Naked Sita on Hanuman's tail

For all those who are wondering why M.F. Husain “abandoned” India, here are a few thoughts (in words and pics) from an equally confused Indian.
According to Husain it was impossible for him to express his creativity in India. So what does this say about India’s claim as an open democratic society? Is Qatar more democratic than India?

Or is Indian society, followers of Hindu religion in particular, dogmatic and unable to distinguish personal expressions from religious traditions?

Durga in sexual union with Hanuman

According to Amartya Sen “The form as well as the interpretation and understanding of secularism in India can be linked to the history of the acceptance of heterodoxy.” Examples of the ‘Lokayata’ (skepticism and materialism) and Carvaka (atheism) philosophies find references in the Hindu religious texts. Is the reaction to Husain’s paintings a reversal of the tolerance of the plurality in India? 

Naked Saraswati

To me the issue is not simply about Hindu sensitivities. Muslims protested the Danish cartoons, Hindus reacted to Husain’s depiction of Hindu gods; people of all religions have strongly fortified sensitivities.

Naked 'Bharatmata'

I continue to be perplexed by a different set of questions. Does Husain’s departure raise questions about laws and state of democracy in India or does it cause concern about the tolerance quotient in the land of diverse cultures?  The democracy argument can be tricky. The democracy that allows Husain to express his creativity should also allow others to voice their protests. The epic of Ramayana, scared for many Hindus, also has reference to Javali, a skeptical pundit who skillfully defends his denunciation of religious practices in conversation with Rama.

So, democracy needs to take sides? Does Javali’s inclusion in Ramayana rationalize Husain’s personal depictions of Hindu gods?

The HR Watch works through the ‘See it to believe it’ approach by placing human rights watchers and senior researchers in areas where field operations are conducted. This implies that for reporting on issues of human rights violations by the Pakistani or Indian Army in Lahore or Kashmir for example, HR Watch has people from the local population like Meenakshi or Ali to follow the case; observers are not flown in from Washington or Brussels or London to undertake the reporting.
HR Watch works through the strategy of ‘Name, Shame and Engage’. Going beyond reporting on human rights violations, HR Watch investigates incidents of such violations by interactions with both the victims and perpetrators. This leads to identifying the real perpetrators and subsequent reporting. HR Watch follows a novel approach with regard to human rights violations by seeking to engage with violators themselves. The purpose of these investigations is not merely to highlight who the violators are but also interact and reason with them. The idea is not to create a hate campaign against the violators but involve them addressing the problem. Meenakshi elaborated this aspect when she narrated how she was able to talk to an Indian Army Commander for almost four hours following the publication of her report on human rights violations in J&K. Following this meeting, she was invited for sessions with Army jawans for raising concerns and creating sensitivity on issues of human rights violations. But Meenakshi does not believe that such sessions alone would solve the problem. According to her the Army in J&K acts with a sense of impunity and reform of Armed Forces Special Powers Act need to be repealed for the situation to improve in the state.
On the issue of drone attacks and civilian causalities in Pakistan, Ali was of the opinion that HR Watch was not in a position of verifying claims made by any side. In closed military operations, like the drone operation in Pakistan, international forces might claim that among those killed only a few were civilians, while the local population may inflate the number of innocent deaths. According to Ali, it is impossible to corroborate the claims of either side and thus HR Watch is not in a position of reporting objectively on the issue.
Meenakshi’s encounter with human rights advocacy in India has convinced her that these issues get more attention when violations involve and affect the country’s middle class. But the discussions lead me to think about issues where human rights violations are not in the open and are perpetuated by the middle class itself. We can confront the Army for torturing innocent Kashmiris but what about the subtle deprivations faced by millions of children working as domestic help in middle class homes? Does giving them shelter and three meals a day gives the middle class license to exploit them? We can have elaborate reports on how unwanted is the girl child in India, but can anyone ‘name, shame and engage’ those middle class parents who continue to get rid of female fetus in lavish state-of-art hospitals?
Perhaps Meenakshi is right in saying that human rights violations matter to us only when our kith and kin are hurt by it; the denial of justice argument is made largely when the middle calss is involved. Since almost every family in J&K has encountered human rights violation in some form, the issue has greater currency among the common people in the state. Does it imply that human rights advocacy is possible only when the graph of violation rises? Will people have to be subjected to violations to realize the value of human rights? Is human rights protection an ex post facto exercise and not a preventive one?

We [as in the residents of Maharashtra] all should support Raj Thackeray and take his initiative ahead by doing more….

1. We should teach our kids that if he is second in class, don’t study harder, just beat up the student coming first and throw him out of the school
2. Parliament should have only Delhiites as it is located in Delhi
3. Prime-minister, President and all other leaders should only be from Delhi�
4. No Hindi movie should be made in Bombay, only Marathi
5. At every state border, buses, trains, flights should be stopped and staff changed to local men
6. All Maharashtrians working abroad or in other states should be sent back as they are SNATCHING employment from Locals
7. Lord Shiva, Ganesha and Parvati should not be worshiped in our state as they belong to north ( Himalayas )
8. Visits to Taj Mahal should be restricted to people from UP only and Gateway of India should be renamed “Gateway to Maratha land”�
9. Relief for farmers in Maharashtra should not come from centre because that is the money collected as Tax from whole of India, so why should it be given to someone in Maharashtra?
10. Let’s support Kashmiri Militants because they are right to killing and injuring innocent people for benefit of their state and community
11. Let’s throw all MNCs out of Maharashtra, why should they earn from us? We will open our own Maharashtra Microsoft, MH Pepsi and MH Maruti
12. We should STOP using local trains. Trains are not manufactured by Marathi manoos and Railway Minister is a Bengali
13. Ensure that all our children are born, grow, live and die without ever stepping out of Maharashtra, only then shall they become true Marathi’s

Though it may sound funny and ridiculous to many of us, Shiv Sena might have an explanation for all the above. What is folly to some, is ingenuity for others.

“To Indians, cycles constitute the basis of life and stand in stark contrast to the Western linear view of time….in the Indian view, the cosmos also goes through repeated cycles of creation, decay, destruction and recreation…a cyclical view suggests no past and no future, just a continuing series of cycles.”

Avoiding the temptation of turning this post into a historical narrative, I shall refer to the recent history of Indo-Pakistan dialogue. In 1997, high-level Indo-Pakistani talks resumed after a 3-year pause. In September the same year, talks were stalled over the issue of how dialogue should be structured. The nuclear tests of 1998 resulted in expected strains. In February 1999, P.M. Vajpayee Lahore Bus diplomacy resumed hopes of dialogue once again, soon to be crushed under the weight of the Kargil intrusions. After refusing to talk to a military dictatorship for years, Indian P.M. finally met General Musharraf in 2001 at Agra. December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament raised tensions in the subcontinent with both sides mobilizing forces during the first quarter of 2002. Tempers began to cool in 2003, followed by extensive talks. Mumbai 2008 once again stalled talks or in the populist jargon derailed the peace process. The Foreign Secretaries meeting last week was the first bilateral interaction between India and Pakistan after the Mumbai terror strikes.
The most common idiom defining Indo-Pakistan relations would be “resumption of dialogue”. India’s political leadership (whom I earlier referred to as ‘policymakers’, but have given up the term in the absence of much ‘policy’ in our foreign relations) claims that they cannot wish away Pakistan’s existence as a neighbor and thus have to devise ways and means of dealing with this difficult neighbor. They however, forget that with the acceptance of Pakistan as a neighbor also comes the need and reality of dealing with terrorism. Expecting the Pakistan should with terrorism and India should only deal with Pakistan is wishful thinking; India will have to deal with Pakistani state and terrorism through instruments of foreign policy. This realization is imperative to break the cycle of dialogue, tension, breakdown of dialogue and resumption of talks.
If India premises (as it claims to) dialogue with Pakistan on the condition that the latter shall end support for terrorist activities in India, collapse of the dialogue process is assured. Whether Pakistan is unwilling or incapable of curbing terrorism is different issue, the precondition is simply preposterous. It is in India’s interest that Pakistan stops sponsoring terrorism, but assuming that moral reasoning and diplomatic pressure will push Pakistan in that direction is naïve. Even the U.S. dollars and drones have not completely succeeded in forcing Pakistan to abandon support for terrorism.
Moreover, the degree to which a terrorist attack affects dialogue process depends on the Government; Mumbai did adversely affect bilateral dialogue, but Pune did not. What yardstick does the Government employ to suspend talks in the wake of a terrorist attack….number of causalities or media coverage?
It is not sufficient for India to have a Pakistan policy. India needs to develop a terrorism policy in the view of the fact that Pakistan is a spring board for launching terror strikes on India. India’s counter-terrorism policy has to take cognizance of Pakistan but the Pakistan policy should not be wholly premised on terrorism. The lack of coherence in India’s Pakistan policy and counter-terrorism policy is the reason for the cyclical relations without much forward movement. It is imperative for the Government of India to decide and makes public its stand on:
1. The status of dialogue if another terrorist attack hits India. Will Secretary-level talks be suspended if terrorists with links to Pakistan cause civilian causalities in India?
2. What will be the status of dialogue, if no Pakistan aided terrorist attack occurs in India, but at the same time no action is taken against Hafeez Saeed?
3. What explicit steps does India expect Pakistan to take on countering terrorism before Heads of State meet?
4. Will dialogue be affect if the military regime replaces civilian government?
5. Will trade dialogue between the two countries continue to remain hostage to the dominance of strategic dialogue? There is much that India needs to do with regard to opening its market to Pakistani textile and garment exports. 

There is absolutely no doubt that the menace of Pakistan supported terrorism is hurting India, but it is equally true that Indo-Pakistan have remained sour even before low intensity conflict began in J&K. The period between 1972 and 1989 was one of considerable peace, but as Sumit Ganguly remarks it was ‘cold peace’.
K. Subrahmanyam’s insightful analysis is worth nothing: “The issues that divide India and Pakistan are Kashmir, state-sponsored terrorism and nuclear question. None of them are capable of early solution through bilateral discussions because these are merely symptoms of more fundamental problems, over which the two nations have very little control.”
Even when India decides to discuss terrorism related issues with Pakistan, a prioritized to-do list is vital. Statements like “Pakistan should end its support for terrorist elements,” “credible action should be taken against LeT” are generalist remarks which leave no space for diplomatic give and take. India’s negative diplomacy of not talking to Pakistan unless the latter stops sponsoring terrorism needs to be replaced with positive diplomacy. The emphasis needs to shift to what India would do or rather can offer to Pakistan if the latter shows willingness to check cross border infiltration.  What economic incentives can India provide Pakistan if say no terror attack occurs for a year on Indian soil. Offering something to Pakistan is much more important than merely expecting Pakistan to act on terror-suspect lists or terror dossiers.

It is for the Government of India to decide: make terrorism the main plank of the dialogue process or strategize the dialogue process? Its a spread out platter and it is for India to make its choice!

The Army Chief’s aide Lt. Gen. Awadesh Prakash, the current Military Secretary, has been found guilty by a court of inquiry of using his position to influence a no-objection certificate given by the chief of the 33 Corps in Sukhna, Lt. Gen P.K. Rath, to a private realtor. The East Army Commander, Lt. Gen. V.K. Singh, who convened the inquiry, has recommended court martial of the two officers. However, while the Army Chief has acceded to Gen. Rath’s court martial, he has ordered only disciplinary action against Gen. Prakash. Lt. Gen. V.K. Singh, due to take over from General Kapoor on March 31, and the media has accused General Kapoor of favoring his Secretary Lt. Gen. Prakash.
According to Army sources Gen. Kapoor would have taken the total picture into consideration in ordering only administrative action against Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash. Sources are quick to point out that the successor of Gen Kapoor, Lt Gen V K Singh had gone a step further in recommending the sacking of Prakash. Said a top retired Army officer: “He (Kapoor) has a set of advisors and experts before he takes a final call. I feel he would have taken a decision keeping the highest values in the Army. It is no doubt embarrassing when the senior most General in the Army is over-ruled. It will affect the morale among senior officers.”
No doubt, that Lt. Gen. Awadesh Prakash’s actions were disapproving and action against him was imperative. But was the political highhandedness and media pouncing necessary or even desirable? Lt. General Prakash who was due to retire on January 31, 2010, has become, thanks to Defense Minister A.K. Anthony, the highest ranking member of the Indian Army to be court martialed. The country is rejoicing that the righteousness of the Indian Army was once again upheld. But what about the impact on this development on the morale of the Army? This post is not a defense for Lt. General Prakash, but a more pointed defense of the stature and morale of the Indian Armed Forces. Lengthy inquires into scams by the political leadership of the country with virtually no action against them has been the norm in India. Even murder convicts can contest elections. But error on the part of the military personnel has to be highlighted and ‘appropriate’ action is taken instantly. Hypocrisy or Justice?
General Kapoor rightly stated “The strength of the Indian Army is 1.1 million. But when something of this nature happens, the media delves into it. But when it happens on the civilian side, it does not get reported.”
Civilian control of the Army is imperative in a democracy, but India is taking it too far; embarrassing the military just to prove the obedience of the Indian military compared to it Pakistani counterpart is not advisable. And more importantly, if we Indians are so concerned about the worth of our military, why was there no protest against Gul Panag’s recent tweet that the Army Chief General Kapoor is ‘spineless’? In response to Gul’s tweet some Sudhir K. Singh tweets “U should have called Deepak Kapoor ’spineless’ much earlier. Calling him one now would suggest you are shooting a lame duck.”
We can tolerate such comments against an in-office Army Chief without raising protest, but can’t accept a anything less than court martial for Lt. Gen, Prakash.
Bravo, I could not think of any better way to de-moralize the Indian Armed Forces.

UPDATE: On February 22nd, the Armed Forces Tribunal stayed the court martial proceedings aganist Lt. General Prakash. findings of the previous Court of Inquiry have been rejected and a new CoI is expected to submit its report in the next two months.

Fidler and Ganguly’s conclusion is not based on complicated analysis but simply on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s forthright comment:
“On November 29, 2009, Manmohan Singh, India’s Prime Minister, stated on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS show that India wants to join the NPT as a nuclear-weapons state (NWS) and become the sixth NPT-recognized nuclear power. Although Indian diplomats have raised this idea in private in years past, Singh’s statement represents the first public announcement by a high-ranking official that India wants to be a NWS within the NPT. Indian press reports indicate that Singh is serious about this proposal, despite opposition within India.”
P.M. Singh’s aspirations will have to take cognizance of few compelling realities:
1) Is India a nuclear-weapon state? According to K. Santhanam, a former official with the Defense Research and Development Organization, the thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb tests - the first and most powerful of the three tests conducted on May 11, 1998 - did not produce the desired yield. Santhanam has also advised “We can’t get into a stampede to sign CTBT. We should conduct more nuclear tests which are necessary from the point of view of security.” According to Brahma Chellaney, a leading defense analyst, more than 11 years later, India has still not weaponized the thermonuclear technology, even though the test in 1998 was supposed to have catapulted the country into the big-power league.
2) What about India’s traditional opposition to NPT as discriminatory? Since 1968, when the NPT was opened for signature, India has refused to sign the treaty on the grounds that it is discriminatory. India has over the past four decades maintained that, instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty only legitimized the continuing possession and multiplication of nuclear stockpiles by those few states possessing them. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: “If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment.” How will P.M. Singh reconcile his decision to sign the NPT to India’s traditional opposition for the same?
3) Impact on the South Asian security balance? India’s entry into the NPT as a NWP would bolster Pakistan’s claims on similar grounds. Moreover, how exactly does India plan to counter China’s opposition to any such move? Is India prepared for a “two-front diplomatic war” for securing its entry into the NPT regime as NWS?
4) Will political opposition and public reaction acquiesce to the decision? Accession to the NPT is bound to have major political implications for any Government in India. There seems to be no effort on the part of the Manmohan Singh Government to initiate a political and public dialogue on the question of signing the NPT. The popular perception in the country is still that India has not and will not sign the NPT because it is discriminatory. P.M. Singh can’t expect the Indian electorate to gauge change in official policy by listening to his comments on Fareed Zakaria GPS. Given the political difficulties faced by P.M. Singh in his first term over the Indo-U.S. Civilian Nuclear Deal, the necessity for political dialogue on the issue cannot be ignored.
Were P.M. Singh’s comments (it cannot be referred to as a ‘decision’ yet) motivated simply by enhancing India’s image as a responsible nuclear power? At a time when there is international debate over the very rationale of the NPT, why is the Singh Government showing interest in it? The NPT has failed in checking proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology. So why does India want to become a part of this “failed treaty”? Simply because it would internationally credit India as a nuclear weapon state.
Another confirmation of George K. Tanham’s observation that status and symbolism matter greatly in India’s strategic calculations.

P.S. May 2010 Annual Review of the NPT. Will P.M. Singh ‘decide’ by then?

[Karachi Port Trust Towers]

Here are a few claims in the article that have escaped popular attention:
1) In 2005 Goldman Sachs developed the notion of “Next Eleven” (N-11) – the next group of large population countries that had the potential of growing to rival the G7 economic power. The concept looked beyond the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries and included Pakistan.
2) Pakistan is South Asia’s second biggest economy and, in its 60 year history, has never experienced negative growth, averaging more than five percent annually.
3) The middle income class of the country is 40 million.
4) In 1947 Pakistan’s textile industry comprised of one cotton mill. Today, textiles contribute 8.5 % to GDP and provide employment to 15 million people.
5) The Karachi Port Trust, under a Public-Private Partnership, has undertaken the dredging of the world’s first 18-meter container Port, expected to be completed by 2013.
6) National Bank of Pakistan increased its profit from US$ 12 million in 2000 to US$ 335.5 million in 2007. NBP was also awarded the “Best Foreign Exchange Bank 2008” by Global Finance.
The article thankfully departs from the usual political trend of blaming the West, Afghanistan or India for the country’s problems. There is recognition that the current state of domestic challenges was aggravated by the poor state of the country’s economy and infrastructure. The economic recovery is expected not to be simply dependent on U.S. dollars, but more crucially on dealing with structural problems like severe energy crisis, water shortage and unemployment.�
Full page advertisements by the NBP and Karachi Ports Trust lend the impression that the claims are guided by commercial interests and are largely self-serving. Nevertheless, it is heartening to see that someone other than Pakistani politicians is attempting to highlight future possibilities in Pakistan. Moreover, the choice of Foreign Affairs as a medium should not be lost. The message is succinct and audience selective.

At 60 Generation Next takes the baton!

Any doubts on why civilian rulers are outset by the military in Pakistan?

The opening lines of the article set the tone for what follows:
“When I was elected President more than a year ago, Pakistan was in grave condition, strained by terrorism and a ravaged economy.”
President Zardari seems to believe that Pakistan is no longer in a grave condition and economy has improved. He refers to the threat of terrorism with a sense of nostalgia.
He claims to have introduced economic reforms, which though unpopular, were necessary and would prove beneficial in the long run. I could not help but think about his unique sense of economics displayed in 2008. President Zardari’s “sense of economics” was reported in a New York article in September 2008, here is an excerpt:
In April, Mr. Zardari told Ishaq Dar, the finance minister at the time and a member of Mr. Sharif’s party, which has since broken with Mr. Zardari, that he wanted the price the government paid farmers for wheat to be raised substantially as a way of rewarding an important constituency in Punjab Province, the nation’s most populous, according to two participants in the discussion with Mr. Zardari. The government would then have to heavily subsidize the cost of wheat to the consumer. When Mr. Dar asked Mr. Zardari how he thought the government would pay for the subsidy, Mr. Zardari replied, “Print the notes,” according to the two participants, a government official and an associate of Mr. Zardari’s. In an effort to solve the impasse over the subsidy, it was suggested that Mr. Zardari form a committee of experts. ‘I am the expert,’ Mr. Zardari said, according to his associate.
The two officials described another episode in May as the budget was being prepared. Mr. Zardari decided to scrap a proposed capital gains tax after a visit from a group of influential stockbrokers from the Karachi stock exchange, they said. The revenue from the capital gains tax, and from an income tax proposal on the rich, would have paid for an income support program for the poorest Pakistanis, they said. More than half of Pakistanis live on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank.

Another claim made by President Zardari has left me speechless:
“Pakistan’s economic resurrection has been the product, primarily, of our own sweat and blood.”
What about the international downpour of aid into Pakistan. Mr. President?
And President Zardari does not shy from asserting that the international community is responsible for the current state of crisis in Pakistan:
If the community of developed democratic nations had, after our last democratic election, crafted an innovative development plan with the scope and vision of the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II, much greater economic, political and military stability would already have been achieved.

I was thinking that Conan and Leno were the only claimants for “The Tonight Show”!!