Foreign Policy Stuff 2

Here ia a paper that reflects on the second foreign obsession of thinking Indians (for the first see Foreign Policy stuff 1 post)

This one is also dated, written in 2003, and thankfully subsequent events have toned down some of the risks mentioned here, and the whole US India relationship has been substantially improved, nay transformed by Maryada Purushottam George W Bush Ji (on why I call him that I will explain in a later post).

A little caveat, I use the term realim here to denote enlightened national self interest, rather than any particular school of thought. In fact when I wrote this I was not aware that there are multiple theories of revolving around realism, with many variations. Frankly I find it tough to read too many theoretical books on such topics, so this is the opinion of an amateur observer only.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE5-4/nandv.html

Article Reviews

Building a New Partnership with India, Teresita Schaeffer, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2002 http://www.twq.com/02spring/schaffer.pdf

Teresita Schaffer deserves to be commended for writing a fairly comprehensive account of the major factors affecting Indo–US relations. She has made an accurate diagnosis of the variables that might affect the trajectory of this relationship and the challenges therein. She has refrained from making any major controversial suggestions on how US policy (or India’s policy) should be molded to accommodate the challenges.

At the very outset, she states that the US-India relationship cannot be an alliance but a selective partnership based on realism and candor, and based on specific areas of common interest. This is an accurate statement. An alliance between India and the US resembling the US-British relationship is not feasible. The natural and perceived interests of large civilization states often diverge. Due to the much stronger economic, military and diplomatic power of the US, such a relationship would only be possible with India assuming the position of a de facto vassal state, which its size and civilizational memory would not allow it to do.

Though realism is foreign affairs is an unquestionable truism, its importance in this context needs to be highlighted. Both states have been guilty of ignoring this principle. India adopted moralistic and sometimes reactionary anti-Americanism at times. Washington has been guilty of letting bilateral ties languish due to a distorted vision through a cold war prism, and a lack of sufficient understanding of and sensitivity towards India. Important areas of cooperation remained untapped due to Washington’s insistence on issues like nuclear non-proliferation, though it was simply beyond its power to undermine Indian consensus on the issue. Subsequent acceptance of India’s nuclear weapons by the US, and India’s strong (and lonely) support of the AMD program also indicates a welcome growing maturity on both sides.

The paper goes on to list important changes in India and Asia that affect the relationship, and is largely accurate in these assessments. These include the higher growth and size of the Indian economy. The greater interdependence between the Indian and US economies due to higher participation of multinationals in the Indian economy and the strong growth of the IT sector. The decline of the preeminence of the Congress Party and the era of the coalition politics is also mentioned.

India requires a broader range of relationships since it cannot depend on the strong political support of a weakened Russia. India is the predominant military power in the subcontinent and the largest military power between the Persian Gulf and East Asia, two major centers of US military presence. The prevailing situation opens up important areas of military cooperation. India’s overt nuclearization has also focused US interest in the area. It is a welcome development that US has matured its attitude to India’s nuclearization and India to greater US military presence in Asia.

The paper goes on to detail the importance of Indian economic growth, the ideology and dynamics of major political groups, internal economic situation, and the dynamics of India’s interests and relations with other countries, to the Indo US relationship.

An important assertion that Schaffer makes is that US should accommodate India into the club of nations that manage the nuclear non-proliferation regime. This is a welcome suggestion since India’s record on non-proliferation is superior to acknowledged Nuclear Weapon states such as China. The denial of NWS status makes little difference to the ground realities, and is an unnecessary irritant. The other important policy suggestions are increased military and economic cooperation in the Persian Gulf and Asia Pacific region.

The paper rejects the possibility of an anti-China axis between the US and India as impractical, and makes reasonable and valid arguments for the same.

The denial of critical defense and dual use technologies by the US to India is a major irritant in bilateral ties. The decline of the Russian armament supplies to India opens opportunities to expand the defense trade between the two countries. However the paper refrains from suggesting any changes in US policy on the issue.

Schaffer succeeds in identifying the fundamental difference in worldview between the two countries. While the US interest is to consolidate its role as the world’s sole superpower, India desires an increasingly multipolar world with itself as a major pole. The shadow of Indo-Pakistan tension over Kashmir looms large over the relationship. While the diagnosis is accurate, the prognosis is vague and unclear. The paper suggests a “sustained and sophisticated US diplomatic strategy” to defuse the situation. There is very little in terms of policy suggestion. Though the paper does suggest that Pakistan has to be pressured to stop cross border terrorism, it qualifies this assertion by saying that it might be difficult to persuade Pakistan to do the same.

Unfortunately, this single issue has the potential to overshadow all other recent positive developments and opportunities. The failure (or reluctance) of the US to force Pakistan’s hand on the terrorism issue is an overriding factor in the minds for the Indian establishment. This fact, coupled with the acknowledged difference in worldviews, and the denial of critical defense technologies suggest a strategy of containment against India. The motives of the US in this regard are irrelevant, since there is a growing view among the Indian security establishment of Pakistan as a US (and Chinese) client state to contain India.

For Indians, the acknowledgement of Pakistan as a “frontline ally against terrorism” is a ludicrous ‘Alice in Wonderland’ scenario. From India’s point of view, the US has been guilty of disregarding India’s legitimate concerns over terrorism, and equating the aggressor and victim by hyphenating its relationship with India and Pakistan.

Though the imperative for an alliance with Pakistan can be justified and understood as a tactical necessity, the opacity of US intentions towards Iraq, and its inconsistent stand towards WMD and nuclear technology transfers vis-à-vis North Korea and China is viewed negatively in India. The perception of India as “Morality without Strength” is reciprocated with a perception of the US as “Strength without Morality”. This is an unfortunate scenario that should be addressed by both countries at the diplomatic level, even if overall geopolitical policies remain unchanged.

The danger is that the success of present US policy is predicated to an acceptance of the status quo from India. If India decides to disregard US concerns and assurances, takes a proactive approach and precipitates direct military action against Pakistan, the entire edifice of US foreign policy in the region would come crumbling down.

Support for the military option has been growing steadily in India, with major provocative events such as the Kargil War of 1999, 9/11 and the attack on the Indian Parliament in Dec 2001. Some terrorist groups have been displaying increasing autonomy in their actions, sometimes defying the will of Islamabad. With Indians losing faith in Pakistani assurances and American guarantees, a major attack such as the one on Parliament would make the military option politically imperative, especially if a government with weak nationalist credentials is in power, the threat of nuclear escalation notwithstanding.
In conclusion, the paper is lucidly written and an important and comprehensive account of the gamut of factors affecting the US and India bilateral relationship. However its use as a policy paper is limited since it does not venture any major innovations in policy by either country.

Zaroorat-e-Ishq (The Need for Love)

Zaroorat-e-Ishq

Khuda ne ishq ko bheja kyun
Qayamat ka andaaz ho jaaye
Lutf-e-jannat chakh le insaan
Dard-e-dozakh bardaasht ho jaaye

The following is a rough translation:

The Need for Love

Why did God send Love on Earth
To prepare man for Judgement Day
To give a glipmse of the pleasures of Heaven
And to prepare him for the torments of Hell

Love's Empire

I found this awesome quatrain by Samuel Coleridge (the opening Lines of his nazm "Love"

All thoughts, all passions, all delights,
Whatever stirs this mortal frame,
All are but ministers of Love,
And feed his sacred flame.

This was such good stuff that I decided to translate it into Hindi as best as I could, and went on to write a few more rubaaiis on simlilar topics. I did make an attempt to transate the whole thing, but my God, its impossible to rhyme "Genevive" in Hindi. And it started sounding atrocious in parts. On the advise of my sister, I gave up that venture. But this one below came out rather well I think.

To Begin with here is my translation of Ustad Coleridge.

Huqumat-e-Ishq
Har lutf har khayaal har junoon
Har cheez jo dil ko lubhati hai
Sab ishq ki shamma ka idhan hai
Aur ishq ka huqum bajati hai.

A Contrarian View on Serbia, Bosnia et al

Please note I neither endorse nor necessarily believe in the information in the link below. But it does make one think.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_straight_story_on_yugoslav_1.html

On wine and drinking

A couplet on wine, and the proper way to drink

Hosh me na aa jaaoon na bahosh rah sakoon
bas itna pila saqiya madhosh rah sakoon

Leave me neither senseless nor let in my senses be
Just pour me enough O Saqi I lie somewhere between

Saqi - winebearer

A very funny contrarian view

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

Foreign policy stuff

It is said that the thinking Indian has 3 foreign obsessions - Pakistan, PRC and the US. Of these, US and Pakistan are well understood due to deep cultural and/or historical ties, while PRC remains largely unknown (to most).

I tried to summarise my thoughts on the known obsessions in a couple of review articles that contain a distillation of what I have read and experienced ove the years. The primary reason for writing review papers rather than new papers is to escape the necessity of indexing a bibliography which takes 4 times as much time as writing a short paper.

The following is a review of a paper by Stephen Cohen "The Nation and the State of Pakistan". It was written in 2002, but is still largely applicable.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE5-1/nandv.html

The Nation and the State of Pakistan

Stephen Phillip Cohen, The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2002, pp 109-122.

Steven Philip Cohen is a prominent South Asia “expert”. It may be pertinent to note at the outset that there are no prominent US experts in India or South Asia experts in the United Kingdom. The prominence of individual experts is a phenomenon that arises only when there is a lack of understanding among the decision-making intelligentsia of another country or region. Therefore individuals like Cohen have significant influence on US policy for the decision makers are dependent to an extent on their input.

Cohen provides a largely accurate narrative of the short history of Pakistan and its current sociopolitical environment. His fundamental premise is that Pakistan is too large a state to be allowed to fail.

However his paper contradicts itself at many points. These contradictions are consistent with the inherent contradictions of the idea of Pakistan itself. It will be difficult for any scholar to remain consistent and argue against the failure of Pakistan. For a state to be saved from failure, it is necessary that it should not have failed already. Cohen defines state failure as a country where security, human services, justice and basic necessities are not provided. He also says that the ideological failure is a subjective and contentious topic, and thereby skirts the problematic issue. It is implicit in these statements that Cohen believes ideological failure is distinct from institutional failure. In other words a nation can exist and succeed in an ideological vacuum. He fails to address the fundamental question of how a state can exist without an identity for its citizens or a raison d’etre. Nor does he suggest any mechanism for forging a new Pakistani identity. In fact he is extremely despondent about that occurring in the foreseeable future.

Cohen’s idea of Pakistan:

Cohen states that Pakistan was created to protect Muslims from intolerance and bigotry of the Hindu majority. And to serve as a “beacon” for oppressed Muslims around the world. He draws an analogy with the state of Israel. It is a tenuous analogy.

It is not clear how Indian Muslims suffered intolerance and bigotry from India’s Hindu majority akin to what the Jews suffered around the world. After all unlike Jews, Muslims were well represented in the armed forces, judiciary and the bureaucracy in British India, and had strong organized political associations. At worst there was an apprehension of intolerance from the Hindu majority in an independent India. It is also unclear how Cohen gets the idea that Pakistan was to serve as a “beacon” for oppressed Muslims around the world. Unlike Israel Pakistan does not allow oppressed Muslims to seek refuge in Pakistan. Cohen makes no attempt to explain this assertion. The only statement he makes is that Pakistan aspired to be a leader of Islamic states. There is nothing extraordinary or laudatory about this ambition. Every state of substantial size aspires for global leadership and great power status. Also Israel apart from being a Jewish homeland is also an immigrant state. The immigrant adopts Israel as his country, Hebrew as his language and gradually assimilates into an Israeli identity. The Pakistani still defines his identity from his linguistic, regional, religious (Islamic) sect, and tribal affiliations. The events of 1971 and subsequent political movements in Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP and the Mohajir movement have amply demonstrated this.

Cohen accepts that the fundamental premise behind the creation of Pakistan was the Two Nation Theory that states Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations that cannot live together.

After the creation of Bangladesh it was clear that Islam alone couldn’t be the binding factor for a linguistically and ethnically diverse people such as the subcontinent’s Muslims. As long as India exists and matures into an increasingly prosperous and liberal state, and India’s Muslims continue to thrive and prosper in a democratic secular India, in a largely peaceful if occasionally fractious relationship with the Hindu majority, there is no justification for Pakistan to exist. The present day Pakistan is just the antithesis of India. Continuous conflict with India is its only source of unity.

Cohen seems to be mesmerized by what he claims was Jinnah’s vision of a liberal, democratic and moderate homeland for ‘some of India’s Muslims’. He also suggests that it is because of the fact that Pakistan has drifted away from Jinnah’s vision that it has come to its present sorry state. He does not recognize that Jinnah himself was unable to provide a liberal and democratic setup for Pakistan in his lifetime. His insistence on the imposition of Urdu as the national language on Bengalis and other linguistic minorities cannot be condoned as a democratic move. Cohen refuses to acknowledge that the Two Nation theory is in fundamental conflict with the principles of liberty and democracy.

In the later chapters of the report, Cohen’s definition of state failure seems to change to one of territorial integrity, rather than the security and welfare of its citizens. His main argument against disintegration of Pakistan is that it could cause unforeseen calamities to the entire region, and the nuclear weapons could be lost to rogue states or terrorist elements. However Cohen himself acknowledges that Pakistan is unlikely to change it policy of a hopeless vendetta against India in Kashmir and elsewhere. In other words he finds sustained terrorism against India as an acceptable price for some unforeseen threats that might emerge from Pakistan’s disintegration. He ignores various polls in Pakistan by multinational agencies that most Pakistanis prioritize economic growth, education, civic amenities and governance above Kashmir as a national priority. In doing so, he accepts the Pakistani Army’s stance on Kashmir as representative of the people of Pakistan. The Kashmir mission is undoubtedly a necessity for the Army to legitimize its hold to power.

Cohen then gives a vague recommendation that US must keep assisting Pakistan and build its institutions. He also suggests that US should attempt to bolster education, and counter propaganda against India, and against the US and its allies. He does not provide further details on the mechanism for this policy. It can be assumed that he proposes US support for the dispensation in power, i.e., the Pakistani Army to this end. Here he contradicts his own statement that the Army would not be willing to change anti-India policies.

In conclusion Cohen presents a good primer about the history of Pakistan and the prevailing social and political situation. He also provides a good background in Pakistan’s ideological moorings and the problems therein. However his only policy recommendation seems to be the continuation of the status quo, with peripheral modifications. There is no road map for his personal objective of a moderate, modern, Muslim state. It is possible that he does not recognize the inherent fallacy of the Two Nation Theory for he seems to be a believer himself. His policy suggestions do not attack the fundamental problems with Pakistan. The term ‘appeasement’ immediately comes to mind. It seems to lack the vision or courage to suggest a proactive policy that would defuse the threats the present incarnation of Pakistan presents to the world at large, and India and the US in particular.

Shikwa (Complaint)

This poem is inspired by Iqbal's Shikwa and Jawaab-e-Shikwa. It is a list of my complaints to God about the inevitable tragedy of inncocent Love and God's explanation to why all is exactly as it should be.

I am apprehensive to translate it for a larger audience, since my limited abilities at translation might ruin it completely.

SHIKWA

Illahi teri kudrat me aisa karishma kyun hota hai,
Jinke chehere phool se ho, dil patthar ka kyun hota hai.

Jawab-e-shikwa

Kudrat hamari mukammal hai, iski hasti naznee(n) hain
Chehera gar phool sa ho to patthar ka dil lazmi hain.

Shikwa
nadaan ko jaha mein aksar shikast ka saamna hota hai
phir jazba-e-muhabbat jazba-e-masoom kyun hota hai.

Jawab-e-shikwa

Sach hai jaam chhalakte hai dast-e-masoom ke paimanon se
soch samajh aashiq ho jae ummeed nahi sayanon se.

Gham-e-ishq dardbhara ik raag purana hota hai
shikast-e-ishq ke baad hi masoom sayana hota hai.

Shikast ho jae phir bhi hausle barkarar rakh,
khudi par bharosa kar khuda par aitbaar rakh.

phir girengi bijliyan kucch aur intezaar kar
lazim hai ab zara sayanon ki tarah pyaar kar.

Shikwa
Khudaya aapki baat to dil ka bahlana lagta hai
sayanon ka ishq to mohabbat ka fasaana lagta hai.

Bigad gayi taqdeer jo wo phir kaha phirti hai
barak gir jae jaha dobara kaha girti hai.

Ashk tham jate hain to dil lahoo rota hai
mukhtasar bhool saze-e-ta-umr kyun hota hain

Jawab-e-shikwa

Gila taqdeer se baja hai shewa-e-chaman se to nahin
dil se masoomiyat chahti hai wafa zahan se to nahin.

Aata tumhe mohabbat ka shaoor akal nigahbaan bhi ho sakti thi
khafa tumse ho gai jo nigah-e-hoor meherbaan bhi ho sakti thi

Shahar-e-husn sarfaroshan ki aazmayish kadi hain
Inaam jannat-e-khwab hai to saza bhi badi hain

hamdard bhi hai hum tere mana kasak bhi tere pyaar mein
magar roothe mehboob ko manana nahi hamare ikhtiyaar mein.

sangdili zeenat-e-husn hai is kadar barham na ho
zakhm-e-dil aisa bhi nahin jiska koi marham na ho

taqdeer ka phirna mumkin hai giraft-e-jazbaat se nikal
barak phir gir sakti hai agar husn ki barsaat me nikal.

Guzarish

malik ki baat sar aankhon par tabedaar karta hain
yakeen to nahi aata magar aitbaar karta hain

Guzarish bas itni roz-e-hashr pe insaaf karna
jinse jaha me mil na sake jannat me milaap karna

A few thoughts on poetry and poets

Accha shayar hone ke liye, khusoonan accha ishqiya shayra hone ke liye zaroori hai ki uske kabhi bepanaah ishq ho jaaye. Aur bhi accha ho ki ishq pehle iktarfa ho, magar phir dotarfa hokar kamyaab ho jaaye. Aur behter yehi ki phir wahi ishq barbaad ho jaaye aur ek dardnaak judaai ka waakya guzre. Is tarah shayar ka ishq ki sab rangeen tasweer se ikhtiyar ho jayega.

Magar mujhpe jo guzri wo faiz ahmed faiz ki zindagi se kaafi milti julti hai. When he went to college in Lahore he later said: " In this atmosphere there was also the wonder of the beginning of love but we had just a glimpse of this period, when we reached the end of love's companionship. "

So all my poetic attempts are based on such a glimpse, a mere whiff of Love's glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be a good poet, particularly to be a good romantic poet, it is preferable that one falls helplessly into love. Ideally love should be initially unrequited but ultimately successful. And then the whole affair ends tragically with a painful period of loss and parting. In this way, the poet would become familar with all different shades of love's experience.

But whether it be my misfortune or good fortune, all that happened to me is similar to the experience of Faiz Ahmed Faiz' experience during his college days: " In this atmosphere there was also the wonder of the beginning of love but we had just a glimpse of this period, when we reached the end of love's companionship. "

So all my poetic attempts are based on such a glimpse, a mere whiff of Love's glory.