The Indian Railway King — The American, A Magazine of Ideas
How did India’s Huey Long become its Jack Welch?
NEW DELHI—In his boyhood, long before Lalu Yadav became India’s most unlikely management guru, he sometimes strayed from his cows and scampered barefoot to the railroad tracks. Dodging crowds and porters, he made his way to the first-class cars and, for a few glorious moments, basked in the air conditioning that blasted from the open door. Then the police would spot him and shoo him away, into the moist trackside cowflap where he belonged.
The boy has grown up, but when I meet him in his New Delhi office, he’s still barefoot, and a headache for train conductors everywhere. Lalu Yadav, 61, is now the boss of all 2.4 million Indian Railways employees. When he wants air conditioning, he nods, and a railway employee hops up to twist the dial. As minister of railways, he rules India’s largest employer—one with annual revenues in the tens of billions—from a fine leather sofa, his sandals and a silver spittoon on the floor nearby and a clump of tobacco in his cheek.
Lalu is a happy man: happy to have risen to become rich, beloved, and reviled all over India; happy that a grateful nation credits him with whipping its beleaguered rail system into profitability; and happy that he’s managed to do all this and somehow stay out of jail. Under his leadership, Indian Railways has gone from bankruptcy to billions in just a few years. When Lalu presented his latest budget to Parliament on February 13, he bragged, "Hathi ko cheetah bana diya" ("I have turned an elephant into a cheetah"). What’s his secret?
“Cow dung,” he says. “I have 350 cows, including bulls. Cow dung—no need of gas.” Everyone tells me about Lalu’s “rustic common sense,” though I’m unsure how burning manure for fuel has made Indian trains suddenly run profitably. But his point is a broad one, about systems efficiency and country wisdom and resourcefulness. “Railways is like a Jersey cow. If you do not milk it fully, it gets tenail,” a swollen and infected udder. Milk every last drop out of Indian Railways, Lalu told his subordinates, and it will prosper.
Only Bollywood does more to unite India than its railways.
The folksiness is no pose. Lalu really did begin as a cow-boy, and he has spent (or misspent) a 40-year career in politics exploiting his bovine roots. Since he became nationally famous in the 1980s, Lalu has been known throughout India as a corrupt and unapologetic yokel, eerily canny in his political maneuvering and cleverer than he looks and sounds.
In his home state of Bihar, where he first rose to power, the common touch served him well. Bihar is India’s poorest and most backward state. In the 1980s and 1990s, Lalu knitted together a coalition of poor Biharis that elected him chief minister. The Lalu years wrecked Bihar further. When corruption allegations surfaced, critics demanded that Lalu resign on moral grounds. The scandal that brought him down, known as the “Fodder Scam,” effectively amounted to a government-wide ruse under which taxpayers paid for nonexistent hay. But Lalu held on for a long time. “I have heard of football grounds and cricket grounds, but not moral grounds,” he said. When the pressure became too great for him to stay in office, he responded with a nepotistic masterstroke, bold even by his standards, and appointed his wife, Rabri Devi, to rule in his place. (“Who do you want me to appoint?” Lalu asked. “Your wife?”)
Lalu may have been corrupt, but he was also a laugh riot. He speaks in an outrageously backwoods Hindi dialect, full of barnyard metaphor and hick wisdom. Even his detractors admit his speech is often charming. “He’s a hugely charismatic man,” says Sankarshan Thakur, a Bihari journalist and Lalu critic. “His ability to reach out beyond language barriers is amazing. He charmed the pants off the Pakistanis,” Thakur says, during government-to-government talks in 2006. On any given day on India’s flourishing array of cable channels, the chances are high of seeing Lalu’s face on a news show, or even on an entertainment show. I clicked randomly to see him guest-judging what looked like an Indian knock-off of “American Idol.” In 2005, a popular Indian film based on “A Fish Called Wanda” took Lalu’s name for its title—“Padmashree Laloo Prasad Yadav”—even though it had nothing to do with Lalu, other than having main characters with his names.
The rest of India chuckled at Lalu, and more often with him. But Bihar remained the most lawless state in the country. “He never tried to do serious business in Bihar regarding development,” says Sushil Kumar Modi, Bihar’s current deputy chief minister, and a Lalu acquaintance for nearly 40 years. “Lalu Yadav is not a serious man. Not a single state-sponsored scheme happened under his rule. He thought, ‘If I can rig the elections, there is no need to do any work.’” Thakur is more damning: “He arrived promising to dismantle the Establishment, an anti-hero out to snatch power from Patna’s bungalows and deliver it to the people, but he ended up a creature of the Establishment himself.” By the time Rabri—a semiliterate buffalo herder who did Lalu’s bidding, and whose name, incidentally, means “Custard Goddess”—left office in 2005, everyone in India knew Lalu, and his name was a byword for incompetence, cronyism, and the abject failure of government.
Even then, Lalu commanded enough of a following among his coalition of “extremely backward castes” (or, in the wonderful semiofficial abbreviation, “EBCs”) and desperately poor Muslims to secure a role for himself in India’s 2004 Congress Party government. He wanted the interior ministry, but the new government wasn’t ready to have a rube in charge of such a powerful portfolio. They gave him the railways ministry, and many expected the same pitiful misrule that had characterized his time in Bihar.
Indian Railways was in trouble: in 2001, a report by the BJP—a government dominated by the Brahmins who are Lalu’s permanent foes—predicted it would hemorrhage cash at a rate of $12 billion annually by 2015. (The whole budget of the Indian government, by comparison, is $128 billion.) Indian Railways was barely managing to cover its daily operating costs, to say nothing of paying for the new equipment and strengthening bridges. The report concluded: “It is very likely that Indian Railways would be a heavily-loss-making entity—in fact one well on the path toward bankruptcy, if it were not state owned.” Outsiders whispered the word “privatization” but were hushed: Indian Railways has been a source of national pride since before independence, and statist sentimentalists could never let it fail.
Lalu’s term as railways minister has been shockingly successful. Instead of turning India’s most prized national institution into a basketcase and a ruin, Lalu has led one of most spectacular economic turnarounds in a country bursting with economic miracles. Indian Railways began raking in cash and posting surpluses in the billions. And the intelligentsia and technocracy, at first shocked and dismayed that a shameless populist had seized a fragile and unwieldy national institution, have largely come around to acknowledging that India Railways has been transformed into a respected institution—and so, possibly, has Lalu.
***
Only Bollywood does more to unite India than its railways. The statistics beggar belief: every year, Indians take 5.4 billion train trips, 7 million per day in suburban Mumbai alone. New Delhi Station sees daily transit of 350,000 passengers, which is roughly five times more than New York’s LaGuardia Airport, and enough to make Grand Central look like Mayberry Junction. The railways’ total track mileage rivals the length of the entire U.S. Interstate Highway system, even though the United States is three times the size of India. Among human resource problems, the railways of India are an Everest. Its employees outnumber Wal-Mart’s by a figure comparable to the population of Pittsburgh. The world’s only larger employer is the People’s Liberation Army of China. (The third-largest employer is the British National Health Service.)
The cerebral cortex of the whole system is the Rail Bhavan, a pinkish monolith near Parliament in New Delhi. The Rail Bhavan is, in a way, surrounded by its own competition: its street is permanently filled with the traffic of taxis, trucks, buses, and rickshaws that for a time seemed poised to steal away the rails’ business altogether. Outside, a decommissioned green locomotive and the railways’ mascot, Bholu the Elephant, announce to the mess of traffic that the railways are not to be counted out.
Inside, the conditions do not inspire confidence. The building is big, disordered, and honeycombed with offices that bear stultifying bureaucratic titles (“Manager, Zonal Railways, Deputy”). The hallways all have torn-up ceilings. Some are so dark that I have to use a pocket flashlight to read names on the doors, and inside the offices the level of technology is shockingly low. Employees’ business cards have Yahoo! addresses. P.K. Sharma, the bright and competent director of personnel, has on his desk a foot-high pile of green folders bound together with shoelaces. From that desk, 2.5 million lives are managed, and there is not a computer in sight.
The world has few centrally managed organizations as large as Indian Railways, and surely none maintains the same level of performance.
Indian Railways is a government enterprise, and it has the dead weight characteristic of state organs. Employees live in housing provided by the Railways, send their kids to Railways schools, and visit Railways doctors when sick. Nearly a million are pensioners, and therefore provide no value to the ministry at all. Those who do work encounter predictable bureaucratic headaches: the ministry’s departments (six in total, for electrical, staff, engineering, mechanical, traffic, and financial concerns) operate in a stovepipe fashion, with minimal cross-pollination and little effort to coordinate and ensure that the railways as a whole run well. And ultimately Indian Railways has to answer to the taxpayers and citizens who support it, and who quite understandably want assurances that their train set will keep its fares low enough for them to afford.
Somehow it all works out. The world has few centrally managed organizations as large as Indian Railways, and surely none maintains the same level of performance. Delays are inevitable. But even when disaster strikes—as when terrorists bombed tracks in Mumbai in 2006—the railway heals itself quickly, usually within days, like a starfish growing back its arm. To grasp the difficulty of the operation, just imagine running a much bigger version of Wal-Mart, and then add a few wild cards, such as an employee literacy rate of 60 percent and terrorists trying to blow up your stores.
***
As chief minister of Bihar, Lalu may have been a buffoon and a grifter, but he didn’t fail entirely. And the ways in which he courted failure, but didn’t quite succumb to it, offer a clue as to how Lalu has succeeded at the railways ministry.
He plundered Bihar like every Bihari leader before him. Lalu’s great innovation was to entertain the masses, and to dignify their suffering with a show of attention. He held court at the chief minister’s residence and listened to common people’s grievances. Even if he ultimately did nothing to ease their pain, they left knowing that they had spoken to the most powerful man in the state, and he had responded in the same dialect they spoke to their own friends and family. When his children fell sick, Lalu himself stood in line with them at the public clinic. Never mind that the lines were long, and the treatment horrifying, because kleptocrats had looted the public coffers: Biharis saw their chief minister waiting like a poor, ordinary man, so they forgave him for being rich and extraordinary.
At Indian Railways, Lalu retained that popular touch and remade the passenger experience accordingly. A key feature of train travel, even in the cheap seats, is tea service. Lalu banned plastic teacups, which had been littering the countryside, and replaced them with peasant-made kullhars—earthen mugs that after a single use can be smashed on the ground, where they then return to the mud from which they are fired. He employed weavers to make bedding out of khadi (homespun cloth). And to avenge his childhood eviction from the air-conditioned cars, he introduced a new class of service: garib rath, “the poor man’s chariot,” on which the single frill is air conditioning. Despite boasting this once unimaginable luxury, garib rath is extremely cheap, within reach of even the backward castes from which Lalu himself hails.
But his single most important innovation at Indian Railways was not a populist move at all. It was an elite one: the hiring of a prodigiously talented civil servant named Sudhir Kumar. Kumar, 50, is from a Gujarati family in Punjab. The family knows business: “If there is money lying around, we can smell it,” Kumar says. His father was a clothing wholesaler, and his brothers and sisters have, according to Sudhir, made a fortune in business for themselves. Sudhir takes pride in having given up the joys of free enterprise to work for the government, a calling he regards as nobler and more satisfying than work done for personal gain. He clambered over thousands of competitors to land in his current job as a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), a sort of Delta Force for Indian civil servants. Every year, out of 300,000 aspirants, no more than 60 make the grade. They fan out all over India to solve the subcontinent’s most intractable problems, before heading back to New Delhi to regroup and take their next assignment.
Kumar’s first big assignment was Bihar. Bihar broke up into two smaller states in 2000: Jharkhand, which contained rich mineral and coal deposits, and Bihar, which had the larger population by far. Bihar stood to lose over half its tax revenue. (When Japanese businessmen expressed interest in the mineral wealth and promised to bring prosperity to the stricken region, a joke circulated: “Give us mineral rights,” the businessmen told Lalu, “and within six months, Bihar will be like Japan.” “That’s nothing,” Lalu said. “Give me Japan for six weeks, and it will be like Bihar.” It’s a testament to Lalu’s brazenness that this exchange seems plausible.) Kumar’s job had been to separate the two states in a way that allowed each to establish a sufficient tax base within seven years. He did it in 30 months by closing loopholes in the tax code, cutting deals with tax cheats, and in general collecting taxes with an intensity most Indians would reserve for a cricket match or a ground war.
Lalu noticed. When he ascended to the railways ministry in 2005, he requested Kumar as his deputy. Kumar had risen to an IAS position so elite that his move required parliamentary approval, which quickly arrived. The Congress Party’s coalition government, now led by the Oxford-trained economist Manmohan Singh, prized technical competence and was happy to appoint a shrewd bureaucrat to watch over its most unlettered cabinet member.
Lalu plundered Bihar like every Bihari leader before him. His great innovation was to entertain the masses, and to dignify their suffering with a show of attention.
Since then, Kumar has labored in an office immediately opposite Lalu’s, but completely unlike the minister’s opulent, wood-paneled lair. The minister lounges on his sofa, watching NDTV, a TV news network. Kumar’s two flat-screens show real-time data on the country’s main routes. Periodically, a minion walks into Kumar’s command center to present a 20-page stack of papers that represent the day’s statistics on passengers, freight, and on-time arrivals. “Like Jack keeps a daily tab, I also keep a daily tab,” Kumar says, referring to Jack Welch, one of his idols. The contrast with Lalu’s own listless inattention is jarring. When Lalu tells me about his success, mumbling vaguely about winning “the confidence of the business classes,” Kumar shouts from the back of the room, citing revenue figures from memory. And when Lalu drifts off on earthy tangents about dung or latrine systems (“urine—it fall all over the platform”), Kumar winces.
Lalu and Kumar rule the railways ministry as twin consuls, and they rule it well. Officers snap to attention and salute when they pass in the corridors. In his relatively spartan office, Kumar’s sole concessions to luxury are a private bathroom, an attendant who refreshes his tea constantly, and an unshakeable air of dry superiority that would be less tolerable, were he not the brains behind several industry-changing decisions.
***
None of the innovations was original. All sound, in retrospect, like no-brainers: make the trains faster, heavier, and longer. Kumar wrinkled his nose when I pointed this out. “A five-billion-dollar no-brainer!”
Political considerations precluded hiking fares, which in any event were often so low that a huge increase would bring in only a little more revenue. (With unlimited-travel passes in Mumbai costing as little as $2 per month, it’s a mystery why Indian Railways collects passenger fares on some routes at all.) And none of the standard remedies for weak businesses—selling off under-performing assets, or laying off employees—could happen, because Lalu forbade anything that could make him look unfriendly to the poor. “People used to say about Jack that he will nuke every damn thing which is not profit-making,” Kumar complains. “But I can’t nuke anything, because of the political imperatives. I had to serve an omelet to the nation without breaking any eggs whatsoever.”
The first and most crucial change was born from the minister’s own whimsy. In his first month as railways chief, Lalu visited a railway stop in Danapur, Bihar, for a spot inspection of the freight. The demand was ridiculous: since the station lacked an in-motion weigh bridge, railwaymen had to remove every item from a train and weigh it on a small industrial scale. Lalu lounged nearby, supervising the workmen from his chair, like a zamindar in the days of the Raj. The scale pinned at just a couple hundred kilos, and the train was rated for a thousand tons of freight. “My minister was new,” Kumar says, “and no one had the courage to tell him that this wasn’t the way it could be done.” Eventually, the station manager mustered the courage to inform Lalu that he would have to sit for a full week watching the operation, and that he should give up, go home, and rest. Lalu, showing the stubbornness of a newcomer, instead demanded that the whole train re-route to Muri, roughly 250 miles away, whose station had a larger scale.
When the workers weighed the car and found it overloaded, Lalu demanded that every train in India be weighed at once, at one of the 30 weigh bridges. Overloading turned out to be rife, and the minister, incensed at the possibility that employees and customers were defrauding the railways, visited Kumar. “If you are carrying this load in any case, and I haven’t seen your tracks damaged, why are you not charging for it? If your locomotives are in any case carrying this load, why the hell you can’t increase the axle load?”
“The only disgruntled element in this exercise was the employees and customers who were part of this hanky-panky,” Kumar says. (Lalu himself is more triumphant: “Some mafias were working in this business. I caught them and punished them!”) The spot inspection served as a pivot from which Indian Railways as a whole could reform itself. The change ultimately became a billion-dollar improvement in the revenues of the railways.
The decision did entail some risk: heavier axle loads mean greater wear on tracks and bridges, and therefore greater need to replace infrastructure. If a train derailed, the public would blame heavier axle loads, and the minister would have to resign. But Kumar says Lalu’s friendly relationship with his public gave him more room to accept risk. “My mother has taught me to take the bull by the horns,” Lalu said. “If you try to take it by the tail, it will kick you in the ass.” “No other minister could summon the courage to do this,” Kumar explains.
His single most important innovation at Indian Railways was not a populist move at all. It was an elite one: the hiring of a prodigiously talented civil servant named Sudhir Kumar.
The move to heavier axle loads looks like an obvious move in retrospect, but similar actions at other railways have required years of study and bureaucratic maneuvering, says Steve Ditmeyer, an American railroad expert who has studied the Indian Railways turnaround. To move to heavier loads means making sure the part of the surge in revenue from the extra freight—really the same amount of freight, just more paid freight—needs to be set aside for a faster rate of track replacement. Lalu demanded from on high that axle loads increase. Kumar studied the problem and implemented the order, coordinating with department heads and India’s independent safety commissioner.
“The Railways was struggling with this problem for the last 25 years, but they didn’t have the consensus” necessary to make the change, Kumar says. “This one small inspection brought about that consensus.”
In addition, Kumar and his team began examining the competition more closely. In the 1990s, Indian Railways had so exasperated customers that even cement manufacturers, whose dense product is perfect for rail travel, had shifted their share of the logistics market to trucking. Indian Railways’s share of their business fell from 71 percent in 1991 to 30 percent in 2004—even though Indian roads are terrible, and unlike trains, trucks must clear customs, pay taxes, and pay off tax inspectors at the borders between each of India’s 33 mainland states and union territories.
The system had been rigged to handicap trucks by imposing bureaucratic requirements at borders. But in most other respects, trucks were simpler: Indian Railways maintained a complex tariff card, which the British drafted in the 1860s and which still included a range of archaic commodities. With corrigenda, it fattened to the size of a phone book.
“If you have to hire a truck driver, he’ll just ask, ‘If you want to hire my truck, I’ll charge 40 thousand rupees,’” Kumar says. “Even if you’re carrying an empty box, you have to pay full charge. So we said, ‘Why the hell Railways are getting into this mess?’” The tariff card shrunk to the size of a postcard (even though it still specifies rates for jute and “edible salts”). With that reform Kumar and Lalu began working closely with industry to recapture market share, and to outsource the difficulty of filling freight cars efficiently to their customers. “Whatever you carry,” Kumar says, using a favorite phrase, “it’s your funeral.”
In previous regimes, Indian Railways assumed a monopoly position. “We are not in the business of railways,” Kumar says. “We are in the business of transportation. And we have competitors.” Industry members echoed the position. One told me that the previous leadership of the ministry had rationed out the railways’ services, whereas now close attention is paid to customer demand. A logistics manager at a Calcutta manufacturing giant likened the succession of business-friendly measures to the succession of record-setting pole vaults by the Soviet athlete Sergei Bubka—an endless series of efforts to outdo oneself.
At the same time, Kumar engineered a system under which inspections of trains took place after a fixed number of kilometers of service, rather than after every trip. Trains languished for shorter times in railyards. And increased freight and passenger business—in part the result of cozier relations with industry and passenger enthusiasm for innovations such as Lalu’s garib rath—meant that each train could add several extra cars, and unit cost plummeted by as much as 50 percent. Adding cars generated plenty of bottom-line revenue: the trains were already going, so the cost of adding an extra car was marginal.
Underlying all this, Kumar tells me with undisguised pride, working off a PowerPoint presentation seemingly designed to show up the BJP committee that predicted doom for Indian Railways seven years ago, is an insight borrowed from India’s telecom boom: bigger is better. “Which is a bigger play on scale or volume?” he asks. “If you were to build Indian Railways today, it would cost you not less than a trillion dollars. But once the network is laid”—like the initial outlay for India’s mobile towers—“the less one unit costs. What applies to telecom equally applies to me.”
***
Lalu’s success owes everything to Kumar, but Kumar deflects the praise back to the minister—most of it, anyway. “This is a democracy. I have only the power and clout that he gives me, and I am a big zero without him. The day he decides he does not need the services of Sudhir Kumar, within hours I am gone.”
But there’s glory in the turnaround for Kumar, too. During our conversations, a bespectacled young doctoral student from Columbia University interrupts us to show Kumar manuscript pages from a book they are coauthoring about the turnaround. And Kumar’s agenda included a meeting with a major commercial publisher. Kumar has brought in American and French experts on railway management—including Ditmeyer—and solicited reports from them that invariably mention his own role in the transformation.
‘Boys and girls from Harvard, they come to me,’ Lalu bragged, slapping the soft sole of his bare foot with a crack to stress the irony.
I asked Kumar whether the temptation of private-sector work would eventually draw him out of the IAS. His response was curt. “There is no temptation, sir. The kind of satisfaction you get there is nothing compared to the satisfaction of serving my country.” He put down his papers, and his offended expression melted into a look of pain. “My father,” the prosperous clothier, “said, ‘Go to serve the people.’ He uttered these words, and within four hours, he was no more. I am living with that every single day.” He put down his stack of papers. “When you are giving shape to the dream of your father—what better way to self-actualize?” Even in the language of Tony Robbins, the speech is affecting. At this the tears welled up, and the prince of the railways wept into his tea.
Bringing in Kumar clearly helped Lalu instill professionalism in the ministry. But it was equally vital that he did not bring the crew his critics expected. Lalu’s first acts included an outright ban on his own cronies and family members in the Rail Bhavan. In Bihar, they had lurked on the sidelines, awaiting patronage from the chief minister. The corruption reached ridiculous levels: when I visited in 2001, media murmured about malfeasance in the state’s smallpox eradication program. It was regarded as suspect that the state employed several people to guard against a disease that since the 1970s had existed only in heavily guarded vials in Atlanta, Georgia. Bandits (“dacoits,” in Indian English) plagued the countryside and kidnapped anyone with money. Sometime, they put obstacles on the train tracks, so they could plunder the cars, each a curry-scented movable feast of defenseless passengers and freight.
In 2008, I returned to see how Bihar had fared under three years of rule by Nitish Kumar, a longtime Lalu foe and, not coincidentally, the minister of railways who preceded Lalu. I mentioned to Lalu that I planned to visit Bihar. He seemed unconcerned about dirt I might dig up, and said I should greet the manager of the Maurya Patna, the city’s only international-standard hotel. “They buy my milk.” When I added that I would not fly, but would take his “poor man’s chariot,” he jerked to attention and warned me gravely, with a wag of the finger, to hold my belongings tightly and to avoid accepting food from strangers on the train, lest I be poisoned and robbed.
I arrived in Patna safely. In Lalu’s absence, everything had improved—even the railway station itself. It is still no Grand Central, and if it had an Oyster Bar I’d probably skip the raw ones. But its third-class waiting room can no longer be described (in the words of my old guidebook) as “an underground car-park for human bodies.” The city of Patna had once resembled a medieval warren. Now, in the busy streets, pissy stenches singe the nose not constantly, but only in a few informally designated areas. The hotels have sold out their rooms for wedding parties. And at night, the Mayfair Ice Cream Parlor is packed with kids, and the ice cream probably won’t give you the runs.
Years after Biharis voted him out, Lalu’s picture is still everywhere—in shops, on banners over the road, and even, I am told, on bathroom doors (in lieu of men’s and women’s stick figures, they sometimes use portraits of Lalu and Rabri). But the people who speak to me do not remember Lalu fondly. In the years since Nitish Kumar came to power, the city has flourished, and the state government has fought against the gangsterism that pervaded the countryside. Eight years ago, in Patna and the rural areas alike, murders and kidnappings were common. Now, as in most Indian cities, the greatest safety risk is the traffic. On the train back to New Delhi, a man in my railway berth offered me raisins, and I felt safe enough to try one.
***
Lalu mismanaged Patna terribly. So how has he managed a gargantuan state organ so well that students from Kellogg and Wharton are taking notice?
Part of the answer lies in India’s recent economic growth spurt: Lalu stood on the shoulders of an economy that never grew by less than 6 percent per year during his whole tenure as railways minister. (India’s economy has slowed considerably since the global downturn began.) With a boom like that to fuel demand, how could he fail? All he had to do was sit back and let the market propel him forward. Indeed, Sushil Kumar Modi, the politician who claims to be picking up after Lalu’s mess in Bihar, notes that Lalu still spends all his time in Bihar, and rarely visits his own New Delhi office. The railway turnaround began before he took over the ministry, during Nitish Kumar’s reign, although few predicted that it would continue as it has. The most cynical of his critics expect to discover after Lalu has left the ministry that safety corners have been cut, and that his successor will have to deal with a series of derailments and bridge collapses. But outsiders such as Ditmeyer say that Lalu’s management has been fundamentally sound, assuming he’s making the proper investments in maintenance.
‘If he is held responsible for failure,’ Kumar complained, ‘he should be responsible for success as well.’
The other half of the explanation, though, seems to be a simple case of democracy and markets working. One of the salutary effects of India’s recent boom is that people such as Lalu have more opportunities to be measured, and even civil servants such as Kumar are eventually subjected to the same pitiless bottom-line scrutiny that businesses face. Only recently did India really begin to shake off its penchant for state-owned enterprise. By the time Lalu took over, it was no longer possible for Indian Railways to run as if it were a monopoly in the transportation sector, or as if it were a Lalu fiefdom, as Bihar was for so long.
Sankarshan Thakur, the journalistic gadfly who wrote a caustic account of Lalu’s failure in Bihar, says Lalu is managing the railroads competently as penance for his mismanagement of Bihar. “Lalu got insecure,” Thakur says. “He was sorely wounded by defeat in Bihar, and he needed to recover.” The railways ministry is a constituency-building ministry, one that allows a politician to be observed succeeding. He had failed in Bihar, and if he hoped ever to recover the leadership he once enjoyed, he had to run the railways ministry with exemplary competence. Everyone is watching, including the peasants. Lalu’s constituents are now not only voters but customers. Biharis kicked him out once already, and he’s acting responsibly so they don't do it again.
Lalu is aware of his new publicity, and he courts it. David Blair, a railways expert from Washington, D.C., brought a delegation of students to meet Lalu and was shocked to discover that a camera crew lay waiting to record their visit. “Boys and girls from Harvard, they come to me,” Lalu bragged, slapping the soft sole of his bare foot with a crack to stress the irony.
***
After our conversation, Kumar joined me for lunch at the Shangri-La Hotel. The Shangri-La competes with Imperial and the Oberoi for New Delhi’s business visitors, and on that summer day, foreigners in navy and black suits waited with us for the buffet to open. To wear a suit in India during the summer bespeaks either total ignorance of the oppressive humidity, or—surely the case with these men—an expectation of door-to-door travel from one four-star air-conditioned paradise to the next. These men lived the life Kumar passed up when he joined the civil service, and which his brothers and sisters apparently still enjoy.
While a waiter filled our glasses with ice water, Sudhir kept making the case for his boss. Be wary of Lalu’s critics, he said. They’re a jealous bunch, and hypocrites to boot. They criticize him for his Bihar failures, but then overlook his railway success. “When Lalu presented his first budget to Parliament, everyone said Lalu had been busy campaigning in Bihar, so Dr. Manmohan Singh”—India’s current prime minister and former finance minister—“had drafted this budget. They could not internalize that it came from Lalu-ji, because he’s a shepherd or farmer or whatever.”
“If he is held responsible for failure,” Kumar complained, “he should be responsible for success as well.” Kumar was pleased with that line, and nodded across the table to the Columbia economist, as if to remind him to save it for their book. And as for Lalu’s successors, Kumar warned, they’ll be subjected to a higher standard than before. “If they revert back to two-percent growth, Parliament will not accept it. A democracy will not accept it.”
Lalu, in all his rustic ignorance, had chosen not only a shrewd businessman but a political philosopher, self-actualized equally by his business savvy and patriotic self-abnegation. Kumar stood up grandly, strode to the vegetarian entrees, inserted his shoulder firmly amid the businessmen, and triumphantly spooned out some korma.
Graeme Wood is a staff editor at The Atlantic.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
'He saved me, but I could not save him'
'He saved me, but I could not save him'
'He saved me, but I could not save him'
Hamid Mir in Mingora, Swat | February 20, 2009 | 21:46 IST
Excerpts:
The Taliban of Swat generally considers the electronic media as its enemy. They think that all the private television networks are in the control of the government and that the electronic media only projects the destruction of schools by the Taliban.
On the other side, the security forces always accuse the media of projecting the Taliban as heroes. The government has also discouraged the coverage of 'terrorists' on the media, but the same government and security forces have no problem in negotiating and making deals with the terrorists.
Musa said, "You will watch the scenes of destruction in the civilian residential areas of Kabbal. You will show destroyed homes and mosques and people will compare your coverage with the bombing of Gaza by the Israelis. You will become a security risk and they will kill you in the name of national interest and the blame will be thrown on the shoulders of the Taliban."
Some top officials in the security establishment have always considered brave journalists like Musa as 'bad chaps.' The slain journalist always refused to accept dictation from security officials. Musa's temper was another problem. Once a security official abused him and Musa abused him back. It was the start of a big problem. Musa was kidnapped and beaten for two days. He was threatened not to make a fuss or his family would be killed. Musa shared this incident with me and some other colleagues.
Geo TV Executive Editor Hamid Mir, whose colleague Musa Khankhel was murdered in the Swat valley this week, asks why the media is being targeted in the area.
'The pen is mightier than the sword' was a phrase that we learnt at school. Unfortunately, the dangerous situation in Swat has changed this phrase. Now it should be like 'the gun is mightier than the pen.' The truth is bitter and difficult to digest.
The assassination of brave journalist Musa Khankhel in the valley of Swat has discouraged many who always believed in the might of the pen.
Dozens of journalists left Swat within hours after the burial of their colleague. Many television channels moved their staff with equipment to safe places like Peshawar. Now the world may not watch the live coverage of the peace march initiated by Maulana Sufi Muhammad or the janaza(burial ceremony) of any slain journalist from Swat.
A senior journalist of Swat introduced me to at least two of his local colleagues and claimed "these two soldiers of the pen will also be killed very soon because they are fearless like Musa, but maybe you will not be able to telecast live the janaza of these two."
At least three local journalists working with prominent television channels informed me that they received threats to their lives even after Musa's assassination. Some of them were told by the callers that the technical staff of their channels who came from Lahore, Islamabad and Peshawar for the live coverage of the situation in Swat would not stay alive and to send them back immediately.
Two technicians of the Geo television channel with a van full of transmission equipment were rounded up by the Taliban in the Chaharbagh area of Swat the other day. The Taliban declared them spies, but released them later on a promise that they will not come back.
An emergency meeting was called at the Swat Press Club to discuss new threats faced by journalists. I tried my best to convince more than 150 journalists there that they should not leave Swat. Maybe I was not aware about the problems faced by local colleagues. They blasted me and said the government is not in a position to provide them security. On the other hand, their superiors push them to find some exclusive stories and visuals. This urge for exclusives is not in the interest of both the Taliban and the security forces. They face problems from both.
One journalist angrily said he can only continue his profession by keeping a heavy weapon with him. I discouraged him and said that journalists should not carry weapons and they can take some other security measures. Most of the colleagues present did not agree with me. A young journalist showed me a pistol hidden under his jacket and said he did not move without his gun.
One local journalist proposed at the meeting that "we request all our non-local colleagues to leave Swat immediately because there is no government here and we cannot provide them security. They should come back when the times get better." Within seconds a majority of the local and non-local journalists supported this proposal. Only one local journalist Shrinzada and a local newspaper editor Ghulam Farooq opposed this move and pleaded with tears in their eyes that they were ready to sacrifice their lives like Musa, but they would not stop speaking and writing the truth.
We had no other choice, but to respect the majority. I also accepted the majority decision and agreed to leave Swat. But I must explain why the presence of the independent media is not in the interests of both the Taliban and the security forces.
The Taliban of Swat generally considers the electronic media as its enemy. They think that all the private television networks are in the control of the government and that the electronic media only projects the destruction of schools by the Taliban. They accuse the electronic media of having no courage to show schools occupied by the army and used as bunkers. They allege that sometimes local journalists provide information about their presence to the security forces and as revenge they have banned all the television channels to be telecast in Swat.
On the other side, the security forces always accuse the media of projecting the Taliban as heroes. The government has also discouraged the coverage of 'terrorists' on the media, but the same government and security forces have no problem in negotiating and making deals with the terrorists.
Some top officials in the security establishment have always considered brave journalists like Musa as 'bad chaps.' The slain journalist always refused to accept dictation from security officials. Musa's temper was another problem. Once a security official abused him and Musa abused him back. It was the start of a big problem. Musa was kidnapped and beaten for two days. He was threatened not to make a fuss or his family would be killed.
Musa shared this incident with me and some other colleagues. I wrote about these threats in an article in The News on January 13.
I wrote in that article: 'I also know another journalist of Swat by the name of Musa Khankhel from many years. In the last few months alone, he has survived two assassination attempts. He told me that some elements within the security forces wanted to eliminate him physically due to his reporting.'
A few hours before his murder Musa sent me a message that I must be careful while moving in the Kabbal area of Swat. I asked him why he was worried even after the peace initiative by Maulana Sufi Muhammad and the ten-day ceasefire with the Taliban. Musa said, "You will watch the scenes of destruction in the civilian residential areas of Kabbal. You will show destroyed homes and mosques and people will compare your coverage with the bombing of Gaza by the Israelis. You will become a security risk and they will kill you in the name of national interest and the blame will be thrown on the shoulders of the Taliban."
He convinced me that my movement in the most dangerous area of Swat was not in the interest of those who always considered the free media their enemy.
I never underestimated his opinion and immediately left Kabbal. Two hours after this telephone conversation I received the shocking news about his killing. He was concerned about my safety, but not about his own. He saved me, but I could not save him. Peace in Swat was Musa's dream, but he is no longer alive to fight for it.
The situation in this valley of horror and terror is very complicated, but I am still hopeful despite the fact that there is lot of distrust between the Taliban and the security forces. The moving force behind this peace move are the common people of Swat.
The ruling Awami National Party is a secular and liberal party and took a risk by negotiating peace with the religious cleric Maulana Sufi Muhammad, who does not support democracy but supports peace in Swat. The ANP leadership is aware that if there is peace in Swat then the government will get a chance to establish its writ. A provincial minister, Bashir Balour, visited Swat on February 18 after a long time. Two more ANP ministers visited Swat the next day to condole Musa's death.
The visits by provincial ministers to the no-go area of Swat proves that the ANP will not be the only beneficiary of peace in Swat, but the whole State of Pakistan will be ultimately benefited because only peace can help the State establish its writ.
Maulana Sufi accepted the importance of the political forces by sitting with them to negotiate peace. This move is the victory of political forces because finally they will try to force the Taliban to surrender their arms.
If the Taliban agrees to surrender then the provincial government can announce an amnesty for them. More than 400 closed schools can be reopened and more than 200 destroyed schools can be rebuilt.
Thousands of girls can go back to their education only if Maulana Sufi's peace initiative is a success. He has promised he will make all efforts to reopen the girls's schools. He cannot back out.
The majority of people in Swat say, "Peace and stability of our area is more important than winning the so-called war against terror." They are angry with the reaction of the West and some liberal Pakistani analysts who think that peace will only benefit the Taliban. These analysts must risk a visit to Swat in the interest of the truth. They will realise that there are only two options for the State of Pakistan to bring stability in Swat. One is peace and the other is war.
The State cannot win this war because the use of guns and tanks will keep producing more Taliban. If there is no peace, there will be more anarchy. There will be no development. No schools, no newspapers, no television networks. More journalists will be killed. More journalists will leave Swat.
I am leaving Swat today. I am committed to return to Swat, but I cannot come back if there is no peace. I can only use my pen and camera to report the truth if there is peace. Otherwise, I will become another Musa Khankhel and my pen will be silenced. Musa was killed by those who do not want peace. ANP Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain said Musa was killed by a 'third force.' He never identified the 'third force.' Maybe he will expose the 'third force' after bringing peace to Swat.
Musa once asked me that if the British government could talk to the Irish Republican Army and make peace with them, then why can't the Pakistani government negotiate peace with the Taliban? I know that Gordon Brown or Barack Obama would not like this question to be answered. Maybe they will say that Musa Khankhel was a Taliban sympathiser.
'He saved me, but I could not save him'
Hamid Mir in Mingora, Swat | February 20, 2009 | 21:46 IST
Excerpts:
The Taliban of Swat generally considers the electronic media as its enemy. They think that all the private television networks are in the control of the government and that the electronic media only projects the destruction of schools by the Taliban.
On the other side, the security forces always accuse the media of projecting the Taliban as heroes. The government has also discouraged the coverage of 'terrorists' on the media, but the same government and security forces have no problem in negotiating and making deals with the terrorists.
Musa said, "You will watch the scenes of destruction in the civilian residential areas of Kabbal. You will show destroyed homes and mosques and people will compare your coverage with the bombing of Gaza by the Israelis. You will become a security risk and they will kill you in the name of national interest and the blame will be thrown on the shoulders of the Taliban."
Some top officials in the security establishment have always considered brave journalists like Musa as 'bad chaps.' The slain journalist always refused to accept dictation from security officials. Musa's temper was another problem. Once a security official abused him and Musa abused him back. It was the start of a big problem. Musa was kidnapped and beaten for two days. He was threatened not to make a fuss or his family would be killed. Musa shared this incident with me and some other colleagues.
Geo TV Executive Editor Hamid Mir, whose colleague Musa Khankhel was murdered in the Swat valley this week, asks why the media is being targeted in the area.
'The pen is mightier than the sword' was a phrase that we learnt at school. Unfortunately, the dangerous situation in Swat has changed this phrase. Now it should be like 'the gun is mightier than the pen.' The truth is bitter and difficult to digest.
The assassination of brave journalist Musa Khankhel in the valley of Swat has discouraged many who always believed in the might of the pen.
Dozens of journalists left Swat within hours after the burial of their colleague. Many television channels moved their staff with equipment to safe places like Peshawar. Now the world may not watch the live coverage of the peace march initiated by Maulana Sufi Muhammad or the janaza(burial ceremony) of any slain journalist from Swat.
A senior journalist of Swat introduced me to at least two of his local colleagues and claimed "these two soldiers of the pen will also be killed very soon because they are fearless like Musa, but maybe you will not be able to telecast live the janaza of these two."
At least three local journalists working with prominent television channels informed me that they received threats to their lives even after Musa's assassination. Some of them were told by the callers that the technical staff of their channels who came from Lahore, Islamabad and Peshawar for the live coverage of the situation in Swat would not stay alive and to send them back immediately.
Two technicians of the Geo television channel with a van full of transmission equipment were rounded up by the Taliban in the Chaharbagh area of Swat the other day. The Taliban declared them spies, but released them later on a promise that they will not come back.
An emergency meeting was called at the Swat Press Club to discuss new threats faced by journalists. I tried my best to convince more than 150 journalists there that they should not leave Swat. Maybe I was not aware about the problems faced by local colleagues. They blasted me and said the government is not in a position to provide them security. On the other hand, their superiors push them to find some exclusive stories and visuals. This urge for exclusives is not in the interest of both the Taliban and the security forces. They face problems from both.
One journalist angrily said he can only continue his profession by keeping a heavy weapon with him. I discouraged him and said that journalists should not carry weapons and they can take some other security measures. Most of the colleagues present did not agree with me. A young journalist showed me a pistol hidden under his jacket and said he did not move without his gun.
One local journalist proposed at the meeting that "we request all our non-local colleagues to leave Swat immediately because there is no government here and we cannot provide them security. They should come back when the times get better." Within seconds a majority of the local and non-local journalists supported this proposal. Only one local journalist Shrinzada and a local newspaper editor Ghulam Farooq opposed this move and pleaded with tears in their eyes that they were ready to sacrifice their lives like Musa, but they would not stop speaking and writing the truth.
We had no other choice, but to respect the majority. I also accepted the majority decision and agreed to leave Swat. But I must explain why the presence of the independent media is not in the interests of both the Taliban and the security forces.
The Taliban of Swat generally considers the electronic media as its enemy. They think that all the private television networks are in the control of the government and that the electronic media only projects the destruction of schools by the Taliban. They accuse the electronic media of having no courage to show schools occupied by the army and used as bunkers. They allege that sometimes local journalists provide information about their presence to the security forces and as revenge they have banned all the television channels to be telecast in Swat.
On the other side, the security forces always accuse the media of projecting the Taliban as heroes. The government has also discouraged the coverage of 'terrorists' on the media, but the same government and security forces have no problem in negotiating and making deals with the terrorists.
Some top officials in the security establishment have always considered brave journalists like Musa as 'bad chaps.' The slain journalist always refused to accept dictation from security officials. Musa's temper was another problem. Once a security official abused him and Musa abused him back. It was the start of a big problem. Musa was kidnapped and beaten for two days. He was threatened not to make a fuss or his family would be killed.
Musa shared this incident with me and some other colleagues. I wrote about these threats in an article in The News on January 13.
I wrote in that article: 'I also know another journalist of Swat by the name of Musa Khankhel from many years. In the last few months alone, he has survived two assassination attempts. He told me that some elements within the security forces wanted to eliminate him physically due to his reporting.'
A few hours before his murder Musa sent me a message that I must be careful while moving in the Kabbal area of Swat. I asked him why he was worried even after the peace initiative by Maulana Sufi Muhammad and the ten-day ceasefire with the Taliban. Musa said, "You will watch the scenes of destruction in the civilian residential areas of Kabbal. You will show destroyed homes and mosques and people will compare your coverage with the bombing of Gaza by the Israelis. You will become a security risk and they will kill you in the name of national interest and the blame will be thrown on the shoulders of the Taliban."
He convinced me that my movement in the most dangerous area of Swat was not in the interest of those who always considered the free media their enemy.
I never underestimated his opinion and immediately left Kabbal. Two hours after this telephone conversation I received the shocking news about his killing. He was concerned about my safety, but not about his own. He saved me, but I could not save him. Peace in Swat was Musa's dream, but he is no longer alive to fight for it.
The situation in this valley of horror and terror is very complicated, but I am still hopeful despite the fact that there is lot of distrust between the Taliban and the security forces. The moving force behind this peace move are the common people of Swat.
The ruling Awami National Party is a secular and liberal party and took a risk by negotiating peace with the religious cleric Maulana Sufi Muhammad, who does not support democracy but supports peace in Swat. The ANP leadership is aware that if there is peace in Swat then the government will get a chance to establish its writ. A provincial minister, Bashir Balour, visited Swat on February 18 after a long time. Two more ANP ministers visited Swat the next day to condole Musa's death.
The visits by provincial ministers to the no-go area of Swat proves that the ANP will not be the only beneficiary of peace in Swat, but the whole State of Pakistan will be ultimately benefited because only peace can help the State establish its writ.
Maulana Sufi accepted the importance of the political forces by sitting with them to negotiate peace. This move is the victory of political forces because finally they will try to force the Taliban to surrender their arms.
If the Taliban agrees to surrender then the provincial government can announce an amnesty for them. More than 400 closed schools can be reopened and more than 200 destroyed schools can be rebuilt.
Thousands of girls can go back to their education only if Maulana Sufi's peace initiative is a success. He has promised he will make all efforts to reopen the girls's schools. He cannot back out.
The majority of people in Swat say, "Peace and stability of our area is more important than winning the so-called war against terror." They are angry with the reaction of the West and some liberal Pakistani analysts who think that peace will only benefit the Taliban. These analysts must risk a visit to Swat in the interest of the truth. They will realise that there are only two options for the State of Pakistan to bring stability in Swat. One is peace and the other is war.
The State cannot win this war because the use of guns and tanks will keep producing more Taliban. If there is no peace, there will be more anarchy. There will be no development. No schools, no newspapers, no television networks. More journalists will be killed. More journalists will leave Swat.
I am leaving Swat today. I am committed to return to Swat, but I cannot come back if there is no peace. I can only use my pen and camera to report the truth if there is peace. Otherwise, I will become another Musa Khankhel and my pen will be silenced. Musa was killed by those who do not want peace. ANP Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain said Musa was killed by a 'third force.' He never identified the 'third force.' Maybe he will expose the 'third force' after bringing peace to Swat.
Musa once asked me that if the British government could talk to the Irish Republican Army and make peace with them, then why can't the Pakistani government negotiate peace with the Taliban? I know that Gordon Brown or Barack Obama would not like this question to be answered. Maybe they will say that Musa Khankhel was a Taliban sympathiser.
Single-faith nation is an open invitation to Taliban-The Siege Within-MJ Akbar-Columnists-Opinion-The Times of India
Single-faith nation is an open invitation to Taliban-The Siege Within-MJ Akbar-Columnists-Opinion-The Times of India
Breast-beating has its dangers. You could lacerate yourself while the assassin laughs all the way to the graveyard. The international lamentation over the negotiated surrender of Swat in Pakistan to what might broadly be called the Taliban is high on moaning and low on illumination.
There is a symmetrical irony. Benazir Bhutto handed over Afghanistan to the Taliban. Her husband Asif Zardari might have laid the foundation stone of Talibanistan inside Pakistan by accepting Sufi Mohammad's Tehrik-e-Nifz-e-Shariat Mohammadi as the law for the former princely state of Swat. This demand was first heard in November 1994, the month in which Kandahar fell to the Taliban.
Many questions demand answers. The Pakistani army has an estimated strength of 12,000 in the region of Swat. Why was it unable, or unwilling, to subdue an insurgent force of some 3,000? The Pakistani army is not a pushover. Why was it pushed over in Swat? Is the Pakistani soldier increasingly unwilling to confront an ideology it implicitly sympathises with? How much of such sympathy is shared by the middle-ranking officer, who entered the force during the seminal leadership of General Zia ul Haq? To what extent has Ziaism become the secret doctrine of sections of the Pakistani forces?
What price will Pakistan's polity pay as the last civilian hope degenerates into a national heartbreak? The legacy of Benazir, the charismatic romantic, has been usurped by a semi-literate authoritarian who has seized executive power through a virtual coup against his own government. Zardari was elected to a ceremonial office, not an executive one. His principal achievement so far has been to make the era of Pervez Musharraf seem like a golden age. If she had been in charge, Benazir may have been able to mobilize her country's youth by lifting the economy and offering a liberal horizon. Zardari's ineffectual rule, wafting along compromise and mismanagement, can only create the space for a theocratic impulse that has been waiting to find its moment ever since Pakistan was born. Musharraf doubled the GDP of an insecure economy. Under Zardari, Pakistan is dwindling into a "basket case", a term Henry Kissinger coined for the eastern half of united Pakistan. While Bangladesh is leaving that stigma behind, Pakistan is entering the vortex of the begging bowl.
Military chaos opened the door for the Taliban in Kabul. Could economic chaos open the door in Islamabad? Has Pakistan begun to realise that faith-based nationalism is not synonymous with peace?
The Frontier and North Punjab, the principal catchment areas of the Taliban, have had a Muslim majority for perhaps a thousand years. It is not widely known that Mahmud of Ghazni's territories extended to what is roughly the line of the Indo-Pak border today. (This fact is not lost on terrorists who want to use Pakistan as a base from which to launch assaults on the heart of India.) But this area was never a single-faith entity. Hindus and later Sikhs created, along with Muslims, a dynamic shared culture that blossomed through partnership. The presence of the other also became an antidote to puritanism of any hue. The region was ruled successively by Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. No ruler, not even Ghazni, drove Hindus and Sikhs out. It was only after 1947 that the region became a single-faith hegemony, and from that point a breeding ground for theocratic militancy.
The power of a minority is rarely acknowledged by those who seek to turn it into an enemy. A minority is the yeast that enables the national flour to rise. Hindus and Sikhs were the yeast of the North West Frontier and Pakistani Punjab just as much as Indian Muslims are the yeast of Hindu-majority India. Their existence was a daily lesson in co-existence. Their absence has shifted the gears of social evolution and driven the people into rancid and arid territory.
Will the answers be more optimistic than the questions? That too remains a question.
Breast-beating has its dangers. You could lacerate yourself while the assassin laughs all the way to the graveyard. The international lamentation over the negotiated surrender of Swat in Pakistan to what might broadly be called the Taliban is high on moaning and low on illumination.
There is a symmetrical irony. Benazir Bhutto handed over Afghanistan to the Taliban. Her husband Asif Zardari might have laid the foundation stone of Talibanistan inside Pakistan by accepting Sufi Mohammad's Tehrik-e-Nifz-e-Shariat Mohammadi as the law for the former princely state of Swat. This demand was first heard in November 1994, the month in which Kandahar fell to the Taliban.
Many questions demand answers. The Pakistani army has an estimated strength of 12,000 in the region of Swat. Why was it unable, or unwilling, to subdue an insurgent force of some 3,000? The Pakistani army is not a pushover. Why was it pushed over in Swat? Is the Pakistani soldier increasingly unwilling to confront an ideology it implicitly sympathises with? How much of such sympathy is shared by the middle-ranking officer, who entered the force during the seminal leadership of General Zia ul Haq? To what extent has Ziaism become the secret doctrine of sections of the Pakistani forces?
What price will Pakistan's polity pay as the last civilian hope degenerates into a national heartbreak? The legacy of Benazir, the charismatic romantic, has been usurped by a semi-literate authoritarian who has seized executive power through a virtual coup against his own government. Zardari was elected to a ceremonial office, not an executive one. His principal achievement so far has been to make the era of Pervez Musharraf seem like a golden age. If she had been in charge, Benazir may have been able to mobilize her country's youth by lifting the economy and offering a liberal horizon. Zardari's ineffectual rule, wafting along compromise and mismanagement, can only create the space for a theocratic impulse that has been waiting to find its moment ever since Pakistan was born. Musharraf doubled the GDP of an insecure economy. Under Zardari, Pakistan is dwindling into a "basket case", a term Henry Kissinger coined for the eastern half of united Pakistan. While Bangladesh is leaving that stigma behind, Pakistan is entering the vortex of the begging bowl.
Military chaos opened the door for the Taliban in Kabul. Could economic chaos open the door in Islamabad? Has Pakistan begun to realise that faith-based nationalism is not synonymous with peace?
The Frontier and North Punjab, the principal catchment areas of the Taliban, have had a Muslim majority for perhaps a thousand years. It is not widely known that Mahmud of Ghazni's territories extended to what is roughly the line of the Indo-Pak border today. (This fact is not lost on terrorists who want to use Pakistan as a base from which to launch assaults on the heart of India.) But this area was never a single-faith entity. Hindus and later Sikhs created, along with Muslims, a dynamic shared culture that blossomed through partnership. The presence of the other also became an antidote to puritanism of any hue. The region was ruled successively by Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. No ruler, not even Ghazni, drove Hindus and Sikhs out. It was only after 1947 that the region became a single-faith hegemony, and from that point a breeding ground for theocratic militancy.
The power of a minority is rarely acknowledged by those who seek to turn it into an enemy. A minority is the yeast that enables the national flour to rise. Hindus and Sikhs were the yeast of the North West Frontier and Pakistani Punjab just as much as Indian Muslims are the yeast of Hindu-majority India. Their existence was a daily lesson in co-existence. Their absence has shifted the gears of social evolution and driven the people into rancid and arid territory.
Will the answers be more optimistic than the questions? That too remains a question.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Saturday, February 07, 2009
View From Pakistan - False Assumptions by Ahmad Faruqui
A Critique:
Faruqi sahib writes with sympathy, but some of his assumptions are also open to question. for example, that international mediators can "solve Kashmir" and that this has to be done BEFORE peace can happen. Instead, the solution is to freeze the dispute and move on to peace BEFORE solving the issue. The reason i say this is because NO solution can be found that satisfies the hardliners on either side. There is simply NO SUCH SOLUTION. By freezing the dispute (which also means less armed violence and less armed response from cruel and capricious security services) and moving forward with real peace in other areas (education, economy, trade, etc. etc., not just "cultural exchange") the influence of hardliners ON BOTH SIDES can be gradually lessened as the possibility and benefits of peace become apparent. Once more trust is established, many solutions to kashmir can be imagined....without that trust, no solution will stick. The mindset that imagines that no peace is possible (and this mindset exists on both sides) has to be changed first...and it will change by showing that coexistence is possible.....if it works at all. No international mediator can "solve kashmir" before more trust exists.
Omar Ali
View From Pakistan
False Assumptions
India's leaders should see the Mumbai attack as a wake-up call. They are heirs to a long intellectual tradition of introspection. One hopes they will engage in a meaningful debate on the assumptions that gird their nation's domestic and international policies.
AHMAD FARUQUI
THE terrorist attacks in Mumbai have reignited a tiresome and dangerous blame game in India. Opinion leaders are having a field day making Pakistan look bad and India look good.
The terrorists have tarnished Pakistan¢s image and the Indians can exult in their Mumbai moment if they wish. But if that is all that they do, they will be doing a grave disservice to the scores of people who lost their lives and were wounded.
In Pavlovian fashion, Pakistan¢s opinion leaders continue to disavow any involvement in terrorism. However, international observers are convinced that the terrorists had Pakistani ties. Indeed, many suspect that their handlers were directly or indirectly connected with Pakistan¢s intelligence agencies which have long been fighting a proxy war with India.
There is little doubt that if Pakistan is to survive as a nation-state, it needs to expunge terrorism from its strategic culture. But what is equally true is that India, if it is to attain greatness in the decades to come, needs to rethink its strategic culture. India¢s leaders should see the Mumbai attack as a wake-up call. They are heirs to a long intellectual tradition of introspection. One hopes they will engage in a meaningful debate on the assumptions that gird their nation¢s domestic and international policies.
But will India's leaders engage in what is likely to be a painful process? It is hard to say. Since it gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, India has related to its smaller neighbours with magnanimity at certain times and with stinginess at others. The face of India which the world sees oscillates between generosity and hubris. Its diplomatic history is coloured by the contradictory comments of leadership and hegemony.
What are the false assumptions in India¢s policies that need revisiting?:
First, that Indians can prevail in a limited war with Pakistan. Between two nuclear powers, a limited war is inherently limitless.
Second, that it can continue to be an economic powerhouse without resolving its congenital dispute with Pakistan. The dispute has led to a costly diversion of resources from productive to unproductive sectors in both countries. While keeping its economy on a war footing has devastated Pakistan, it has also held India back from realising its true potential. Foreign investment will not flow to India under the shadow of a nuclear war.
Third, that the dispute with Pakistan can be resolved bilaterally and does not require international mediation. Given the imbalance in political and military power between the two countries, the problem has defied a solution for six long decades. It is time to involve another power, one that both countries can trust. The US, now under a new president who brings no historical baggage to his role, is best suited to this task and should be invited in. The creation of the Taliban was linked to Pakistan¢s desire to create strategic depth for itself in the event of an Indian invasion. The war against terror in Afghanistan, which largely revolves around the Taliban, cannot be won without resolving the Indo-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir.
Fourth, that India has well-trained security forces that can thwart a future terrorist attack. The sophistication of the terrorists in Mumbai was matched by the ineptness of India¢s security forces. New Delhi’s weaknesses in this regard are the focus of a new report from the RAND Corporation which recommends numerous improvements.
Fifth, that there is no political or human rights problem in Jammu and Kashmir. New Delhi continues to argue that the state is an integral part of India and that it is governed democratically.So why is it that even the casual visitor to Kashmir finds himself or herself stranded in a garrison state? While estimates vary, the combination of military, paramilitary and police forces deployed in that state is probably in excess of half a million. The figure would dwarf the population which lives there, estimated at less than one per cent of India’s population.
Sixth, that India is a secular democracy where minorities are treated equally with the majority community. In this regard, the Rajindar Sachar Committee report on the status of Indian Muslims prepared in 2006 on behalf of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a must read. But it is not just the Muslims who get the raw end of the deal in India. There have been many instances of Christians being treated poorly and of Catholic missionaries being burned alive. It is time for India to rein in the fascist influence of those who espouse Hindutva.
Seventh, that for India to be viewed as a great power, it also needs to become a military power with an ability to shoot ballistic missiles across the seven seas. Such power play hearkens back to the past. It does not beckon to the future. It is sad to see yesterday¢s philosophy trumping tomorrow¢s, as those who voice a view of greatness premised on hard power appear to have prevailed over those who propose a view based on soft power.
Eighth, that India has purged its polity of all economic and social ills and that it is a rising and shining power, an ¡Incredible India¢.Just witness the howls of protest that were reported in the Indian media when the film, Slumdog Millionaire, got global recognition.
The story, seen through the eyes of a Muslim child who was orphaned when murderous Hindu gangs went on a rampage in the slums of Mumbai, was a timeless tribute to the triumph of the human spirit over adversity. It could have been written by Charles Dickens or Victor Hugo. Instead of absorbing the film¢s lessons, a segment of the Indian elite expressed their contempt for the film¢s raw depiction of the squalor and misery in India¢s slums where millions eke out an existence. If they had their way, films would put the spotlight on India¢s new economy, its Silicon Valley and its lunar rocket programme. If India’s leaders revisit these eight assumptions, they can ensure that one day in the future India will be recognised as a great power. And if they don¢t, India will continue to be, as only Nirad C. Chaudhuri could have put it, a Continent of Circe, the Greek goddess who used a magical potion to transform her enemies into pigs.
The author is an associate of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford.
Faruqi sahib writes with sympathy, but some of his assumptions are also open to question. for example, that international mediators can "solve Kashmir" and that this has to be done BEFORE peace can happen. Instead, the solution is to freeze the dispute and move on to peace BEFORE solving the issue. The reason i say this is because NO solution can be found that satisfies the hardliners on either side. There is simply NO SUCH SOLUTION. By freezing the dispute (which also means less armed violence and less armed response from cruel and capricious security services) and moving forward with real peace in other areas (education, economy, trade, etc. etc., not just "cultural exchange") the influence of hardliners ON BOTH SIDES can be gradually lessened as the possibility and benefits of peace become apparent. Once more trust is established, many solutions to kashmir can be imagined....without that trust, no solution will stick. The mindset that imagines that no peace is possible (and this mindset exists on both sides) has to be changed first...and it will change by showing that coexistence is possible.....if it works at all. No international mediator can "solve kashmir" before more trust exists.
Omar Ali
View From Pakistan
False Assumptions
India's leaders should see the Mumbai attack as a wake-up call. They are heirs to a long intellectual tradition of introspection. One hopes they will engage in a meaningful debate on the assumptions that gird their nation's domestic and international policies.
AHMAD FARUQUI
THE terrorist attacks in Mumbai have reignited a tiresome and dangerous blame game in India. Opinion leaders are having a field day making Pakistan look bad and India look good.
The terrorists have tarnished Pakistan¢s image and the Indians can exult in their Mumbai moment if they wish. But if that is all that they do, they will be doing a grave disservice to the scores of people who lost their lives and were wounded.
In Pavlovian fashion, Pakistan¢s opinion leaders continue to disavow any involvement in terrorism. However, international observers are convinced that the terrorists had Pakistani ties. Indeed, many suspect that their handlers were directly or indirectly connected with Pakistan¢s intelligence agencies which have long been fighting a proxy war with India.
There is little doubt that if Pakistan is to survive as a nation-state, it needs to expunge terrorism from its strategic culture. But what is equally true is that India, if it is to attain greatness in the decades to come, needs to rethink its strategic culture. India¢s leaders should see the Mumbai attack as a wake-up call. They are heirs to a long intellectual tradition of introspection. One hopes they will engage in a meaningful debate on the assumptions that gird their nation¢s domestic and international policies.
But will India's leaders engage in what is likely to be a painful process? It is hard to say. Since it gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, India has related to its smaller neighbours with magnanimity at certain times and with stinginess at others. The face of India which the world sees oscillates between generosity and hubris. Its diplomatic history is coloured by the contradictory comments of leadership and hegemony.
What are the false assumptions in India¢s policies that need revisiting?:
First, that Indians can prevail in a limited war with Pakistan. Between two nuclear powers, a limited war is inherently limitless.
Second, that it can continue to be an economic powerhouse without resolving its congenital dispute with Pakistan. The dispute has led to a costly diversion of resources from productive to unproductive sectors in both countries. While keeping its economy on a war footing has devastated Pakistan, it has also held India back from realising its true potential. Foreign investment will not flow to India under the shadow of a nuclear war.
Third, that the dispute with Pakistan can be resolved bilaterally and does not require international mediation. Given the imbalance in political and military power between the two countries, the problem has defied a solution for six long decades. It is time to involve another power, one that both countries can trust. The US, now under a new president who brings no historical baggage to his role, is best suited to this task and should be invited in. The creation of the Taliban was linked to Pakistan¢s desire to create strategic depth for itself in the event of an Indian invasion. The war against terror in Afghanistan, which largely revolves around the Taliban, cannot be won without resolving the Indo-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir.
Fourth, that India has well-trained security forces that can thwart a future terrorist attack. The sophistication of the terrorists in Mumbai was matched by the ineptness of India¢s security forces. New Delhi’s weaknesses in this regard are the focus of a new report from the RAND Corporation which recommends numerous improvements.
Fifth, that there is no political or human rights problem in Jammu and Kashmir. New Delhi continues to argue that the state is an integral part of India and that it is governed democratically.So why is it that even the casual visitor to Kashmir finds himself or herself stranded in a garrison state? While estimates vary, the combination of military, paramilitary and police forces deployed in that state is probably in excess of half a million. The figure would dwarf the population which lives there, estimated at less than one per cent of India’s population.
Sixth, that India is a secular democracy where minorities are treated equally with the majority community. In this regard, the Rajindar Sachar Committee report on the status of Indian Muslims prepared in 2006 on behalf of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a must read. But it is not just the Muslims who get the raw end of the deal in India. There have been many instances of Christians being treated poorly and of Catholic missionaries being burned alive. It is time for India to rein in the fascist influence of those who espouse Hindutva.
Seventh, that for India to be viewed as a great power, it also needs to become a military power with an ability to shoot ballistic missiles across the seven seas. Such power play hearkens back to the past. It does not beckon to the future. It is sad to see yesterday¢s philosophy trumping tomorrow¢s, as those who voice a view of greatness premised on hard power appear to have prevailed over those who propose a view based on soft power.
Eighth, that India has purged its polity of all economic and social ills and that it is a rising and shining power, an ¡Incredible India¢.Just witness the howls of protest that were reported in the Indian media when the film, Slumdog Millionaire, got global recognition.
The story, seen through the eyes of a Muslim child who was orphaned when murderous Hindu gangs went on a rampage in the slums of Mumbai, was a timeless tribute to the triumph of the human spirit over adversity. It could have been written by Charles Dickens or Victor Hugo. Instead of absorbing the film¢s lessons, a segment of the Indian elite expressed their contempt for the film¢s raw depiction of the squalor and misery in India¢s slums where millions eke out an existence. If they had their way, films would put the spotlight on India¢s new economy, its Silicon Valley and its lunar rocket programme. If India’s leaders revisit these eight assumptions, they can ensure that one day in the future India will be recognised as a great power. And if they don¢t, India will continue to be, as only Nirad C. Chaudhuri could have put it, a Continent of Circe, the Greek goddess who used a magical potion to transform her enemies into pigs.
The author is an associate of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Obama's Inagural Speech
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
Watch President Obama's inaugural address
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many.
They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
Ads by Google:
Advertisements not controlled by IslamiCity
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.
We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
Watch President Obama's inaugural address
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many.
They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
Ads by Google:
Advertisements not controlled by IslamiCity
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.
We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
My Guru is My Life
By Sujata Mohapatra
As a devoted and dedicated disciple of his, having great admiration of him and his work, as one who has been shaped by his vision of style and technique, as one of his leading disciples, and as his daughter-in-law, I have been blessed with unique, special and meaningful experiences with my guru Padmavibhusan Guru Shri Kelucharan Mohapatra.
I still remember the day I had my first class with him. I touched his feet and he blessed me and immediately called me “Kali, To Gharra Keunthi” (Kali – dark color, where is your house). I said, “Balasore”. He remarked, “O’ Balasoria. OK.” and then he laughed. He hadn’t asked anyone else but me.
The 1st Konark dance festival went on in 1989, and I was part of the new batch in the Odissi Research Centre then. Guruji taught there, and that year he composed the dance drama “Chandrabhaga”. The dance drama had some of the renowned dancers and Gurus including, Sanjukta Panigrahi, Kumkum Mohanty, Illeana Citaristi, Guru Gangadhar Pradhan, and Guru Ramani Ranjan Jena, Shri Ratikant Mohapatra and others. Guruji was composing from 10am to 11pm in the night.
One day, everybody else had left, and I was sitting in a corner carefully observing Guruji composing with his eyes closed. While I was looking at him, he suddenly opened his eyes and caught my look. He asked me what I was thinking, and I told him that I was watching how he composed. He had choreographed something in his mind, and he wanted me to dance what he envisioned. I was just a new student then, with no experience with him, and so I was very nervous. Yet, somehow I was able to do what he had wanted, and even the other great dancers and masters were impressed and wanted me to show them again. Since it was a folk type of step, it was more natural for me. Guruji then gave me the role of one of the five Devis (Goddesses), for whom this step was choreographed. The day of the performance came, and the audience seemed to really appreciate my dance. I gained a different appreciation for Guruji’s teaching. He was very happy to see his vision come alive through my dance. This was the first success in my dance life, which began with his blessings and faith.
I was a serious student of his in Odissi Research Centre, and my personal goal was to learn Guruji’s proper technique and style. I had started learning from my mother when I was five years old and continued in a very different style. After training under Guruji, I felt a great change in my body language.
Guruji was pleased with my figure as an Odissi dancer. I was so thrilled when I learnt that he told others that if this girl will continue with this dance, she has a lovely figure for our dance style and will go far. Perhaps, from this time, he already had a lot of hope for me, giving me his blessings and love, and the attachment that developed resulted in him wanting for me to become his family member, as wife to his son, Ratikant. He must have seen something in me to choose me for his daughter-in-law in the hope to see his legacy continue through both Ratikant and myself. He trained us with that hope.
I feel very lucky because of my relationship with Guruji. Every student of Guruji’s is like a family member in his Gurukul, but the difference is that they come and spend time with Guruji, give him a Guru Dakshina (payment for Guru) and then return to their own place. Since I had become his daughter-in-law, I was with him all the time, sharing all his happiness and sorrow, and being able to serve him constantly, and my Seva (devoted work to Guruji) became my Guru Dakshina. What fortune for me to be able to learn with him everyday and have my body molded by his vision. He has spent valuable time in teaching me the various aspects of Odissi to enable me to become an authentic dancer and teacher of his technique and dance style. I feel indebted to him, and the dancer I am today is due to his blessings. I honestly wish to continue to fulfill his expectation of me.
I always felt that God sent me to his house, and dance was the media through which I could reach my own God, Guruji. For me, Guruji is my Jagannath in my world. When he died on April 7th, I felt the world had lost a man of dignity, a legend, but I lost my world. I felt my life was lost after my Guru’s death. How can he who represented my world be replaced? Yet, he is the one who would want for me to continue in his path. Now, I feel my world will not completely disappear if I have the support of those who appreciate my dance and also the support of my husband. Already I am grateful to my husband and the senior students, lovable Apas (older sisters), the elder daughters in our Gurukul, not only in India but Abroad also.
Guruji had many special qualities. I really admired his patience. Guruji had faced a lot of pain in his life. Yet, he had so much patience to deal with all the pain. Now, I am remembering him, and trying to learn how to be more patient like him. Every great artist has had to sacrifice in his/her life, and Guruji was no exception in that matter. Now, I am able to understand that if such a great legend, like Guruji, could take so much pain and sacrifice his own happiness in life for dance, then for me as his disciple, I must learn this too if I wish to reach the same destiny in Odissi.
Guruji was very much a karma yogi. He always did his work, his duty in life, and wanted to be able to do that work until the day he was no longer. I wish to follow his footsteps in this respect also.
Guruji had such a great pride in his own culture as an Oriya, and coincidentally his last performance was for Utkal Divas (Orissa Day) at Lucknow on April 1st, just six days before passing away. In that performance, we had a very special and unique experience. Normally in programs in which Guruji, Ratikant and I perform, either Guruji or Ratikant would perform the Mangalacharan. That day, Guruji felt that we three should perform Mangalacharan together. He chose the “Namami Shlokam”, and invocational prayer to Lord Ganesh. Towards the end of the shlokam, Guruji changed the choreography so that he became Lord Ganesh, and he had instructed Ratikant and I to bow to him to receive his blessings. At the time, we had no idea that the blessings he gave us in this last performance of his, would be so meaningful to us.
Guru always gives a new life. The Guru leads the student from darkness to light, ignorance to bliss. I am also one of them who got a new life from my Guru, who had trained me and made me a dancer in my own right with a reputation of truly displaying his technique and style.
Not only as my Guru, but also as my father-in-law, he was my great strength and support to lead a smooth family life together at home and also at performances. He felt the importance of having both family life and the art, in unison, never separated.
He was my strength; he is my strength and he will be my strength.
I love him as a person, as a father-in-law, as a Guru, and as the best grandfather for my daughter, Preetisha, and a great supporter of my life.
My Guru is my life.
As a devoted and dedicated disciple of his, having great admiration of him and his work, as one who has been shaped by his vision of style and technique, as one of his leading disciples, and as his daughter-in-law, I have been blessed with unique, special and meaningful experiences with my guru Padmavibhusan Guru Shri Kelucharan Mohapatra.
I still remember the day I had my first class with him. I touched his feet and he blessed me and immediately called me “Kali, To Gharra Keunthi” (Kali – dark color, where is your house). I said, “Balasore”. He remarked, “O’ Balasoria. OK.” and then he laughed. He hadn’t asked anyone else but me.
The 1st Konark dance festival went on in 1989, and I was part of the new batch in the Odissi Research Centre then. Guruji taught there, and that year he composed the dance drama “Chandrabhaga”. The dance drama had some of the renowned dancers and Gurus including, Sanjukta Panigrahi, Kumkum Mohanty, Illeana Citaristi, Guru Gangadhar Pradhan, and Guru Ramani Ranjan Jena, Shri Ratikant Mohapatra and others. Guruji was composing from 10am to 11pm in the night.
One day, everybody else had left, and I was sitting in a corner carefully observing Guruji composing with his eyes closed. While I was looking at him, he suddenly opened his eyes and caught my look. He asked me what I was thinking, and I told him that I was watching how he composed. He had choreographed something in his mind, and he wanted me to dance what he envisioned. I was just a new student then, with no experience with him, and so I was very nervous. Yet, somehow I was able to do what he had wanted, and even the other great dancers and masters were impressed and wanted me to show them again. Since it was a folk type of step, it was more natural for me. Guruji then gave me the role of one of the five Devis (Goddesses), for whom this step was choreographed. The day of the performance came, and the audience seemed to really appreciate my dance. I gained a different appreciation for Guruji’s teaching. He was very happy to see his vision come alive through my dance. This was the first success in my dance life, which began with his blessings and faith.
I was a serious student of his in Odissi Research Centre, and my personal goal was to learn Guruji’s proper technique and style. I had started learning from my mother when I was five years old and continued in a very different style. After training under Guruji, I felt a great change in my body language.
Guruji was pleased with my figure as an Odissi dancer. I was so thrilled when I learnt that he told others that if this girl will continue with this dance, she has a lovely figure for our dance style and will go far. Perhaps, from this time, he already had a lot of hope for me, giving me his blessings and love, and the attachment that developed resulted in him wanting for me to become his family member, as wife to his son, Ratikant. He must have seen something in me to choose me for his daughter-in-law in the hope to see his legacy continue through both Ratikant and myself. He trained us with that hope.
I feel very lucky because of my relationship with Guruji. Every student of Guruji’s is like a family member in his Gurukul, but the difference is that they come and spend time with Guruji, give him a Guru Dakshina (payment for Guru) and then return to their own place. Since I had become his daughter-in-law, I was with him all the time, sharing all his happiness and sorrow, and being able to serve him constantly, and my Seva (devoted work to Guruji) became my Guru Dakshina. What fortune for me to be able to learn with him everyday and have my body molded by his vision. He has spent valuable time in teaching me the various aspects of Odissi to enable me to become an authentic dancer and teacher of his technique and dance style. I feel indebted to him, and the dancer I am today is due to his blessings. I honestly wish to continue to fulfill his expectation of me.
I always felt that God sent me to his house, and dance was the media through which I could reach my own God, Guruji. For me, Guruji is my Jagannath in my world. When he died on April 7th, I felt the world had lost a man of dignity, a legend, but I lost my world. I felt my life was lost after my Guru’s death. How can he who represented my world be replaced? Yet, he is the one who would want for me to continue in his path. Now, I feel my world will not completely disappear if I have the support of those who appreciate my dance and also the support of my husband. Already I am grateful to my husband and the senior students, lovable Apas (older sisters), the elder daughters in our Gurukul, not only in India but Abroad also.
Guruji had many special qualities. I really admired his patience. Guruji had faced a lot of pain in his life. Yet, he had so much patience to deal with all the pain. Now, I am remembering him, and trying to learn how to be more patient like him. Every great artist has had to sacrifice in his/her life, and Guruji was no exception in that matter. Now, I am able to understand that if such a great legend, like Guruji, could take so much pain and sacrifice his own happiness in life for dance, then for me as his disciple, I must learn this too if I wish to reach the same destiny in Odissi.
Guruji was very much a karma yogi. He always did his work, his duty in life, and wanted to be able to do that work until the day he was no longer. I wish to follow his footsteps in this respect also.
Guruji had such a great pride in his own culture as an Oriya, and coincidentally his last performance was for Utkal Divas (Orissa Day) at Lucknow on April 1st, just six days before passing away. In that performance, we had a very special and unique experience. Normally in programs in which Guruji, Ratikant and I perform, either Guruji or Ratikant would perform the Mangalacharan. That day, Guruji felt that we three should perform Mangalacharan together. He chose the “Namami Shlokam”, and invocational prayer to Lord Ganesh. Towards the end of the shlokam, Guruji changed the choreography so that he became Lord Ganesh, and he had instructed Ratikant and I to bow to him to receive his blessings. At the time, we had no idea that the blessings he gave us in this last performance of his, would be so meaningful to us.
Guru always gives a new life. The Guru leads the student from darkness to light, ignorance to bliss. I am also one of them who got a new life from my Guru, who had trained me and made me a dancer in my own right with a reputation of truly displaying his technique and style.
Not only as my Guru, but also as my father-in-law, he was my great strength and support to lead a smooth family life together at home and also at performances. He felt the importance of having both family life and the art, in unison, never separated.
He was my strength; he is my strength and he will be my strength.
I love him as a person, as a father-in-law, as a Guru, and as the best grandfather for my daughter, Preetisha, and a great supporter of my life.
My Guru is my life.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
COST OF WAR by Dr Farrukh Saleem
[4] Pakistan India:
The News, January 25, 2009
We are 6.7 billion. Of the 6.7 billion, 1.2 billion are extremely poor (at or below $1 a day). Of the 1.2 billion extremely poor citizens of the world, some 550 million live in India and Pakistan combined. Wow; India and Pakistan are home to half of the world's population that lives at or below $1 a day. The single largest chunk of extremely poor human beings lives in India --some 500 million. Should India and Pakistan be fighting each other or fighting poverty together?
Pakistan's newly elected civil administration, on a marathon begging expedition, begged Saudi Arabia, urged China and pleaded with the Sheikhdoms for a billion dollar donation. We begged, urged and pleaded but to no avail. If it wasn't for General David Petraeus, the 10th Commander of the U.S. Central Command, we couldn't have qualified for an IMF handout. On November 24, IMF Executive Board approved the release of $3.1 billion. Then came 26/11. Do you know the cost of a 100-hour war with India? Answer: Some $3 billion to $5 billion.
India and Pakistan have been fighting the Siachen War--the highest battlefield on the face of the planet--for the past 25 years. Pakistan has some 3,000 troops and around 150 manned posts. The War has already consumed 1,025 Indian and 1,344 Pakistani lives--and that too mostly from frost bites and avalanches (very few casualties from enemy fire). Pakistan and India each spend an estimated $200 million to $300 million per year on Siachen. How much have India and Pakistan spent on the Siachen War so far? Answer: An estimated $10 billion. What was Pakistan's budgetary allocation for education? Answer: $300 million.
Look at all the money gone down the drain during the Kargil War: A strike fighter of the Indian Air Force (IAF) takes off from Awantipur AFS and returns after dropping its bomb-load. The cost of the return trip: $1.1 million. And, there were a total of 350 air-sorties for an accumulated expenditure of $416 million. The cost of the army operation was estimated at an additional $2 billion.
Imagine; 44 percent of India 's population lives at or below $1 a day. What is India's defence expenditure? Answer: $25 billion a year. At the same time, 31 percent of Pakistan's population lives at or below $1 a day and Pakistan spends a colossal $4 billion every year in buying and maintaining killing machines. Should India and Pakistan be fighting each other or fighting poverty together? At least 77 million Pakistanis are food insecure. And, Pak Army buys a roti for Rs10 and then spends an additional Rs75 in transporting that roti to feed soldiers fighting in Siachen.
Imagine India's annual trade deficit is a mind-boggling $100 billion. To be certain, India is heavily dependent on foreign investment in order to bridge its trade deficit but General Deepak Kapoor, India's 23rd Chief of Army Staff, continues to fuel war hysteria. In Pakistan, the de jure Chief Justice is campaigning for reinstatement while Pakistan insists that the suspects of the Mumbai tragedy will be tried in Pakistani courts.
On 13 December 2001, five terrorists managed to enter the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha and undertook indiscriminate shooting, killing five policemen, a security guard and a gardener. India ordered Operation Parakram, mobilizing and deploying troops along the international border as well as the Line of Control. Pakistan followed suit. Cost incurred by India: Rs65 billion (deployment and withdrawal). Cost incurred by Pakistan: $1.4 billion (deployment and withdrawal).
How long well India and Pakistan continue to beg, borrow and steal to fight each other? Guns or butter? Schools or bullets? Tanks or hospitals? Gunpowder or milkpowder?
The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS).
The News, January 25, 2009
We are 6.7 billion. Of the 6.7 billion, 1.2 billion are extremely poor (at or below $1 a day). Of the 1.2 billion extremely poor citizens of the world, some 550 million live in India and Pakistan combined. Wow; India and Pakistan are home to half of the world's population that lives at or below $1 a day. The single largest chunk of extremely poor human beings lives in India --some 500 million. Should India and Pakistan be fighting each other or fighting poverty together?
Pakistan's newly elected civil administration, on a marathon begging expedition, begged Saudi Arabia, urged China and pleaded with the Sheikhdoms for a billion dollar donation. We begged, urged and pleaded but to no avail. If it wasn't for General David Petraeus, the 10th Commander of the U.S. Central Command, we couldn't have qualified for an IMF handout. On November 24, IMF Executive Board approved the release of $3.1 billion. Then came 26/11. Do you know the cost of a 100-hour war with India? Answer: Some $3 billion to $5 billion.
India and Pakistan have been fighting the Siachen War--the highest battlefield on the face of the planet--for the past 25 years. Pakistan has some 3,000 troops and around 150 manned posts. The War has already consumed 1,025 Indian and 1,344 Pakistani lives--and that too mostly from frost bites and avalanches (very few casualties from enemy fire). Pakistan and India each spend an estimated $200 million to $300 million per year on Siachen. How much have India and Pakistan spent on the Siachen War so far? Answer: An estimated $10 billion. What was Pakistan's budgetary allocation for education? Answer: $300 million.
Look at all the money gone down the drain during the Kargil War: A strike fighter of the Indian Air Force (IAF) takes off from Awantipur AFS and returns after dropping its bomb-load. The cost of the return trip: $1.1 million. And, there were a total of 350 air-sorties for an accumulated expenditure of $416 million. The cost of the army operation was estimated at an additional $2 billion.
Imagine; 44 percent of India 's population lives at or below $1 a day. What is India's defence expenditure? Answer: $25 billion a year. At the same time, 31 percent of Pakistan's population lives at or below $1 a day and Pakistan spends a colossal $4 billion every year in buying and maintaining killing machines. Should India and Pakistan be fighting each other or fighting poverty together? At least 77 million Pakistanis are food insecure. And, Pak Army buys a roti for Rs10 and then spends an additional Rs75 in transporting that roti to feed soldiers fighting in Siachen.
Imagine India's annual trade deficit is a mind-boggling $100 billion. To be certain, India is heavily dependent on foreign investment in order to bridge its trade deficit but General Deepak Kapoor, India's 23rd Chief of Army Staff, continues to fuel war hysteria. In Pakistan, the de jure Chief Justice is campaigning for reinstatement while Pakistan insists that the suspects of the Mumbai tragedy will be tried in Pakistani courts.
On 13 December 2001, five terrorists managed to enter the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha and undertook indiscriminate shooting, killing five policemen, a security guard and a gardener. India ordered Operation Parakram, mobilizing and deploying troops along the international border as well as the Line of Control. Pakistan followed suit. Cost incurred by India: Rs65 billion (deployment and withdrawal). Cost incurred by Pakistan: $1.4 billion (deployment and withdrawal).
How long well India and Pakistan continue to beg, borrow and steal to fight each other? Guns or butter? Schools or bullets? Tanks or hospitals? Gunpowder or milkpowder?
The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS).
Powerful matriarchs in the land of the five rivers - Dr. Majur Ejaz
History of the Punjab :Powerful matriarchs in the land of the five rivers
by Dr. Manzur Ejaz
Every historical change affects women in more profound ways than other segments of society. However, it is amazing that little has been recorded by historians in this regard. The Muslim invasion of the Punjab led by Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi in the 10th century, also resulted in fundamental changes in the status of women, but one does not find much material about this
shift in women’s status in historical chronicles of that period. Probably, most of the history books of that time were written by those Northern and Central Asian men who were attached to the Slave Dynasty and had little regard for women. The only exception is Abu Rehan Al Beruni (973-1048) who wrote about the status of women and other social aspects of the Punjab .
Al Beruni’s account of India is largely based upon his observations about the Punjabi society to which he came with Mahmud Ghaznavi, and later on lived in for a long time. Therefore, for all practical purposes Al Beruni viewed India through his knowledge of the Punjab . One can trace back Al Beruni’s characterization of Punjabi women as being part of the decision-making process in all important matters, from the customs of the ancient Vedic period. We can see a similar depiction of Punjabi women in the work of the intellectuals who came after him. For example, one can find metaphorical descriptions of the status of women in the poetry of Hazrat Fariduddin Masud Ganj-e-Shakar aka Baba Farid (1173-1265) and through the memoirs of his intellectual heir Nizam-ud-Din Aulia (1238-1325). In addition, folk tales can be utilized as an indirect source of our information, though their authenticity will remain suspect.
Al Beruni notes that Indian men are different from those in Central Asia because, “in all consultations and emergencies they take the advice of their womenfolk”. Contrary to many other Muslim historians of medieval India , Al Beruni notes that the custom of sati (self-immolation) is optional for the common people, though mandatory for kings’ wives. Al Beruni’s characterization indicates that in the Punjab the status of women was not diminished very much during the thousands of years following the Vedic period.
The oldest Vedic scripture, Rig Veda, was written in the Punjabi plains that are called Sapat Sindhu or land of the seven rivers. The hymns of the Rig Veda show that women had complete and absolute freedom. As a matter of fact, from some hymns it appears that women were dominant over men. For example in the marriage hymns the wife addresses the assembly as a conquering commander. See the following verses from Rig Veda’s book ten entitled Saci Paulomi:
1. Yon sun hath mounted up, and this my happy fate hath mounted high. I knowing this, as conqueror have won my husband for mine own.
2. I am the banner and the head, a mighty arbitress am I: I am victorious, and my Lord shall be submissive to my will.
3. My Sons are slayers of the foe, my Daughter is a ruling Queen: I am victorious: o’er my Lord my song of triumph is supreme.
4. That which Indira gave and thus grew glorious and most high,– This have I offered, O ye Gods, and rid me of each rival wife.
5. Destroyer of the rival wife, Sole Spouse, victorious, conqueror, The others’ glory have I seized as ’twere the wealth of weaker Dames.
6. I have subdued as conqueror these rivals, these my fellow-wives, That I may hold imperial sway over this Hero and the folk.
These verses give an impression that in earlier periods it was the women who would compete with each other to win the husband, just as in the later periods princes of different states used to fight duels with each other to win the hand of a princess through the custom of Soembar. It is also well-established that many of Rig Veda’s hymns were revealed to women like Romasa, Lopamudra, Apata, Kadru, Vishvavara, Ghosha, Juhu, Vagambhrini, Paulomi, Jarita, Shraddha-Kamayani, Urvashi, Sharnga, Yami, Indrani, Savitri and Devayani. The Sama Veda mentions another four: Nodha (or Purvarchchika), Akrishtabhasha, Shikatanivavari (or Utararchchika) and Ganpayana. A woman could also be a guru, and in Sanskrit there is a separate word for a female spiritual leader.
The epic war of the Mahabharata was also fought in the Punjab: Its location is identified as Kurukshetra, a town in Haryana which was part of the Punjab until not very long ago. In the Mahabharata, Kunti, the wife of the deceased King Pandu, does not go to the funeral pyre with him, and stays with his sons who are all known as Kunti Puttar (Kunti Puttar Arjan etc). All Kunti sons are fathered by different deities and that means she was free to choose the father of each of her children. Kunti had a son, Kiran, who was born out of wedlock before her marriage to king Pandu. Continuing the tradition, Kunti’s five sons shared one wife named Dhropadi, following their mother’s advice. Beside Kunti Putters, most of the males in the epic story are know by their mother’s names. This shows that women were not subjugated, unlike the custom that prevailed in later periods.
Of course the situation changed profoundly after the Vedic period. Male domination became the law of the land in the Punjab as well. However, since the Punjab developed as an agrarian society requiring the joint labour of man and woman in the production process, the female retained a certain level of importance in society, as was noted by Al Beruni in the 11th century. He was also well aware of the very low status of women in those Northern and Central Asian societies which depended on trade. Female labour is not as important in the day-to-day activities of trade, although it is in agriculture.
The significance of the status of females in the Punjab also indicates that within a village community – classified as the Asiatic Mode of Production by Marx – the differentiation of sizes of property holdings varied, and small-sized parcels of land may have been the norm rather than the exception. If most of the land-holding was concentrated in a few hands, the female status would have been totally diminished, as we see in all other medieval feudalistic societies. As a matter of fact in small-sized farming communities, the females have or had an equal or bigger say in important family matters than their male counterparts. This is why urbanites viewing rural Punjab through television and films on rural life are always shocked to see the power of women in families in central Punjab .
Another socio-historical trend points towards the structure of Punjabi society as characterized above: the Punjab has been open to progressive movements more than other areas of the region because of a relatively less encumbered population. The spread of Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism indicate that whenever oppression increases to a certain level, a resistance movement in the form of religion changes the whole set-up in the Punjab . Such large shifts assume a vibrant, less burdened society, and by extension females have a better status in such set-ups, as described by Al Beruni. Furthermore, women always benefit and enhance their status during progressive changes in society.
Even in our own times, the movement for economic and social justice led by Zulifqar Ali Bhutto in the late 1960s and 70s found its early firm traction in the Punjabi heartland. Interestingly, women voters were much more attracted to Bhutto than men. The women in the Punjab heartland could generally go against the wishes of their men folk because they enjoyed the liberty to do so: it was a continuation of established social tradition in the Punjab over the centuries. On the contrary, the oppressed women of the tribal belt have not been able to follow their Punjabi sisters because of their centuries’ long subjugation under their men folk who are products of a Northern and Central Asian male chauvinist society.
Punjabi literature and folk tales also elucidate a positive female status in society. In the folk tale of Puran Bhaghat, Raja Salvahan of Sialkot marries a young girl from a very low caste, who manipulates him. Though in many such folk tales the women do not dominate the men, yet nevertheless they take part in decision-making processes. In another set of folk tales of the Punjab , the women, sometimes represented metaphorically as birds, are shown equal to their male counterparts and are even sometimes wiser.
When we come to Punjabi literature, Baba Farid was the first Punjabi poet to be born 125 years after Al Beruni’s death. During this period the Punjab had experienced immense devastation caused by later Ghaznavid rulers and the invasion of Muhammad Ghauri and other warlords of the Slave Dynasty. Punjabi women were subjected to slavery on a large scale, and Lahore emerged as the largest slave market in India . And yet, the Punjab-born second generation immigrant from the North, Fariduddin Masood Ganj-e-Shakar expressed his deepest thoughts while adopting female pronouns. In many dohas (couplets), Baba Farid expresses himself as a woman contemplating the world. In some dohas life is depicted as feminine, while death is masculine. Baba Farid’s poetry requires a separate detailed expose in this regard, which we may attempt at some later time.
Dr Manzur Ejaz taught at the Punjab University, Lahore, for many years and now lives in Virginia
by Dr. Manzur Ejaz
Every historical change affects women in more profound ways than other segments of society. However, it is amazing that little has been recorded by historians in this regard. The Muslim invasion of the Punjab led by Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi in the 10th century, also resulted in fundamental changes in the status of women, but one does not find much material about this
shift in women’s status in historical chronicles of that period. Probably, most of the history books of that time were written by those Northern and Central Asian men who were attached to the Slave Dynasty and had little regard for women. The only exception is Abu Rehan Al Beruni (973-1048) who wrote about the status of women and other social aspects of the Punjab .
Al Beruni’s account of India is largely based upon his observations about the Punjabi society to which he came with Mahmud Ghaznavi, and later on lived in for a long time. Therefore, for all practical purposes Al Beruni viewed India through his knowledge of the Punjab . One can trace back Al Beruni’s characterization of Punjabi women as being part of the decision-making process in all important matters, from the customs of the ancient Vedic period. We can see a similar depiction of Punjabi women in the work of the intellectuals who came after him. For example, one can find metaphorical descriptions of the status of women in the poetry of Hazrat Fariduddin Masud Ganj-e-Shakar aka Baba Farid (1173-1265) and through the memoirs of his intellectual heir Nizam-ud-Din Aulia (1238-1325). In addition, folk tales can be utilized as an indirect source of our information, though their authenticity will remain suspect.
Al Beruni notes that Indian men are different from those in Central Asia because, “in all consultations and emergencies they take the advice of their womenfolk”. Contrary to many other Muslim historians of medieval India , Al Beruni notes that the custom of sati (self-immolation) is optional for the common people, though mandatory for kings’ wives. Al Beruni’s characterization indicates that in the Punjab the status of women was not diminished very much during the thousands of years following the Vedic period.
The oldest Vedic scripture, Rig Veda, was written in the Punjabi plains that are called Sapat Sindhu or land of the seven rivers. The hymns of the Rig Veda show that women had complete and absolute freedom. As a matter of fact, from some hymns it appears that women were dominant over men. For example in the marriage hymns the wife addresses the assembly as a conquering commander. See the following verses from Rig Veda’s book ten entitled Saci Paulomi:
1. Yon sun hath mounted up, and this my happy fate hath mounted high. I knowing this, as conqueror have won my husband for mine own.
2. I am the banner and the head, a mighty arbitress am I: I am victorious, and my Lord shall be submissive to my will.
3. My Sons are slayers of the foe, my Daughter is a ruling Queen: I am victorious: o’er my Lord my song of triumph is supreme.
4. That which Indira gave and thus grew glorious and most high,– This have I offered, O ye Gods, and rid me of each rival wife.
5. Destroyer of the rival wife, Sole Spouse, victorious, conqueror, The others’ glory have I seized as ’twere the wealth of weaker Dames.
6. I have subdued as conqueror these rivals, these my fellow-wives, That I may hold imperial sway over this Hero and the folk.
These verses give an impression that in earlier periods it was the women who would compete with each other to win the husband, just as in the later periods princes of different states used to fight duels with each other to win the hand of a princess through the custom of Soembar. It is also well-established that many of Rig Veda’s hymns were revealed to women like Romasa, Lopamudra, Apata, Kadru, Vishvavara, Ghosha, Juhu, Vagambhrini, Paulomi, Jarita, Shraddha-Kamayani, Urvashi, Sharnga, Yami, Indrani, Savitri and Devayani. The Sama Veda mentions another four: Nodha (or Purvarchchika), Akrishtabhasha, Shikatanivavari (or Utararchchika) and Ganpayana. A woman could also be a guru, and in Sanskrit there is a separate word for a female spiritual leader.
The epic war of the Mahabharata was also fought in the Punjab: Its location is identified as Kurukshetra, a town in Haryana which was part of the Punjab until not very long ago. In the Mahabharata, Kunti, the wife of the deceased King Pandu, does not go to the funeral pyre with him, and stays with his sons who are all known as Kunti Puttar (Kunti Puttar Arjan etc). All Kunti sons are fathered by different deities and that means she was free to choose the father of each of her children. Kunti had a son, Kiran, who was born out of wedlock before her marriage to king Pandu. Continuing the tradition, Kunti’s five sons shared one wife named Dhropadi, following their mother’s advice. Beside Kunti Putters, most of the males in the epic story are know by their mother’s names. This shows that women were not subjugated, unlike the custom that prevailed in later periods.
Of course the situation changed profoundly after the Vedic period. Male domination became the law of the land in the Punjab as well. However, since the Punjab developed as an agrarian society requiring the joint labour of man and woman in the production process, the female retained a certain level of importance in society, as was noted by Al Beruni in the 11th century. He was also well aware of the very low status of women in those Northern and Central Asian societies which depended on trade. Female labour is not as important in the day-to-day activities of trade, although it is in agriculture.
The significance of the status of females in the Punjab also indicates that within a village community – classified as the Asiatic Mode of Production by Marx – the differentiation of sizes of property holdings varied, and small-sized parcels of land may have been the norm rather than the exception. If most of the land-holding was concentrated in a few hands, the female status would have been totally diminished, as we see in all other medieval feudalistic societies. As a matter of fact in small-sized farming communities, the females have or had an equal or bigger say in important family matters than their male counterparts. This is why urbanites viewing rural Punjab through television and films on rural life are always shocked to see the power of women in families in central Punjab .
Another socio-historical trend points towards the structure of Punjabi society as characterized above: the Punjab has been open to progressive movements more than other areas of the region because of a relatively less encumbered population. The spread of Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism indicate that whenever oppression increases to a certain level, a resistance movement in the form of religion changes the whole set-up in the Punjab . Such large shifts assume a vibrant, less burdened society, and by extension females have a better status in such set-ups, as described by Al Beruni. Furthermore, women always benefit and enhance their status during progressive changes in society.
Even in our own times, the movement for economic and social justice led by Zulifqar Ali Bhutto in the late 1960s and 70s found its early firm traction in the Punjabi heartland. Interestingly, women voters were much more attracted to Bhutto than men. The women in the Punjab heartland could generally go against the wishes of their men folk because they enjoyed the liberty to do so: it was a continuation of established social tradition in the Punjab over the centuries. On the contrary, the oppressed women of the tribal belt have not been able to follow their Punjabi sisters because of their centuries’ long subjugation under their men folk who are products of a Northern and Central Asian male chauvinist society.
Punjabi literature and folk tales also elucidate a positive female status in society. In the folk tale of Puran Bhaghat, Raja Salvahan of Sialkot marries a young girl from a very low caste, who manipulates him. Though in many such folk tales the women do not dominate the men, yet nevertheless they take part in decision-making processes. In another set of folk tales of the Punjab , the women, sometimes represented metaphorically as birds, are shown equal to their male counterparts and are even sometimes wiser.
When we come to Punjabi literature, Baba Farid was the first Punjabi poet to be born 125 years after Al Beruni’s death. During this period the Punjab had experienced immense devastation caused by later Ghaznavid rulers and the invasion of Muhammad Ghauri and other warlords of the Slave Dynasty. Punjabi women were subjected to slavery on a large scale, and Lahore emerged as the largest slave market in India . And yet, the Punjab-born second generation immigrant from the North, Fariduddin Masood Ganj-e-Shakar expressed his deepest thoughts while adopting female pronouns. In many dohas (couplets), Baba Farid expresses himself as a woman contemplating the world. In some dohas life is depicted as feminine, while death is masculine. Baba Farid’s poetry requires a separate detailed expose in this regard, which we may attempt at some later time.
Dr Manzur Ejaz taught at the Punjab University, Lahore, for many years and now lives in Virginia
Saudi patience is running out By Turki al-Faisal
Here is a truly momentous article by Prince Turki al-Faisal (the former Saudi intelligence chief) in the Financial Times. It truly seems to indicate the beginning of a new day in relations between the Muslim world and the West on the matter of Israel. I have never read anything so blunt by a top Saudi official - presumably speaking for the King. Omar Ali
Saudi patience is running out By Turki al-Faisal
In my decades as a public servant, I have strongly promoted the Arab-Israeli peace process. During recent months, I argued that the peace plan proposed by Saudi Arabia could be implemented under an Obama administration if the Israelis and Palestinians both accepted difficult compromises. I told my audiences this was worth the energies of the incoming administration for, as the late Indian diplomat Vijaya Lakshmi Nehru Pandit said: "The more we sweat in peace, the less we bleed in war."
But after Israel launched its bloody attack on Gaza, these pleas for optimism and co-operation now seem a distant memory. In the past weeks, not only have the Israeli Defence Forces murdered more than 1,000 Palestinians, but they have come close to killing the prospect of peace itself. Unless the new US administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the US-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk.
Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, told the UN Security Council that if there was no just settlement, "we will turn our backs on you". King Abdullah spoke for the entire Arab and Muslim world when he said at the Arab summit in Kuwait that although the Arab peace initiative was on the table, it would not remain there for long. Much of the world shares these sentiments and any Arab government that negotiated with the Israelis today would be rightly condemned by its citizens. Two of the four Arab countries that have formal ties to Israel – Qatar and Mauritania – have suspended all relations and Jordan has recalled its ambassador.
America is not innocent in this calamity. Not only has the Bush administration left a sickening legacy in the region – from the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib – but it has also, through an arrogant attitude about the butchery in Gaza, contributed to the slaughter of innocents. If the US wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact – especially its "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia – it will have to drastically revise its policies vis a vis Israel and Palestine.
The incoming US administration will be inheriting a "basket full of snakes" in the region, but there are things that can be done to help calm them down. First, President Barack Obama must address the disaster in Gaza and its causes. Inevitably, he will condemn Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel.
When he does that, he should also condemn Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians and support a UN resolution to that effect; forcefully condemn the Israeli actions that led to this conflict, from settlement building in the West Bank to the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings and arbitrary arrests of Palestinians; declare America's intention to work for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, with a security umbrella for countries that sign up and sanctions for those that do not; call for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Shab'ah Farms in Lebanon; encourage Israeli-Syrian negotiations for peace; and support a UN resolution guaranteeing Iraq's territorial integrity.
Mr Obama should strongly promote the Abdullah peace initiative, which calls on Israel to pursue the course laid out in various international resolutions and laws: to withdraw completely from the lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, returning to the lines of June 4 1967; to accept a mutually agreed just solution to the refugee problem according to the General Assembly resolution 194; and to recognise the independent state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return, there would be an end to hostilities between Israel and all the Arab countries, and Israel would get full diplomatic and normal relations.
Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad of Iran wrote a letter to King Abdullah, explicitly recognising Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds and calling on him to take a more confrontational role over "this obvious atrocity and killing of your own children" in Gaza. The communiqué is significant because the de facto recognition of the kingdom's primacy from one of its most ardent foes reveals the extent that the war has united an entire region, both Shia and Sunni. Further, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's call for Saudi Arabia to lead a jihad against Israel would, if pursued, create unprecedented chaos and bloodshed in the region.
So far, the kingdom has resisted these calls, but every day this restraint becomes more difficult to maintain. When Israel deliberately kills Palestinians, appropriates their lands, destroys their homes, uproots their farms and imposes an inhuman blockade on them; and as the world laments once again the suffering of the Palestinians, people of conscience from every corner of the world are clamouring for action. Eventually, the kingdom will not be able to prevent its citizens from joining the worldwide revolt against Israel. Today, every Saudi is a Gazan, and we remember well the words of our late King Faisal: "I hope you will forgive my outpouring of emotions, but when I think that our Holy Mosque in Jerusalem is being invaded and desecrated, I ask God that if I am unable to undertake Holy Jihad, then I should not live a moment more."
Let us all pray that Mr Obama possesses the foresight, fairness, and resolve to rein in the murderous Israeli regime and open a new chapter in this most intractable of conflicts.
(Prince Turki is chairman, King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies, Riyadh. He has been director of Saudi intelligence, ambassador to the UK and Ireland and ambassador to the US.)
Saudi patience is running out By Turki al-Faisal
In my decades as a public servant, I have strongly promoted the Arab-Israeli peace process. During recent months, I argued that the peace plan proposed by Saudi Arabia could be implemented under an Obama administration if the Israelis and Palestinians both accepted difficult compromises. I told my audiences this was worth the energies of the incoming administration for, as the late Indian diplomat Vijaya Lakshmi Nehru Pandit said: "The more we sweat in peace, the less we bleed in war."
But after Israel launched its bloody attack on Gaza, these pleas for optimism and co-operation now seem a distant memory. In the past weeks, not only have the Israeli Defence Forces murdered more than 1,000 Palestinians, but they have come close to killing the prospect of peace itself. Unless the new US administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the US-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk.
Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, told the UN Security Council that if there was no just settlement, "we will turn our backs on you". King Abdullah spoke for the entire Arab and Muslim world when he said at the Arab summit in Kuwait that although the Arab peace initiative was on the table, it would not remain there for long. Much of the world shares these sentiments and any Arab government that negotiated with the Israelis today would be rightly condemned by its citizens. Two of the four Arab countries that have formal ties to Israel – Qatar and Mauritania – have suspended all relations and Jordan has recalled its ambassador.
America is not innocent in this calamity. Not only has the Bush administration left a sickening legacy in the region – from the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib – but it has also, through an arrogant attitude about the butchery in Gaza, contributed to the slaughter of innocents. If the US wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact – especially its "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia – it will have to drastically revise its policies vis a vis Israel and Palestine.
The incoming US administration will be inheriting a "basket full of snakes" in the region, but there are things that can be done to help calm them down. First, President Barack Obama must address the disaster in Gaza and its causes. Inevitably, he will condemn Hamas's firing of rockets at Israel.
When he does that, he should also condemn Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians and support a UN resolution to that effect; forcefully condemn the Israeli actions that led to this conflict, from settlement building in the West Bank to the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings and arbitrary arrests of Palestinians; declare America's intention to work for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, with a security umbrella for countries that sign up and sanctions for those that do not; call for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Shab'ah Farms in Lebanon; encourage Israeli-Syrian negotiations for peace; and support a UN resolution guaranteeing Iraq's territorial integrity.
Mr Obama should strongly promote the Abdullah peace initiative, which calls on Israel to pursue the course laid out in various international resolutions and laws: to withdraw completely from the lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, returning to the lines of June 4 1967; to accept a mutually agreed just solution to the refugee problem according to the General Assembly resolution 194; and to recognise the independent state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return, there would be an end to hostilities between Israel and all the Arab countries, and Israel would get full diplomatic and normal relations.
Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad of Iran wrote a letter to King Abdullah, explicitly recognising Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds and calling on him to take a more confrontational role over "this obvious atrocity and killing of your own children" in Gaza. The communiqué is significant because the de facto recognition of the kingdom's primacy from one of its most ardent foes reveals the extent that the war has united an entire region, both Shia and Sunni. Further, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's call for Saudi Arabia to lead a jihad against Israel would, if pursued, create unprecedented chaos and bloodshed in the region.
So far, the kingdom has resisted these calls, but every day this restraint becomes more difficult to maintain. When Israel deliberately kills Palestinians, appropriates their lands, destroys their homes, uproots their farms and imposes an inhuman blockade on them; and as the world laments once again the suffering of the Palestinians, people of conscience from every corner of the world are clamouring for action. Eventually, the kingdom will not be able to prevent its citizens from joining the worldwide revolt against Israel. Today, every Saudi is a Gazan, and we remember well the words of our late King Faisal: "I hope you will forgive my outpouring of emotions, but when I think that our Holy Mosque in Jerusalem is being invaded and desecrated, I ask God that if I am unable to undertake Holy Jihad, then I should not live a moment more."
Let us all pray that Mr Obama possesses the foresight, fairness, and resolve to rein in the murderous Israeli regime and open a new chapter in this most intractable of conflicts.
(Prince Turki is chairman, King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies, Riyadh. He has been director of Saudi intelligence, ambassador to the UK and Ireland and ambassador to the US.)
Obama's Message The Wrong Side of History By Uri Avenery - Israel
In the last few days I have heard a lot of declarations from Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni, Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert. And every time, these eight words came back to haunt me: “You are on the wrong side of history!”
Obama was speaking as a man of the 21st century. Our leaders speak the language of the 19th century. They resemble the dinosaurs which once terrorized their neighborhood and were quite unaware of the fact that their time had already passed. During the rousing celebrations, again and again the multicolored patchwork of the new president’s family was mentioned.
All the preceding 43 presidents were white Protestants, except John Kennedy, who was a white Catholic. 38 of them were the descendants of immigrants from the
This is the face of the new American nation – a mixture of races, religions, countries of origin and skin-colors, an open and diverse society, all of whose members are supposed to be equal and to identify themselves with the ”founding fathers”. The American Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was born in a Kenyan village, can speak with pride of “George Washington, the father of our nation”, of the “American Revolution” (the war of independence against the British), and hold up the example of “our ancestors”, who include both the white pioneers and the black slaves who “endured the lash of the whip”. That is the perception of a modern nation, multi-cultural and multi-racial: a person joins it by acquiring citizenship, and from this moment on is the heir to all its history.
When Ehud Barak speaks about the future, he speaks the language of past centuries, in terms of brute force and brutal threats, with armies providing the solution to all problems.
That was also the language of George W. Bush who last week slinked out of
Our leaders are now boasting about their part in the Gaza War, in which unbridled military force was unleashed intentionally against a civilian population, men, women and children, with the declared aim of “creating deterrence”. In the era that began last Tuesday, such expressions can only arouse shudders.
Between
The first signs are small. In his inaugural speech, Obama proclaimed that “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers.” Since when? Since when do the Muslims precede the Jews? What has happened to the “Judeo-Christian Heritage”? (A completely false term to start with, since Judaism is much closer to Islam than to Christianity. For example: neither Judaism nor Islam supports the separation of religion and state.)
The very next morning, Obama phoned a number of
Instead of the group of American Jews who had been in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Obama, on his very first day in office, appointed an Arab-American, George Mitchell, whose mother had come to America from Lebanon at age 18, and who himself, orphaned from his Irish father, was brought up in a Maronite Christian Lebanese family.
These are not good tidings for the Israeli leaders. For the last 42 years, they have pursued a policy of expansion, occupation and settlements in close cooperation with
It will happen, of course, gradually. The pro-Israel lobby in
This could not have happened, if
The Gaza War, during which tens of millions of Americans saw the horrible carnage in the Strip (even if rigorous self-censorship cut out all but a tiny part), has hastened the process of drifting apart. Israel, the brave little sister, the loyal ally in Bush’s “War on Terror”, has turned into the violent Israel, the mad monster, which has no compassion for women and children, the wounded and the sick. And when winds like these are blowing, the Lobby loses height.
The leaders of official
Our leaders are still intoxicated with war and drunk with violence. They have re-phrased the famous saying of the Prussian general, Carl von Clausewitz into: “War is but a continuation of an election campaign by other means.” They compete with each other with vainglorious swagger for their share of the “credit”. Tzipi Livni, who cannot compete with the men for the crown of warlord, tries to outdo them in toughness, in bellicosity, in hard-heartedness.
The most brutal is Ehud Barak. Once I called him a “peace criminal”, because he brought about the failure of the 2000
In his own eyes, and in the eyes of a large section of the public, this is a military operation which deserves all praise. His advisors also thought that it would bring him success in the elections. The Labor party, which had been the largest party in the Knesset for decades, had shrunk in the polls to 12, even 9 seats out of 120. With the help of the
What was Barak’s mistake? Very simply: every war helps the Right. War, by its very nature, arouses in the population the most primitive emotions – hate and fear, fear and hate. These are the emotions on which the Right has been riding for centuries. Even when it’s the ”Left” that starts a war, it’s still the Right that profits from it. In a state of war, the population prefers an honest-to-goodness Rightist to a phony Leftist.
This is happening to Barak for the second time. When, in 2000, he spread the mantra “I have turned every stone on the way to peace, / I have made the Palestinians unprecedented offers, / They have rejected everything, / There is no one to talk with” - he succeeded not only in blowing the Left to smithereens, but also in paving the way for the ascent of Ariel Sharon in the 2001 elections. Now he is paving the way for Binyamin Netanyahu (hoping, quite openly, to become his minister of defense).
And not only for him. The real victor of the war is a man who had no part in it at all: Avigdor Liberman. His party, which in any normal country would be called fascist, is steadily rising in the polls. Why? Liberman looks and sounds like an Israeli Mussolini, he is an unbridled Arab-hater, a man of the most brutal force. Compared to him, even Netanyahu looks like a softie. A large part of the young generation, nurtured on years of occupation, killing and destruction, after two atrocious wars, considers him a worthy leader.
While the
Between the mental world of Obama and the mental world of Liberman and Netanyahu there is no bridge. Between Obama and Barak and Livni, too, there yawns an abyss. Post-election
Where are the American Jews? The overwhelming majority of them voted for Obama. They will be between the hammer and the anvil – between their government and their natural adherence to
But during this war masses of Europeans poured into the streets to demonstrate against the horrible events. The same masses saluted Obama on the day of his inauguration. This is the new world. Perhaps our leaders are now dreaming of the slogan: "Stop the world, I want to get off!" But there is no other world. Yes, we are now on the wrong side of history.
Fortunately, there is also another
But what has happened in the
We want to be on the right side of history. That will take months or years, but I am sure that we shall get there. The time to start is now.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Sandip K. Dasverma
- Arise Awake Stop not till the goal is reached. - Swami Vivekananda Swami ji is my inspiration, not as a monk but as a social reformer and for his universal-ism.