Jasdev Singh Rai2013-05-22T01:17:07-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=jasdev-singh-raiCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jasdev Singh RaiGood old fashioned elbow grease.U Keep UKIPtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32996032013-05-18T16:09:33-04:002013-05-20T06:55:46-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ miracle of Nigel Farrage falling down to earth in a little plane, UKIP has ascended the clouds casting shadows upon other parties. Like 'secular' Indian politicians who turn to holymen for guidance during elections, 'moderate' British leaders are foraging Farrage's ultranationalism for votes. He wants out of Europe, keep out immigrants, keep out wind farms and reintroduce smoking in public houses. A dream-er's charter.
I say 'English' nationalism because I doubt Salmon wants Scotland to leave Europe. Some Scottish nationalists made this clear by packing Farrage back in a police van. If a referendum is held now and the English vote to leave EU, Scotland will have an even better excuse to leave UK, to become member of EU. There won't be much of Great Britain left if Northern Ireland and Wales vote for EU.
If Britain votes to stay in EU then UK will have lost its most powerful negotiating card. Without the threat of UK leaving, Europeans won't take UK's demands seriously. Either way, 'referendum now' is politically suicidal for England.
Cameron is right in insisting 'first renegotiate then hold the referendum'. For some reason, Europe is eager to keep Britain in and might give in to quite a few demands to keep English voters happy.
But this entire idea of breaking from Europe and going solo lacks realism. How will UK single compete in a tough economic world on its own. Ukip is harking back to grandiose days of the Empire. What they fail to appreciate is that Britain's colonial economy was based on forced trade, captured markets and taxes on colonised economies. For instance only British sanctioned companies could mine salt in India and it was taxed. That sort of salt economy is history.
Today, UK plc has to earn every dollar and rupee. It is up against giants like USA and EU to compete in markets around the world. Are UKIP and others seriously thinking UKsolo can outdo EU's collective bargaining muscle in international trade?
UKIP's other policy is as naïve. UKIP doesn't appear to be racist in the mould of National Front. It has changed the immigrations argument from race to 'numbers' and its target appears to be East European migrants.
Not difficult to see why. While most Asian and Afro Carribean tradesmen work within their own communities, Eastern Europeans have been able to invade traditional working grounds of white workers, that is white dominated areas, with cheaper rates.
Keeping East Europeans out won't increase the purchasing power of people. People will still seek affordable deals or not build that extension at all. Perhaps UKIP members should lobby for waiving of VAT and become competitive, rather than seek French type protective tradesmen's market.
Perhaps UKIP's and Tory soloists' most short sighted vision is the idea that United Kingdom can regain its 'glorious place' in the world by unhinging from Europe. There are inevitable changes emerging on the international scene. Countries once colonised now call the shots in the world. They have been strongly hinting at changing the United Nations Security Council whose membership gives Britain its tremendous clout in the world. Either the Security Council will become redundant as these countries, such as India, Brazil and South Africa, throw their weight around or the Security Council will have to change and include them.
One of the three western Security Council members will have to go as the world won't tolerate three from one stable. Chances are that representation in the UN Security Council will be either on regional blocks or civilisations or both.
Of the three, USA won't go. The west will sacrifice either France or UK. If UK leaves EU, that will be it. 'Punching beyond our weight will become punching air'. Europe may retain its place collectively or through France.
UKsolo will be seen as part of US axis. History shows that the 'special relationship' is more rhetoric than real. The USA doesn't give a toss about UK. At least if UK remains within EU, it will continue to be a big player and can mould EU and international policies.
UKIP's agenda is forged by memories of lost power and insecurities in a fast changing world. Fact is that some British are still suffering from post Empire blues. UKIP is right about one thing. England needs to stop wallowing in guilt over the Empire. Empires come and go. The British Empire is history, but there were proud moments as well as bad ones. Now England's future lies in Europe otherwise it will go adrift.
The Tories seem to have been contaminated by UKIP's yester year utopia. They are in disarray. Miliband et al have been cool. It seems it remains for Labour to keep a steady head and steer England away from grandiose visions and come to terms with the real world, where competitive advantage is best achieved by forging relationships, networks and partnerships.
Fate brought Farrage crashing down to earth, unfortunately his head is still in the clouds with Tories joining while Scotland sent him back to England with Ukeep UKIP.]]>Caste Not Class Is the Main British Problem, Lordstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29891482013-03-31T14:02:19-04:002013-04-01T13:15:56-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/amendment by the Lords prohibiting an allegedly rampant discrimination in UK. Caste, not class.
The evidence for caste discrimination? Last Labour government commissioned a report from NIESR, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which gave a new meaning to 'evidence'. Statements making all sorts of allegations, neither tested nor shown to the accused even in anonymised form, have been called 'qualitative evidence'. It seems academia has a different threshold for evidence than English courts.
Labour is keen to fill this microscopic lacunae in English law while ignoring the mega crater of class discrimination. Contrary to its policy, the Labour Government passed over consultation dialogue with accused communities when it introduced caste issue in 2009.
The foundation for this legislative initiative has been theories such as 'Aryans invaded India thousands of years ago instituting caste and untouchability!' And apparently facts such as 'Hindus discriminate against other Hindus!' Aided by pious liberalism, 'no one should suffer discrimination on the grounds of anything that they cannot help (except class).' Not to forgo xenophobia, 'and stop people bringing to this country attitudes that are wholly contrary to the traditions of Britain.'
Trouble is 'castism' as an attitude was promoted by Britain in the first place since 'caste' as a category is a wholly British colonial construction. An elementary fact is that the word 'caste' has no literal translation in any Indian language.
There was untouchability practiced against waste and carcass collectors in some regions of India by some Hindus zealous about hygienic purity. Just as in medieval Europe. It got weaved into a Brahmanic reincarnation theory called Varna theology based on incremental birth cycles before reaching nirvana. This was and is condemned and discarded by Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Muslims and many Hindu traditions too.
Indians do have remarkably long persistent social communities called jatis, which are people with common shared history, ethics, dietary habits, sometimes gods and sometimes occupations. As people moved from one region to another, they often changed jatis. Even early colonialists acknowledged that jati system was fluid. It still remains one of the enduring systems resisting wealth based capitalist ordering of society.
As in Europe, Indian society was witnessing many revolutionary changes in seventeenth century. But colonialism reversed those. Eighteenth century British orientalists found varna, jati and reform movements all too confusing and challenging. They conflated varna and jati and confabulated a then prevalent European term, 'caste'. This is equivalent of throwing Scottish clans, English 'national superiority' and welsh tribes into one formula, 'race'.
'Caste' was introduced in Indian census forms in 1871. Indians were confused particularly as many didn't accept the varna system and their jatis were often interchangeable. No problem. British orientalist were there to help Indians learn about themselves.
Using varna theology as the framework, orientalists squeezed different jatis into a hierarchy with the help of marginalised opportunist groups such as Brahmins who again gained advantage by pushing others into lower status groups.
Risley, the Chief Commissioner of India's census in 1901 came with the definitive identifying marker of an Indian's caste. 'The social status of a particular group varies in inverse ratio to the mean relative width of their nose!'
By 1921, every Indian had a caste. Within a century Indians were transformed from a people with fluid, ever changing complex and plural social systems into a rigid stratified one leaving each individual little option to change. The practices of a few Brahmin groups were universalised in India by colonialism and the achievements of reform movements sunk. India still struggles with this colonial legacy.
Privileges, occupations and rights such as civil service, military, judiciary and land ownership etc were handed based on 'caste characteristics'. Others described by orientalists such as Huxley as lazy, dark skinned, broad nosed etc were left with menial jobs. Where there were porous boundaries, discrimination became institutionalised.
Even the Aryan invasion theory has been debunked by serious academic research as wishful creative inference by colonial orientalists searching for European origins of Indian civilisation.
The British Suprintendent of 1921 Census confessed, ' We pigeon holed everyone by caste and if we could not find a true caste for them, labelled them with the name of hereditary occupation. We deplore the caste system and its effect on social and economic problems, but we are largely responsible for the system we deplore."
Some of these internalised colonial infused habits lingered in early migrants to UK. But much has changed as new research destroys orientalist constructions and individualism undermines group myths.
Can cliché ridden eighteenth century orientalism be the basis of legislation in twenty first century multi cultural Britain? Obviously it can! Labour and Liberal legislators want to reignite a dying issue in UK.
Of course there is some lingering discrimination among handful, but dialogue and mutual action by communities can bring this to an end. Legislation will institutionalise it. The Tory Government prefers dialogue.
Two million Sikhs, Hindus and Jains have been judged on orientalist literature without a hearing by Labour and Liberals. Perhaps Rushdie was right when he said migrants were brought here as subject peoples with whom the British can deal, in very much the same way as their predecessors thought of and dealt with.
The real issue of class prejudice at the work place? 'People suffer prejudice in this country because of their class and we have no legislation on that', reminded Tory Baroness Stowell of Beeston to her fellow Noble members. Labour and Liberal legislators remain in denial.]]>Lib Dems, Now Really Think of the National Interest, Dump Coalition!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25548442013-01-25T21:26:39-05:002013-03-27T05:12:01-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/triple dip recession. Even the ultra-conservative IMF has advised Osborne to change course. Like an ostrich, with his head in the sand, Osborne bleats, 'Recession, what recession.' Isn't it time the Lib Dems did something REALLY for the nation. Dump the Tories, precipitate another election and let people decide whether they want to continue to be martyrs to Osborne's austerity mantra. Or elect a Government that will help people to get the economy going.
Osborne's economic policy is barmy gradually leading this country to junk status. You cannot pay off a massive loan just by reducing spending and toiling on fixed income but by improving earnings and reduce spending.
Osborne's is an economic policy driven by what his rich friends whisper in his ears and psychosis of bankruptcy. Balance the books and phobia of borrowing.
But borrowing is the engine of modern economics. Good businesses borrow to invest in expansion, increase market share and plans to make more money. Bad businesses borrow to buy luxury cars for directors while still waiting for a profit.
Sensible governments borrow to invest in economic growth. Profligate Governments borrow to buy votes. Unimaginative Governments balance books, without progress.
There is no denying that the last Labour Government borrowed too much with an eye on votes rather than economic growth. It bloated its own spending and gave away a lot of unnecessary grants, social welfare money etc. The only growth it relied on was the financial sector's magic mushroom money. Even Brown has admitted that belief in the financial sector was a big mistake.
But that is no reason to go into a bunker mentality. Of course Government spending needs to scale down dramatically, particularly where spending adds nothing of real value. Government needs live within its means.
But at the same time, the Government NEEDS to borrow to invest in REAL growth. It needs to borrow like any business, to encourage growth in innovative industry, to encourage new enterprise sectors, to enhance skills and to promote consumer spending through infrastructure projects. It needs to increase employment to reduce welfare burden.
Even non-economist can see that. IMF sees that. Now Goldman Sachs sees that. But Osborne is waiting for the rich to come in with infrastructure projects, new enterprises and so on.
He was naïve to rely on his rich friends to drive economic growth. Yet after two years, he still believes that. Money does not do 'nationalism' even if nationalism does currency. All the rich want is less taxes and have more to invest where ever there is the maximum profit in our globalised world. Paying back the nation by investing here is not in their wish list.
The Lib Dems finally realise that after two and half years in the coalition. At least that is what Clegg seems to be hinting at. Clegg said he formed the coalition 'in the national interest' of the nation. Six months ago, he said that he made compromises, 'in the interest' of the nation. Now reality faces LibDems in the face.
People are suffering; children are undernourished living in poverty. The country is standing still. Meanwhile we have a Chancellor competing with 'mules' and a Prime Minister driven by UKIP, obsessed with the European behemoth. It is no longer 'in the best interest' of the nation to continue with this sclerotic coalition.
Lib Dems should now call it a day with this Government and try and form a coalition with Labour, or precipitate an election in the hope of a coalition with Labour. Whatever Ed Ball's mistakes in the Brown era, once the financial crises faced the country, he did change his thinking. He has been consistent in the last two years. 'Reduce deficit slowly, borrow to invest in growth'. That is exactly where Clegg is now.
People want to work. Britain needs a Government that will make it possible for them to work. It is up to the Lib Dems to take the boldest step in the 'best interest of the nation'.]]>Rapes in India, Whose Culture is to Blame?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24200622013-01-06T08:06:38-05:002013-03-08T05:12:01-05:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/blame Indian culture for most of India's social ills, including rape including the recent tragic rape and death of a young medical student. No less than the eminent lawyer Indira Jaising, now Additional Solicitor General of India ended her BBC Today interview by saying that self correcting mechanisms were missing in Indian Society! She was subtly repeating one of the Indian State's most used excuse when defending its own mindboggling failures to enforce laws against rape (1 in 600 convictions), gender violence, child labour, corruption etc. 'Not us Gov', it's them, the people, they are backwards'.
Why Indians permit their State to get away with portraying 'them' just short of barbarians is a surprise. Why Indians, led by their women, have expressed their anger at the State and its institutions in this case is no surprise. They haven't been protesting in front of cultural icons such as Mandirs or Mosques. Indians are not fooled by cliché theories, 'rape is the result of sons favoured by culture'.
They know that the rot is in the very nature of the Indian State irrespective of which political party rules. Culture did not stop the police prancing around for hours before finally covering and taking the raped woman to hospital nor influence the indignity she experienced at the hospital.
Culture does not prevent the 'enlightened' Police Chiefs from demanding better rates of prosecutions from their juniors. Nor does it stop the world savvy Indian judiciary using a lower threshold of evidence in rape cases or the activist Indian Supreme Court from ordering an enquiry on low conviction rates.
Demonstrating women say they are afraid of reporting cases because of the attitude of the police, degrading medical examination techniques and the near zero conviction rate which leaves them with stigmas. They are cynical about another commission, another 'independent' body, another series of laws and of course now fast track courts.
The Indian State, notwithstanding what political party governs, can boast of bodies and progressive laws that make the UN appear illiberal. There are laws against dowry, against extravagant marriages, child labour, corruption, caste discrimination, gender foeticide, rape and even rape in marriage. Yet India excels in almost all these social evils.
Rapes, violence and other crimes occur around the world where there is breakdown of order, lack of proper governance or accountability. Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, Egypt, USA (Katrina) and even Afghanistan. Every rapist knows that he is doing wrong. No culture sanctions rape however misogynist it maybe. Rape occurs in high numbers even in 'enlightened western' countries, including UK.
The issue in India is bad bad governance. In fact it is the very nature of the Indian State and its governing document, the Constitution. It is framed as 'ammendment' of the Government of India Act 1935 which was the 'last hurrah' of British colonialism to rule 'over' Indians, not 'for' Indians. Indians were asking for greater participation. Participation without real oversight was all Indians got.
The Constitution gives almost unmitigated power to the executive and its branches without appropriate checks and balances or accountability as the Act did for the British. What good are laws if the bodies meant to ensure compliance have no effective accountability.
Democracy itself does not transform a colonial system to one of the people, by the people, for the people if the governing document and the institutions retain all the trappings of a colonial power. The British did not expect Indians to carry on with the 1935 Act. Neither did ordinary Indians.
Unbridled power corrupts. It encourages brutality and indifference. Rapes by security forces are part of the State armoury in major regional struggles such as Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and formerly Punjab.
This has nothing to do with culture of the people. It has everything to do with culture of the State. People's attitudes are influenced by what their leaders get away with. What good is an even stricter law if an alleged rapist in India can become a legislator. It is the ultimate insult.
Others with access to money and power can buy justice by bribing police, judges and politicians. If the Indian STATE is serious about rule of law and protecting the women of India, perhaps it can start with the Lok Sabha (Parliament).
The Indian President inherited extraordinary powers from colonialism to enact law for six months without legislative approval. So why not use article 123 powers once for the 'benefit' of the people rather than 'against' people with more 'detention laws'. Introduce an Ordinance immediately suspending all MPs facing criminal charges, set up fast track courts and decide whether they are fit to govern, uphold the constitution and respect the dignity of people of India!
Two years ago veteran Gandhian, Anna Hazare started a movement against State corruption with poignant words 'second war for independence'. It has been drowned in misrepresentations. The 'them' (Indian society) need to bring the State under their control to reclaim dignity. What India and its women need is a corrective against a narcissist State obsessed with power than its 'citizens'.]]>Paradigm Shift, Will Obama Radically Change US Foreign Policy?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.23983042013-01-02T16:55:03-05:002013-03-04T05:12:01-05:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/CERN's God particle etc. But at a time of tectonic shifts in power and money, the re-election of Obama must be one of the more significant historical events of 2012. His victory was greeted with a sigh of relief around the globe, not least because a weary world expected a new wave of wars from a Republican administration. President Obama has already proved dexterous in dealing with conflicts without protracted military engagements. But his biggest challenge will be to fundamentally re-orientate American foreign policy to prevent future US governments waging gung ho conflicts.
The fact is that the world is no longer the west's oyster in more than one way despite US power. Apart from financial equilibrium tilting eastwards, there is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in international politics. The era of wars pursued for idealism is receding. 'Real Politik' is shedding off false and real association with politics of 'just wars'. The new international game is no longer between left and right, human rights and cultural intransigence, democracy and authoritarianism, self presumptuous 'good' and 'bad' other. It is nakedly about resources, trade, cooperation and coexistence.
The new players are a lot wiser to the politics of hegemonic conflicts. There is a marked difference between the worldviews of East and that of the West. Russia seems to have understood this, has the USA?
Idealism is a major driver in western civilisation. It affects the west's view of the world. It works hand in glove with pursuit of power and control of resources. American foreign policy, the penultimate show on the international stage, has been infested with a desire to change the world into an image, albeit defective copies, of American idealisms; democracy, freedoms and capitalism. Governments have been toppled and countries destroyed in the name of defending and promoting American values. Crusades under another banner waged by American idealists.
The US has continued with the cold war script despite the end of that era. Islam, Middle East and some authoritarian regimes have been the new bogeys since the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is a whole casket of visionary aims in US foreign policy. To bring democracy to the Middle East, empower secularists in Islamic world, introduce multiparty elections to China and so on. It started disastrously with Iraq, moved self flagellating to Afghanistan, pretended to be the inspiration for Arab spring and now itching to bring 'civilisation' to Syria. 'The mission' is important to justify invasions ever since Cicero and St Augustine choreographed 'just war'. It is intrinsic To American DNA and exploited by America's weaker friends, such as UK, Europe and now Japan.
The duplicity of maintaining unsavoury friends (dictators) was fine tuned by the Kirkpatrick doctrine of accommodating political realism in the hope of postponing 'world nirvana'. The road to heaven on earth is paved with nasty compromises.
The 'East' and particularly China, does not seem interested in spreading any 'final salvations' or change the world into its image. It is refusing to engage in the game the west knows best, the contest of ideals. It couldn't care less if Syria became a democracy or remained a dictatorship. It is masterfully deflecting attempts by the US and much of western media questioning China's one party rule.
The Chinese cannot understand why Americans and many Europeans cannot sleep well if China does not become a democracy. It considers it rude to question other people's cultural preferences and has no intention of toppling any democracy to prove its belief in the 'superiority' of authoritarian government.
This is the cultural challenge and paradigm shift that is becoming evident in international politics. It is the transformation from conflicts of political idealisms to coexistence or contests between civilisations. Neither China or India nor Middle East will play 'Lucifer', the 'evil other'. Meanwhile the West remains chained by its obsession with universal idealism and a bit disorientated in the new game.
For Obama, one of toughest challenges will be to take the 'political missionary' out of American foreign policy and make pragmatic coexistence and cooperation the over riding prerogative of US international relations. Drones cannot spread democracy and liberal values.
The fiscal cliff is a cakewalk compared to changing a whole culture of 'sermon on the mount' streak. Will Americans and much of the west be able to come around to the idea of live and let live. But Obama himself needs to be convinced of making this fundamental long term shift in US foreign policy and bring some clarity. If not, then Obama will only postpone violence on world stage and pass a historic opportunity to re-orientate US foreign policy.]]>Why the World Needs Obamatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20487152012-10-31T07:24:43-04:002012-12-31T05:12:01-05:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/
The millennium began with a very, very, very powerful United States, boisterous, telling others how to conduct and govern themselves. It turned into a bit of an excitable bully when Al Qaeda punctured its 'indestructibility'. French fries and cheese can tell some tales from 2003. Ten years later, the USA is still powerful, still somewhat boisterous and giving sermons to others but minus the overt bullying. Other powers have emerged in this world. But many in the US right are finding it difficult to stomach power spreading around a bit. This election could shape the next few decades.
From untouchable heights the USA has slid into phenomenal debt, much of it to China, a country that has quietly taken advantage of American distractions from big power politics in pointless wars. The world seems less attentive to American rhetoric. Iran and North Korea have spent the decade leading the US in a dance of little returns. Indian diplomacy is shrewdly exploiting US position. Even little old 'special relationship' Britain, usually the first to lead the pack when USA clicks its fingers, has snubbed the US recently. Clearly American 'will' is facing the real world.
There are two ways that this once unbridled power could face the reality of multipolar world. Either gradually come to terms with it and accept that two decades of unchallenged power was just a phase after Soviet demise. Or it could go a little bonkers and attempt to reassert its lost status with a 'no one messes with us' sign glued to each missile posted to rickety upstart states like Sudan and Yemen, as message to the world. In the process of restoring the short lived 'American Empire' it might even sprinkle a few nuclear bombs using the 'first strike option'.
It seems that Republicans with their closet but powerful neo-cons want to move on further from where Bush junior left the world. They want to rattle the world into submission. They seem pretty miffed at losing 'total' world dominance. Some of the Republican neo-con diehards and extreme Republicans see the dream of a thousand year American Empire fast sliding away. This is where the danger really lies. What do they really have in mind for China, the main challenger?
Pax Americana still permeates many Republicans' daily dreams. Obama has been accused of being soft on the world by some Republicans. His handling of Afghanistan, Pakistan and most importantly Iran and China has made them weary. Many disapprove of his opposition to Netanyahu's doomsday prescription for the Iran 'problem'. One can only hope that a Republican victory will not march the world towards World War III.
Obama is no saint either, despite winning a Noble prize even before he stepped into White House. But he has not been wild either. His victory brought back respect for the USA as a benign, responsible and serious superpower. Of course, the claim on other peoples' oil and other resources through force has not been any less, but America under him has not made universal enemies as Bush did. His method has been gentler, more mature and less scary. He has been more cerebral and strategic rather than the jingoistic 'with us or against us' approach. He has weakened adversaries such as Iran and forced them to the concession table. No silly wars against foods like 'French fries' from his administration. And much of the western world has given into his charm on international issues.
The world seems a lot safer under Obama than was under Bush, even if Obama has sent more forces to Afghanistan. Perhaps it is perception more than reality that calms.
With his four year record, Obama is the more reassuring candidate to manage the inevitable transition of USA from being sole superpower to leader in a multipolar world. He seems more in tune with reality than his Republican counterpart. Despite Romney's statement "you cannot kill your way to peace", there still lurk powerful neo cons and doomsday lobbies in his party who think otherwise. Bush too seemed 'OK' until the neocons hijacked his Government.
There is general fear that a trigger happy Republican-led America at this very sensitive stage in international tectonic shifts could make the world a more dangerous place, not least for Americans.
If Obama wins, we can sleep with some comfort knowing that our greatest threat is the environment and not an America itching to use its colossal arsenal to restore Pax Americana. There are too many unknowns about Romney and his team. Will American voters take note?]]>Rusi Report: The Real News is Not Taliban but the West Wants Exittag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18763022012-09-12T04:35:25-04:002012-11-11T05:12:01-05:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/RUSI is a reputable organisation with its feet firmly on the ground and contacts with the highest decision making bodies. Hence its research that the Taliban may be willing to negotiate peace has to be taken seriously. But the spin on the news is somewhat reflective of where RUSI and much of the USA-UK have been in the last decade. The real news is not that the Taliban are willing to change, but that the USA-UK may be willing to negotiate.
The Taliban, despite their uncomplimentary image of merciless fanatic killers, are in fact a pragmatic lot. Well the Pushtun tribes they come from are. Compromises within reason are a way of life in these tribes. Their decision making is consensual rather than democratic. Consensus requires compromises.
The USA's response after 9/11 was a demand that Taliban surrender sovereignty, hand over Al Qaeda (AQ) along with Bin Laden and allow US army to inspect all 'training' camps inside Afghanistan. The Taliban response was as expected. They refused to surrender sovereignty. They refused to hand over 'guests'. They demanded evidence of Bin Laden's involvement and suggested talks. A guest is treated with more respect than a family person among Pushtoons. Bin Laden had helped the Taliban in their struggles and was therefore a 'special' guest.
The Taliban also said that they had no hand and no interest in AQ's global war. AQ's war was not Taliban's war. They even condemned 9/11.
Any person who had studied the Pushtun would have advised the US-UK that there is a way to do business with them and it is certainly not war. All that the Americans had to do was park a few warships in the Arabian Sea and get a promise from the Taliban that AQ would not be allowed to launch any attacks or propaganda against American interests from Taliban controlled soil, then gradually negotiate Bin Laden's surrender. The threat of war would have worked better than war itself. I even wrote a piece on this a few years ago.
But then superpowers like to show muscle over common sense. The US and UK saw it cakewalk to bombing Taliban out of office, parachuting in to arrest Bin Laden and makeover Afghanistan in the image of a western modern democracy within a couple of years. Easy, peasy with Rumsfeld in charge.
But fate delivered a different hand. True to tradition, the Taliban disappeared from seats of power and regrouped in their mountains. Relentlessly and mercilessly, Taliban started upsetting the best laid plans. They have been helped by the powerful Pakistan intelligence, ISI, which nurtured them the in the first place.
The ISI wants continuing dollar aid for Pakistan's fragile economy and security against India. The Taliban want to run their version of Islamic rule in Afghanistan.
As for development, women's rights, girls schools etc, these would have happened in time anyway. Most Islamic countries who resisted equal opportunities for women, have changed. Except those who have dollars gushing from the sand (oil). It is economics. Let us not forget that the biggest change in European attitudes towards women joining the workplace happened during the world war when women were needed in factories and offices. Even the Ayotollahs in Iran saw economic sense in women working than sitting at home. It would have been a matter of time before the Taliban, needing all the modcons, weapons and luxuries, had realised the need for the other half of the potential workforce to be schooled. Economic development always happens, look at Vietnam.
RUSI's findings, therefore, show no real shift in the position of the Taliban, except that the Taliban have acceded to a few neutered US bases in Afghanistan after ten years of war with borrowed dollars from the Federal Reserve.
The Taliban have said they want Karzai out. Secondly they will form their own constitution. And that they have no truck with AQ, which they never had. All that has changed is that since they have not been in a position to treat the AQ as guests, the issue of protecting the guest no longer arises.
9/11 had nothing to do with the Taliban, however mad or bad they are. RUSI's so called research, whether it admits or not, is paving the way for an honourable exit. Pity that the US-UK may have learnt a lot about dealing with Taliban by dusting down those old colonial records and books on the Pathans instead of the hard way through blood, sweat and dollars.
All that is needed is; promise aid to Pakistan for the next decade, give Afghanistan back to a Taliban led coalition and kick Karzai out by publicising his Government's corruption and find another war to concentrate on. Job done. Don't need research for that.]]>The Road to Damascus, Laden With Bombstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18265602012-08-23T21:23:27-04:002012-10-23T05:12:11-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/Saul became Paul, began serving Christ and humanity is fast becoming a road to 'war'. Ideologies and power politics are weeding their way into this 8000 year old ancient city with bombs and hate, threatening the survival of entire humanity. A city steeped in the histories of Abrahamic traditions is on the verge of precipitating an Islamic version of the Catholic-Protestant thirty year bloody war of seventeenth century (1618 to 1648) but also drawing in the extended Abrahamic family, Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Western Secularism.
Leading the assault on one side are aggrieved groups from the majority Sunni community of Syria, funded, trained and even led by Sunni Governments of mainly Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and secretly by the USA.
Not one to pass an opportunity to plant IHDs, Al Qaeda, joined by some other Sunni Salafi groups called Takfiri, have gate crashed, indiscriminately bombing Shia Muslims whom they despise more than Americans and Arab dictators. Other Sunni 'jihadists' are trickling in from far and near with Kalashnikovs.
Defending status quo on the other side are somewhat secularised Allawite sect of Islam assisted in the background by Shias, largely of Iran and Iraq. Having arisen after centuries of marginalisation and sometimes persecution, Shia resurgence is disturbing Sunni domination in Islam. Arab Kingdoms, Israel and USA want to weaken nuclear Iran through Syria.
Assad has pitted Kurdish nationalism against Turkey, complicating the sectarian divide further. He has also managed to keep Syrian secularists, minorities and significant sections of Syrian Sunni middle classes on his side with the bogey of Muslim Brotherhood Rising.
Both Secular and Christian west are not going to be left out in this family dispute. The restless Neocons of the 'American Empire' see this an opportunity to destroy the Iranian axis. Next stop China. They are providing 'intellectual' support for 'rebels' through think tanks, journalists, propaganda and grooming Syrian opposition leaders. The Neocons and Al Qaeda now have a common enemy!
Meanwhile the 'five angels', the permanent members of the Security Council meant to 'end the scourge of war' for coming generations, are busy leading us to Armageddon.
The USA and Britain are into this conflict in a big way. The CIA is probably in its element having got official 'presidential' assignment to knock off another national leader (Assad) and 'regime change'. The British, always in a state of war and no sign of kicking the habit, are pretending they are only supplying mobile phones.
Regime changes have been disastrous. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. But this is no deterrent to powers with thirst for wars. The third Security Council member, France recovered its appetite for interventionism under Sarkozy.
The other two angels, Russia and China have different prerogatives. Smarted by the last three Security Council resolutions (Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) which turned out to be different than what they were led to believe, they now completely distrust British-USA initiated resolutions at UN and won't sign up.
Moreover Russia wants to hang on to its only friend in the Middle East, Assad. China sees no more a need to introduce democracy in Syria than in China.
This biblical war offers hope to the powerful Christian fundamentalists in USA who have been itching for fiery end to the world, the 'rapture' to appear, for them to join the Lord and for all us heathens to roast on earth. They were betrayed in Iraq but are now cajoling their Government towards direct intervention in Syria and draw in Iran for a nuclear apocalypse.
Facing elections, Obama and Clinton are on a race to outdo Romney on warmongering. These days you cannot win an election in USA without bombing some country and show 'balls'.
We should not forget the 'enlightened' liberal secularists who are as pathologically evangelist and dangerous as medieval European crusaders. To non Abrahamic civilisations, western liberal secularism is the other side of the religious coin. They first call for 'do something' then get peptic ulcers when confronted with realities of war. Perhaps they can write a manual for the 'perfect war', a 21st century follow up to Aquinas' 'Just War'.
This Biblical drama would be amiss without Judaism's engagement. After all it was the first of the Abrahamic creeds. Israel is all set to enter Syria to 'secure' chemical weapons lest they fall into other 'extremists' hands. Israel will nuke Iran in the bargain. The repercussions are unimaginable.
Abraham does not feature in Indian or Chinese civilisations. Religious narratives tell us that he was a man who sought peace. The different creeds that have emerged from his progeny have done a lot of good. But some sections have always taken their passions to the extreme and are now hell bent on ending the world in one big free for all barbeque war. One extended family intent on mutual massacres in Damascus inspired by hate and universalism.
The world is not divided into a west and others. That is a racist myth manufactured by academia. Humanity is in fact divided into Abrahamic universalists and non Abrahamic pluralists. The former always on a crusade, whether it is religion, secularism, democracy, universal rights, communism or capitalism etc. This war is not about rational causes but exposes the deeper pathology that has long perpetrated the West and Middle East.
Will sense prevail? Certainly not at the UN whose 'five angels of peace' have long been 'angels of mistrust'.
It remains for the pragmatism of Muslims to avoid this Biblical Armageddon. 'Allah' willing, the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Iran may yet sit around a table themselves and exhibit the wisdom of their ancestors who always drew back from the brink of all out schismatic bloodbath which has to date avoided a version of the Christian thirty year war. The rest of us hope they show greater pragmatism than the 'five angels'.]]>Banking Practices, We Need An Enquiry Not a Soap Operatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16579342012-07-08T20:54:00-04:002012-09-07T05:12:12-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/ A politicians led investigation into Libor and Banking will be a farcical soap opera that will entertain but leave us no wiser. We will get a five way cast. There will be the bankers and their crew, the Coalition pressgang, Labour filibusters, a sprinkling of independent Lords and ladies and a judge with some juniors.
The 'coalition forces' will be briefed to ask such questions of bankers that answers point to bad regulation by Labour, lay blame for the economic mess on Labour policies and incriminate a couple of ex Ministers. The bankers will get a bit of flak and slap on the wrist.
'Team Labour' will attempt to search responses that reveal Coalition cosiness with Bankers and reword Coalition questions to get answers that take the blame off Labour and onto the free market, deregulation etc. In other words blame Tory Capitalist mantra. The bankers will get a little flak and slap on the wrist.
The Bankers will cleverly play the Coalition against Labour and vice versa to get pressure off themselves.
And there will be a coterie of 'independent' Lords who will struggle to smuggle in a real question. Bankers will give answers full of wind to waste their questions.
Meanwhile a judge will be attempting to come out of all this with his/her reputation intact as 'impartial'.
The media undoubtedly will add its own twist to every response.
Whats the point of this investigation. We need a real enquiry shedding some light on:
How come a host of sub-prime mortgages in USA can lead to job losses and mass youth unemployment in UK?
How come a 'banking crises leads to businesses going bust but banks, bar a couple, surviving?
People lose houses, but Bankers get bigger bonuses in a Banking crises!.
Government has pumped in £375 billion into the economy throwing us into further debt. But where is this money going ? Is there a financial version of 'black holes' into which quantitative easing has a one way track without creating any jobs, saving any businesses or subsidising any mortgages?
How come banks get saved but people and industry don't?
Banks give us money with conditions, why has government given banks money unconditionally ?
Most people think investment banking is about investing in people, businesses and industry based on sound lending practices. It turns out that it is mostly gambling and speculating without our consent, how come?
Why is 'Austerity' necessary if so much money has been pumped into the economy?
To some, like Mervyn King, the issue and the answers may seem much too obvious. But to the vast majority of people, they are more mysterious than the Higgs-Boson.
Unless these simple questions are answered in the public domain without a political dogfight, people cannot make informed views on what regulations and laws can be supported to prevent a crises in future and reign in the current rogues.
Admittedly any enquiry will focus on LIBOR, but a judge led enquiry has a way of getting to the basics. It will simplify a whole lot of the complex issues that seem to be affecting the lives of millions. A parliamentary enquiry will not. The public deserves one having paid a heavy price for trusting the system.]]>Doctors, Striking for What?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16202062012-06-22T18:53:36-04:002012-08-22T05:12:22-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/British doctors as greedy professionals putting patients at risk, dipping centuries of reputation to the level of bankers. Clever politics. It put off many doctors from taking industrial action on June 21st. But the losers might be the public at large. What's Lansley's game?
'£120,000 pay packet, £68,000 pension, people can only dream of!' said Lansley. Few doctors get that, but it clipped public support. The BMA had no answer. The best it came up with, 'Government reneged on the 2008 agreement and misleading'. But this Tory Government has reneged on almost everything that Labour committed to. School buildings, Education Maintenance Allowance, Bobbys on the beat, etc. That's parliamentary democracy. Except of course, Banker's bonuses! Bankers are more powerful than parliament. Doctors are not.
His other attack was even more cheeky. 'Pity the patients who have had their operations and appointments postponed!' The BMA was outwitted. Everyday, operations get cancelled due to bed shortages and clinic appointments postponed because of targets, all caused by Lansley's policies! The press allowed him to get away with it.
Doctors are not apolitical creatures. There is enough politics in hospitals. But on the big game, the doctors union, the BMA had no bite.
For instance the government didn't turn around to its own Bankers in RBS, Lloyds etc and say, 'Sorry boys, cannot have millions pound pay packages this time; austerity.' Joe public can't even dream of these amounts. And neither does Gov't say that to industry bosses who lay off workers to pay themselves hundred times more as 'austerity bonuses'.
Fact is that some of the best doctors could easily manage big banks or industries. They have the IQ. So if money is their motivation, they are in a bum job. As my local shopkeeper once said, 'Why you become doctor! loads more money in pharmacy!'
British doctors are not greedy. Most work extra hours without remuneration. Almost all will put a medical emergency before their social calendar if no duty doctor is available. A banker will want a bonus for each second. It was disingenuous of Langley to portray doctors as greedy.
The Government says it cannot even contemplate cutting bankers mega pay-packets because they might leave us and join Bank of Timbuktu. And so will chief executives of industry.
But that is the game behind Lansley's pressure upon doctors. While Gov't wants to stop bankers fleeing, it wants top doctors to flee, to jump ship from NHS. Its all about the privatisation agenda according to Hopkinson et al (Lancet).
Compared to the million dollar doctors in USA, most British consultants already earn far less than their market worth. They top up with some private work. Squeeze them more, then the private sector will become a necessary alternative. That's the Government's game.
Tory governments have long wanted to break significant parts of the NHS and hand it to the private sector. Big money has been salivating after Britain's Health Care industry. It is the last of the functioning national services. The most precious group obstructing Tory designs and supporting the public's love of the NHS has been the doctors.
A run down NHS with a thriving private sector along American lines will solve many fiscal problems for the Government. NHS budget would come down dramatically, the Government can reduce top taxes further, while those who can afford insurance premiums will have good medical care.
But the Tories don't want this on their head. They want top doctors to start the flight to the private sector and be the fall guys. Clever?
Secondly, by making pensions a reduced burden on the employer, GP surgeries and cottage hospitals can be packaged off to the private sector as 'financially profitable' outfits. Just like other contracted out services of the State.
Conspiracy theory? Politics are very much like war (Churchill). And war is all about conspiracies, from the Trojan horse to WMDs. So politics is a game of conspiracies. The BMA, unlike other Trade Unions, is unfortunately too benign for this.
This industrial action is not about greed. Unlike bankers whose bluff has never been called, British doctors can actually get far better wages in Canada, USA or Australia. This action is about saving the NHS and receive a reasonable remuneration albeit less than colleagues elsewhere who enjoy better weather, purchasing power and tax breaks (Australia).
The BMA may have lost some face but the losers will be the general public if Lansley succeeds in pushing top doctors to choose between NHS and an emerging but attractive private sector. British doctors are passionate about the NHS and serving their patients.]]>1984tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15687572012-06-06T20:34:00-04:002012-08-06T05:12:10-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/George Orwell thinking of India when he wrote 1984? Many Sikhs think so as they hold protest rallies in some of the capitals of the world every June, including 2012. Orwell was right about the year. In this land of holymen, multiple religions and inspiring dharmas, the government of India attacked one of its most renown sacred places, the Golden Temple, in June 1984 on a holyday. It killed about 900 of its own unarmed citizens, pilgrims, in the process.
The Army Generals who led the 70,000-strong, well-equipped army and around 150,000 paramilitary forces and lost more than 300 military personnel to arrest some 200 poorly armed youth, got medals for gallantry while killing unarmed women, children and old men in the process. (Does Syria give medals? Anybody know?) The army destroyed significant sections of Golden Temple complex and the priceless Sikh reference library that contained historic documents.
The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting went into overdrive with disinformation and news management to justify its actions. The government claimed lawlessness and threat to territorial integrity by terrorists and Sikh nationalism. The "enemy" was choreographed and free expression silenced by police violence armed with colonial-era sedition laws.
Indira Gandhi, the prime minister, deified as "durga" (a goddess) broadcasted that, having tried all peaceful means, she had to send in the army with heavy heart and much soul searching as a last-minute decision. This along with WMDs should go into history's greatest lies. The Sikhs woke up to an Orwellian world.
The Vice Chief of Indian Armed Forces, General S.K. Sinha, revealed that it was no last-minute decision. The army had been preparing for the attack on a life-size replica for more than a year. He advised against it. The "talks" were just smokescreen.
Gen. Vaidya became chief instead and planned "Operation Blue Star," a strategy involving tanks, Armored Personnel Carriers, heavy artillery, helicopters and a large invasion force to combat 200 youth!
The people the Indian state labeled terrorists had challenged in kind the state's recurrent policy of dealing with political campaigns for decentralisation through police violence, illegal detentions, torturing people to death, execute them extra-judicially and beat their uninvolved relatives.
When states turn tyrannical, abrogating responsibility to international norms and killing their own, people across the world take up arms. Mandela's ANC, Libya and East Timor are examples. The only restoration of law and order needed in Punjab was to reign in the police and engage in meaningful negotiations.
The political campaign that Indian government called threat to national integrity and unity was about federalism and protection for minorities! Both were agreed as conditional before Sikhs were persuaded to join India after decolonisation.
General Brar who led the onslaught on Golden Temple, audaciously wrote a book detailing his "genius" military strategy of wanton killings. Perhaps he thinks his book will compete with victories of Field Marshall Montgomery in military annals.
Brahma Chellany of the Associated Press, the only journalist who sneaked in despite ban on journalists, gave details of unarmed Sikhs being shot at point blank with hands tied with their turbans. Brar called this sensitivity. Chellaney was detained for two years until international pressure kicked in.
An independent team led by an eminent former judge (Tarkunde) reported that injured pilgrims were shot dead by Indian soldiers while doctors tried to heal them. Brar said truckloads of bodies were taken away. Their relatives were never informed. Indira Gandhi called army action "compassionate."
But Golden Temple invasion is not the only badge of honor of the Indian Army. Reconstituted after putting down the sepoy revolt in 1857, the army has been perpetually involved in maintaining internal security such as Sikh agitations in 1872, the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre 1919.
Internal security meant protecting British interests against fussy Indians unenthusiastic about colonization. After decolonization, the inglorious record continues with attack on Golden Temple, occupation of Indian Kashmir, invasion of sacred Naga mountains, annihilation of Assam nationalism and so on. All against fellow Indians! Occasionally the army is required to protect territorial borders against Pakistan or China. Decolonization hasn't sunk in the Indian Army yet or, in fact, the state.
India's post-colonial political order is even more ossified in a colonial doctrine inscribed in the Government of India Act 1935. The Act was the last hurrah of committed colonialists dreaming of the "Empire" lasting as long as Romans.
Fortune didn't side with the imperialists. British humanists prevailed and Indian nationalists were handed the keys -- lock, stock and barrel, complete with an administrative service, police force and army all trained to serve colonialism.
Bizarrely the Indians renamed the 1935 Act as "provisional constitution" in 1947 and then using it as base template, took three years to cut and paste the American Bill of Rights, the Irish directive principles and the German Weimar governing doctrines to make the Act look like a constitution.
The Act with add-ons has nothing from India's 5,000 years of civilization in it except its length, proving Lord Macauley's 1835 statement, "India's long civilization, not worth a shelf of European books."
The tricky question for three years was perhaps, "How does one reconcile human rights within a colonial doctrine?" Eventually the legislators hit upon the perfect solution. Under section titled fundamental rights, after describing them as non-derogable, article 13.4 says, "Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution ... 'Wallah.'" In 1988, the 59th Amendment absolved the state of protecting life and liberty for two years!
Even our little Englanders haven't thought of this creative trinity to subvert the European Convention. Fundamental rights, human rights and politicians' rights. No wonder all the call centers (for advice) are in India.
The Sikhs refused to sign this imperialist document in 1949. But so what! India adopted Westminster's unsophisticated Parliamentary democracy of majoritarianism to subverted minority dissent.
The British never meant for the "Brown Sahibs" (Anna Hazare's words) to download and run colonialism. Britain even finally repealed (deleted) the Act in 1998! This colonial-era document is an affront to the great Hindu civilization, the Buddhists, the Jains and the Sikhs, all of whom have very pluralistic traditions that prefer political solutions over violence.
Maybe Indians will wake up to that one day and start afresh as independent people do and arrive at a governing document that respects indigenous sacred institutions and practices. One day an Indian Chief of Army will rub his eyes and notice the colonialists left in 1947 and stop killing fellow Indians. What what.
This Orwellian nightmare of colonialism revamped with a deity, disinformation and oppression is behind the annual marches down the streets of western capitals every June and this June by Sikhs refusing to accept India's version of the 1984 Operation Blue Star.]]>Afghanistan, Illusions and Delusionstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15411412012-05-23T20:22:30-04:002012-07-23T05:12:05-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/Obama sat with Karzai before the NATO Afghan summit last Sunday (20th May) and gave him a little lecture, 'Now, when we get out in 2014, you need to behave, you have to have a good democracy, no corruption and you have to be civil to your enemy, the Taliban.' Karzai nodded,' yes, yes. yes'. And everyone at the summit was happy.
Except the 'enemy' doesn't want to talk, and corruption is the glue that keeps Karzai's happy band together and a clean democracy will topple Karzai. It's all a little satirical.
After 10 years, billions of dollars and a defeat staring in the face, it appears the 'coalition' forces are still groping to find what the Taliban is all about or what the Pushtuns call democracy and what al Qaeda's (AQ) mission is. Thousands of pundits have been advising Governments, writing papers and become fully paid experts (except me). Yet this rugged tribesmen who wear turbans as if they have still to discover the mirror, seem to be outsmarting everyone.
Yes the Generals leading the war against, what exactly we still don't know, assure us that the al Qaeda and Taliban are much weakened with many of their leaders killed by unmanned drones guided by persons playing computer games on US soil. 'Cowards hiding behind technology, come fight us face to face', say the Taliban. Cowards say the US to Taliban as their mujahedeen plant roadside bombs at night and then disappear. In this fight, no one likes to show their face.
But beneath all that bravo talk, is a coalition coming apart by its failure to achieve its aims and a recognition that the 'mission', whatever it is, is neither within grasp, nor even defined.
For a start al Qaeda and the Taliban are fighting two different wars. It took the United States more than six years to grasp this. Al Qaeda is fighting a global war to rid the holy land (Saudi Arabia) of infidels (US bases). It wants to rid Middle East of western puppet governments. And despite the fractious state of global Islam, it wants to restore the Caliphate, the equivalent of the Catholic Pope or our Anglican Queen.
I say, good luck to AQ. It will have decades if not centuries of internecine conflicts before a Caliph is agreed at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the EU equivalent of 57 Islamic countries. Why is the west fighting to stop what AQ and Iran can do themselves is beyond me.
Al Qaeda, uses local domestic grievances in different regions to engage the west through regional hotheads. The west gets trapped in these wars and helps create a global propaganda for AQ of 'Islam under threat'. It is a common currency of war cries, Blair always shrieked on about AQ 'they are a threat to our way of life', meaning parliamentary democracy and human rights both of which he significantly eroded single handed by himself without Bin Laden's advice!
Perhaps the award winning ignominious reason for war came from Harvard educated George Bush. 'they hate us'. Seems in USA it needs a 'Harvard' education to come to the analytic insight that the enemy is the enemy because it hates us and we hate them. War is always on the agenda of American elections because somebody always hates the US of A. 'God save America and the rest of the world from its trigger happy democracy and AQ (which hates America)'.
Meanwhile the Taliban, unlike AQ, are on a domestic mission to reclaim their power and 'their way of life' in Afghanistan. Created by the powerful Pakistan intelligence, ISI, the Taliban were the first serious attempt at state building in Afghanistan albeit in Pushtun and Islamic ways at a time when Afghanistan was in chaos following the war against Russian occupation. the West wants its own version of 'State'.
But the Pushtun are a fiercely independent people who intensely dislike centralised power and have centuries old democratic ways of decision making through local jirgas (or shuras) and Loya Jirgas (grand assmeblies). Their way is consensus, although of the powerful.
Cultural norms are more influential than laws of the land in many Afghan tribes, particularly the Pushtuns. People got killed for breaking these norms. The Taliban regime was Pakistan's attempt at introducing some sort of rule of law, although through the sharia, whatever its drawbacks.
What we have now is similar to the crises that occurred when the Russians fled. Karzai is the most powerful war lord with a huge army at his disposal, trained, armed and financed by the west. He uses the 'moral' instrument of 'democratically legislated' law to impose his order. And the west runs the illusion that he is a 'democratically' elected leader, although according to Ambassador Galbrath the elections were rigged.
Then there are hundreds of smaller warlords, some aligned to his outfit, some independent, some to the other competing forces and some even to the Taliban.
And then there is the Taliban, perhaps the most disciplined and ideologically driven group, waiting to bring order to the usually fractious Pushtun society once the 'coalition forces' leave. It has a mixture of sharia laws and local customs in its arsenal.
Karzai knows that secular democracy and human rights do not get votes in Afghanistan. Yet that is what the coalition soldiers have been dying for and west paying for all this time.
Karzai's only call is 'the Taliban are a threat to our way of life'. But people know his way of life as corruption, tortures, rapes, privilege, coercion and warlordism. It is no wonder that he does not want to make common ground with the Taliban. That will be his demise.
The world is full of cranks and dreamers controlling power. And there were two of them talking fairy tales to each other at the NATO summit when President Obama and President Karzai assured each other and all present of their 'delusion' of achievable end goal, 'Good responsible secular democracy, human rights, end to corruption and talks with the Taliban to make them partners'. 'Dream on', say the Taliban and ISI.
So what was the NATO summit all about. Illusions of a perfect democracy and delusions of aims achieved. The west went in believing and comes out believing.]]>Ready Steady Labourtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14412752012-04-20T14:21:51-04:002012-06-20T05:12:02-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/left and the right for failing to lead the charge brigade against a disaster prone Cameron. Even some of his mates in Labour have been critical of his leadership. 'He is my best mate but the truth is ...' so they say. Miliband meanwhile has remained cool, even optimistic about winning the next election. So what's going on? Failing to face reality or have others failed to follow his quiet revolution?
Ed Miliband probably realises that he does not have the thundering character of Churchill, the powerful presence of Thatcher or the charisma of Blair. But that is what many are judging him on. Critique on him concentrates on his personality rather than his intellect, strategy and ideas. He does not jump at us from the television. We don't seem to want to grab him mumbling, 'Oh our saviour'.
But while his ability or inability to throw knockout punches and failure to dominate every news programme obsesses the media, Miliband on the other hand seems to be changing the focus of British politics from personality to issues.
Yes issues, It's what politics is meant to be about, isn't it? The media refers to 'issues' in passing but constantly promotes personality cults. Physical appearances become more important than issues. In the last election, Brown's smiles were not as appealing as Cameron. That was one of the crucial factors on which the British media told us Britain's economic future needed to be decided.
British politics has been obsessed with personality. It started with the television age but went overboard since Thatcher came on the scene and Heath went out. Labour's Foot and Kinnock were crushed by her dominant character. Blair looked the part of a strong leader and recently so did Cameron; 'born to lead', we were told. For four decades at least, we have got used to the politics of personality.
Personality helps to gloss over weaknesses of policies and issues. A strong personality reassures even when policies are bonkers. It has been about 'being in the role'. 'Doesn't quite look the part' I've heard many say about Miliband and some write.
Miliband seems to be on a game changer. As the Conservatives continue to falter on their policies, he is holding back from 'punch em to the floor' politics. Miliband's team is pointing out the flaws of Government policies as they hit more and more people. His team is laying the alternatives gradually. People are beginning to look beyond the personalities.
The economy, the NHS, crime, student fee, taxation, welfare, charity giving, granny tax, pasty tax are only some of the areas that the incumbent Tory Government has shown to be in 'need of coaching'. It is reclaiming its old 'nasty party' credentials.
The Conservative Government is particularly losing ground on the economy. The traditional 'safe hands' Tories seem to be out of their depth in dealing with the deepening economic crises. Blaming the world, Greeks and the Euro does not convince people anymore. Ironically it is the world which is determining our economy, but it needs creative minds to steer us through a new reality.
The economy is as flat as a dead bat. It's not even flapping. People are beginning to doubt the Tory mantra of 'no pain no gain'. It seems the pain is for the poor, the gain is for the rich.
While Miliband remains quiet, the traditional Tory press is ripping apart Government decisions. Their readers are bleeding. And Miliband has been clever in not pushing the right wing press to draw the wagons around the Tories. He has got them to do his work without crawling on their yachts.
The issue is suddenly becoming more important than the image. Perhaps the television age is finally growing out of the personality cult to issues in politics. Or perhaps it is the combined result of facebook, twitter and the web which fragment the image and promote discussion. One image no longer dominates the screen as everyone has his or her own to promote on the billboard. Issues are becoming more important than personalities.
Labour under Miliband has played steady. People increasingly think there is more to the economy than cuts, cuts cuts, which seem to be cut incomes for the poor, cut taxes for the rich.
As more people come to that view, Ed Miliband has to be ready with the right words at the right time to agree with the public that their only hope is a State inspired growth.
Maybe Miliband is ahead of his critics as he concentrates on substance over form and waits for the public to take the economy, their welfare and homes more seriously than the media's obsession with smiles and punch lines. He is doing it without playing knock out politics.]]>Death Penalty in the Land of Non-Violencetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13709032012-03-21T18:14:21-04:002012-05-21T05:12:01-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/cow protection, the death penalty in India and Balwant Singh Rajoana's imminent hanging on 31 March might appear to be an aberration. Not quite so when Balwant Singh's statement in the court is heard. He accepted being party to the assassination of the Chief Minister of Punjab, Beant Singh, on 31st August 1995. In court he said he had no faith in Indian justice and refused legal representation. He refuses to plead for clemency. This puts many Sikhs and indeed Punjabis who don't want a hanging in Punjab in some quandary.
The death penalty is a retrogressive step in Punjab. Before any European countries got around to abolishing the death penalty (Portugal 1867), the Punjab under the Sikh ruler, Maharajah Ranjit Singh (1801-1839), had removed capital punishment. British colonialism restored the death penalty.
India has inherited a penal and judicial system from its colonial past. With the best it has also continued with the worst of laws. Laws and rules that were meant to prop up colonialism, such as prolonged detention without charge, laws against sedition (Scottish leader, Salmon, would have been incarcerated if not hung in India by now) and death penalty among others.
But India went further by enacting laws that assumed guilt until proven otherwise (TADA) and a constitutional amendment (59th ) for 2 years which removed the primary responsibility of the State (Article 21 Indian constitution) to protect life and liberty. Until the UN reminded Indian legislators of the State's Raison d'eter. However plenty other Indian legal cocktails violate human rights.
In court Balwant Singh questioned India's commitment to its own constitution, human rights and the law citing the assassinated Chief Minister's actions. The Chief Minister, Beant Singh, won the election in Punjab in 1992 on a mandate of 9% of the potential electorate. Peaceful Sikh nationalists were detained and banned from standing.
The rest of Punjab reacted by boycotting the elections. India spun this by asserting the boycott was due to threats from Sikh militants. Repeated evidence and subsequent elections show that Sikh populations don't get intimidated by such threats.
Beant Singh's 9% electoral backing was hailed a return to democracy by many western countries and media. In Syria the west would call this overwhelming rejection of the regime! India obviously has a way with the west.
Beant Singh immediately gave the police force free reign to continue a policy of extrajudicial executions, torture and illegal detentions even more aggressively. During his four years, it is estimated that over 10000 young people were killed by police death squads given rewards for 'eliminating suspects', despite India's repeated claims that there were only 300 armed Sikh Nationalists. Question, who were the other 9700 killed?
Balwant Singh, the assassin, said that someone had to stop the Chief Minister. The west mitigated Beant's crimes with words such as 'democratic mandate'. The Indian State gave him constitutional cover. In India, not only religious texts, but even the constitution can have schismatic interpretations depending on who it is interpreted for.
Meanwhile the Indian Supreme Court, priding itself with 'judicial activism for human rights', ostriched itself through this period despite daily press reports of 'encounter's, called 'fake encounters' by Amnesty and UN. India has even acquired a wikipedia page for this 'incredible' activity. In India everyone is equal before the law but the law is not equal before everyone.
Following the Chief Minister's death by a human bomb, Dilawar Singh, Balwant's accomplice, the 'encounters' fell dramatically. Real democracy returned and the police was largely reigned in.
Balwant Singh questioned the court about Indian justice. During the attack on the Golden Temple in 1984 over 3000 innocent pilgrims, mostly children, elderly and women were killed by the Indian armed forces. A 16,000 strong army using helicopters, tanks and heavy artillery called these 'collateral damage' fighting a mere 200 armed Sikhs. The Army Officers got promotions for 'gallantry'. The Indian Army has always been too willing to kill its own citizens. Another colonial habit hard to give up.
Balwant Singh asked the judge what was Indian justice doing about the politicians and police who had masterminded or been responsible during the four days of massacres. In fact they climbed the ladder. Tytler, directly implicated, became Union Minister while Narahsima Rao, then Home Minister, went on to become India's Prime Minister. Rao had failed to call in the army stationed only half an hour away.
Underneath the veneer of Gandhi and cow protection is a State whose mindless cruelty against minorities is baffling to an innocent observer. Perhaps that is the ironic 'incredible' in 'Incredible India' the slogan India uses to promote tourism. Killer police squads and non violent sadhus, all in one country.
India's crimes against its own citizens and the silence of the 'ethical west' do not mitigate Balwant Singh's actions. Like many Sikhs in history, he took full responsibility for what he did. He has refused anyone to plead on his behalf. But he has thrown a challenge to India and the world. 'Show the same commitment to constitutionality, law and human rights when the Indian State, its forces, its bureaucrats and its politicians commit heinous crimes against humanity'.
The removal of death penalty from the penal code inherited from its colonial past could be the first step towards convincing ordinary people that non-violence is not merely rhetorical propaganda but really embedded in the culture of Indians. Or perhaps cows are more sacred than humans in India. 'Incredible India?', of course!]]>Iran Sanctions Could Backfire tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12704632012-02-11T14:56:53-05:002012-04-12T05:12:01-04:00Jasdev Singh Raihttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jasdev-singh-rai/Ma Zhaoxu visited Iran to persuade it to engage in talks. It affirms that United States diplomacy under Obama has been far more successful than under his predecessor, Bush. The US has persuaded all of Europe and other western countries to isolate Iran, making it extremely difficult for Iran to trade on the international market. Obama's approach is gradual and effective pressure on Iran hoping for a regime change or mind change from within expecting the Mullahs dropping their nuclear ambitions altogether. But the Ayatollahs could outwit the United States, weakening it further.
The sanctions policy is obviously banking on Iranian middle classes breaking under the strain of inflation, drop in living standards and inability to buy commodities around the world. A rebellion or a revolution will satisfy the Pentagon.
But there is another scenario. Perhaps the State department and Pentagon have war- gamed it. Western sanctions against oil and dollar exchange could have two implications. China, India and Russia have made it abundantly clear that they are not going to stop trading with Iranian oil industry. Russian Gazprom and Lukoil are involved in several projects in Iran.
China and India will negotiate cheaper deals on Iranian oil as Iran's options are limited in the open market. The 20% of its oil exported to the EU will now be available cheaply to the two Asian Giants (AG2). India has already increased its oil from Iran. Which means their manufacturing will be even cheaper .They will be able to flood western markets with more cheaper goods to satisfy decreasing buying power in the west.
The west will be buying oil at inflated price from other suppliers. Oil prices are predicted to increase. That means manufacturing and delivery costs in the west become more expensive, almost outpricing themselves both in the domestic and international markets. Central Banks will have to do even more Quantitative Easing. Suddenly it doesn't seem like a clever policy.
The west might think it can weather this. But there is another direction the entire sanctions effect could take. Iran's central Bank can no longer trade in dollars. Which means China, India and Russia cannot pay for the oil in dollars and Iran cannot buy goods around the world in dollars. That is a pincer or it seems.
The four countries could develop an alternative to the dollar as the world's reserve currency. For instance, China, India and Russia could agree to accept each other's currencies in regard to Iran. Alternatively they could persuade China to offer the Yuan as a reserve currency among themselves, since it is the strongest and even rising against the Dollar.Some countries (Chile, Nigeria) already hold Yuan as reserves and some trading alrady takes place. Others might join. But they could even finally set up a wider reserve currency system to replace the near monopoly of the dollar. China has often hinted at this.
If these alternatives start formalising, the non-Dollar trading system could become available to other countries facing sanctions. It would make the dollar less important than it is. The United States will lose one of its most potent and remaining weapons. In fact Iran has already set up an alternative in 2008, called the Iran Oil Bourse in the Island of Kish which it designated free trade zone.
The USA cannot threaten to stop trading with China or India in retaliation for them buying Iranian oil. World economy will go into a spin if that happens. Trade between Iran and the big three is quite high. India is on the verge of finally joining in the IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) gas pipeline which the US tried to stop.
This crises for Iran could hasten the inevitable emergence of the Renminbi (Yuan) as a reserve currency, although China had hoped to keep it off until 2020. This would impact on America's remaining ability to impose its will without brute force. But more importantly, the American economy's ability to weather economic storms on the strength of its dollar, which continues to attract bond buying, may be severely affected. That will further erode US influence.
In the last decade China increased its political influence around the world before its time and enhanced its economic might while the US fought pointless and expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These sanctions could force China to fill another emerging power vacuum and push for the alternative to the dollar as the world's reserve currency before its time; Not because of Chinese ambition but because of US policies. The world will never be the same again. Empires are often the victims of their own privileges.
]]>