Shantanu Dutta — Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:43:49 EDT

“When we were orphans” is a book that oozes gloom and depression like many others by Kasuo Ishigro. The book, which is set in the third decade of the twentieth century hops between Shanghai and London. And is set in the inter war years between World War I and II. It captures the pomp of imperialism as well as the decline of the British Empire very well. The elite Europeans live in the international settlement – a plush, secluded neighborhood while the Chinese live in crowded ghettos and work in the factories so that the rich live their comfortable lives.

At one level, it is the story of a successful detective, Christopher Banks and his quest to discover his roots and solve a case from his own life. Banks had grown up in Shanghai where his father was an officer with a British company dealing with opium – importing it from India and selling it in China. Christopher’s mother is an avid anti opium campaigner who passionately believes that her husband’s company is involved in enslaving the Chinese people by abetting their addiction to the drug and they often have domestic arguments on the issue. In fact for those of us, who have read about the opium wars only in history books, the book offers some interesting insights and background. Christopher has a best friend – a Japanese boy growing up next door by the name of Akura.

One morning his father disappeared from home and never returned back. Shortly thereafter, his mother disappeared too. After the police enquiries turned up nothing, it was arranged for Christopher to return back to England to be brought up by a wealthy aunt. There he goes to a proper public school, trains to be a detective and becomes famous. But as his fame increases and he becomes one of the movers and shakers of London society, he is tormented by the guilt of the unresolved mystery of his parent’s disappearance.

Most of the book is dominated by this over arching theme of Christopher returning to Shanghai, many years later in a world that is rapidly changing – British imperialism is already on its wane and in Shanghai, soldiers of the Japanese Army, the Kuomintang and the communist guerillas as the British and the French watch by nonchalantly from their cosy clubs and hutments in the tony “international settlement” which was parceled out between the various European powers with a base in China. The evening entertainment is punctuated by Japanese bombs falling over the city and imparting it with an other worldly luminescence even as the band plays and the elite waltz in the ballroom.

The concluding chapters of the book will haunt the reader for long. Christopher has for long believed that his father and mother’s disappearance has something to do with his mother’s long crusade against opium trade and his father eventual y beginning to take a stand about this. In fact, he as a detective has built his investigation around this very hypothesis. It therefore stings when it is revealed to him near the end of the film that the reason his father disappeared was that he ran off with his mistress and that his mother allowed herself to be sold as an concubine to a Chinese warlord who in turn paid for Christopher’s schooling expenses.

Kazuo Ishiguro, who has won the Booker and been awarded an OBE conveys the atmosphere of a brooding sense of foreboding right through the opening pages of the book and captures the atmosphere and mood of imperialism at its peak as well as in its decaying days. When we were Orphans” is in spite of the many melancholic themes it addresses through out its pages, still a page turner and that makes it an eminently readable book.

Book review: The Stone Woman by Tariq Ali

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:01:59 EDT

The Stone Woman is the third book in Tariq Ali’s Islam Quintet. Set at the turn of the twentieth century as the six hundred year old Ottoman Empire slowly flickers out, the Stone Woman revolves around the family of Iskander Pasha, who live in a remote palace ‘not too distant from Istanbul’. Iskander Pasha is a retired diplomat who had once graced the French court and the salons of Paris and is the descendent of Yusuf Pasha, a courtier at the Ottoman court.

The novel derives its name from an ancient rock in the palace garden, roughly shaped like a veiled woman, probably once worshipped by pagans as a goddess. Ali has each of his main characters make their way to the Stone Woman and pour out their feelings and emotions. In that sense, the Stone Woman is a collection of various personal tales of the various members of the cast. Unlike the first two books in the Islam Quintet, the Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree and the Book of Saladin (, there is no single strand of storyline that runs from beginning to the end.

The Stone Woman gives its readers a feel of Ottoman society as it existed then. Iskander Pasha’s family cannot be classified as commoners, and just as in the case of the Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree , aristocrats and their servants form the main cast. Ali tells us of a dying empire where the Sultan and the mullahs or the ‘beards’ are in control and where innovation is frowned upon. Not just the printing press, but even clocks have been banned. The muezzin’s call to prayer is the only means of knowing the time. The reader is forced to wonder, can this be the same Ottoman Empire which in 1453 captured Constantinople (or Istanbul) from the Byzantines using the most advanced cannon of those times? The Ottomans were definitely the masters of innovation then. Tolerant Sunnis, they managed to run an inclusive empire where Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Bedouins, Greeks and Slavs were all invited to the party.

In the course of telling his tale, or rather collection of tales, Tariq Ali makes references to various historical events. The increasing animosity between the Kurds and the Armenians (which would later lead to the massacre of 2 million Armenians during the First World War) is brought out very well. To start with, it’s a simple case of the Armenians having some of the best land and the Kurds coveting the land. The inception of the Young Turks movement is also built into the storyline. A young officer named Kemal Pasha makes a few cameo appearances. The Young Turks have contempt for the decadent Ottomans. They want to create a pure Turkish state where there will be no place for Armenians or Greeks. Some of the minor stories are not really relevant to this story, but they are interesting as well, such as the rivalry and differences between the Ommayads and the Abbasids and the reasons for the defeat of the Ottomans at Vienna in 1683.

The main or rather only the problem I have with this story is the same problem I had with the Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree and the Book of Saladin . In this story, Ali’s cast lead a life that would be called ‘liberal’ by even modern-day standards. Iskander Pasha’s brother Mehmed and his gay partner, a German Baron, have an open relationship. Iskander’s third wife is Sara, a Jewish woman. Sara was in love with Suleman, another Jew, but could not marry Suleman. After she was betrothed to Iskander, she made sure she became pregnant with Suleman’s child before marrying Iskander. Iskander eventually gets to know of this, but does not really mind, because he is a man for whom ‘blood relations don’t matter in the least’. Iskander loves Sara’s daughter Nilofer as much as any of his biological children. For the same reason, when Iskander gets to know that woman he had an affair with in France (during his diplomat days) had his child, he does not particularly want to meet that child.

Nilofer is allowed to marry Dmitri, a Greek school teacher. Nilofer’s love for Dmitri cools after a few years and she abandons him for her father’s palace. When Nilofer is at the Palace, she has an affair with Selim, the family barber’s son. At that time, Dmitri who is alone in Konya, is killed by Turkish fanatics. Very soon, Nilofer marries Selim (who made an officer in the army by her brother, a senior army officer) and they seem to be all set to live happily ever after. One of Nilofer’s brothers marries a Coptic Christian in Cairo and another brother marries a Shia Muslim. Also, in the course of the story, when Iskander Pasha loses his voice (please read this book to find out how and why) and later regains it, he thanks August Comtẻ and not Allah.

I am not too sure if families as liberal as the one described in this story ever lived in the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the twentieth century. May be they did. If they did, Ali would have done well to have told his readers the source of his information.

Bernie, You Touched Me

temporal — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:00:13 EDT

I did not know you Bernie. Can I call you Bernie?

Were you married? Did you celebrate your 20th or 25th anniversary? Did you have children? Were you a good father? Were you good friend?

If I do some research I can find out more about you. But that would be later. Here in this park I can only guess.

You must have had your share of cloud nine days just as you would have had pit days.

****

The full moon peaked through the clouds and the waves in Lake Ontario near Lock 1 of the Welland canal reflected the peek-a-boo moon. the light house of the St. Catharines Marina warned the sailors. Sitting under a weeping willow, just east of Jones Beach, the distant lights of Whitby and Oshawa visible over the horizon, a sense of calm prevailed.

It was an unreal calm that for a few moments pushed the headlines mentioning Georgia, Russia, Kashmir, Occupied Palestine, Musharraf far away.

Few moments? Try 3:30 am! Next morning….er….afternoon, after brunch we headed out to a local bird sanctuary and zoo. In the pond a turtle crept up on a rock and was philosophically musing about the world around. A flock of Canada Geese rested in the shade. Past the pond a sign read Nature Trail. I thought, nature does not trail, we do.

There were weeping willows, oaks, maples, birches on this trail. At the end of this short trail we entered a well manicured small park: a memorial to the 47 Canadians who were killed in the twin tower collapse.

Trees found in Eastern Canada were planted and a plaque in front of each tree mentioned the names – Cynthia Connolly, Albert Alfie William Elmarry, Colin Macarthur…

I stopped at Bernard Mascrenhas, born Karachi, 1950.

****

I don’t know you Bernie. Your life was extinguished at a ripe age by the dastardly act of a former CIA golden boy Osama bin Laden. He did not know or care that you were on the 97th floor of the North Tower.

After the fall of former USSR, the US desperately wanted an opponent and 9/11 created that opportunity. At the cost of innocent civilian lives like yours and the others whose misfortune it was to be in the twin towers that day, they nearly succeeded in creating an enemy group that could fill the vacuum of the erstwhile bi-polar world. It found willing accomplices in Islamophobes organizations and states.

Whether Osama still sings to Langley, Va. tunes is open to conjectures.

At lock 1, of the Welland Canal I saw BBC Elbe pass through. I could have touched it. It appeared huge, almost 12 stories high. Later I saw it in Lake Ontario, still big, then growing smaller before fading from view. You will always be close to those who love you, even though you have faded from the memory of others.

I am against the loss of a single civilian life at the hands of a deluded individual, an organization or a state. Not knowing you personally I mourn you. May you be peaceful wherever you are. And may the tree planted in your honour thrive.