ദി post-man

By a thin thread

2009-10-21T01:59:00.000-07:00

“The more things change, the more they remain the same,” goes a French adage. Things have changed a lot since the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan five-and-a-half decades ago. Now we have nine nuclear states, anti-nuclear movements, non-proliferation treaties and various organizations committed to disarmament.

But the core question remains: is the world free of the third bomb threat? Gregory Berglund in The Third Bomb looks for an answer. Four years after the US bombed Japan, the Soviet Union, the leader of the east bloc, tested a nuclear bomb bringing “a balance of terror” in the international system.

This balance prevented the use of the bomb throughout the Cold War, though there were occasions when a nuclear war seemed imminent.

The bomb was not used, but the willingness to use it remained. According to Berglund, this is more dangerous in the new world order. He calls the new world order “nuclear anarchy”.

The collapse of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, has brought in radical changes in the discourse on nuclear weapons. The taboo, which prevented further use of nuclear weapons during the cold war, collapsed along with the twin towers. The entry of terrorists into the front has left holes in the deterrence theory.

In many ways, The Third Bomb is an unique effort to understand the discourse on nuclear warfare. Unlike a lot of theorists who go into policy issues, Berglund focusses on the willingness of potential bomb users to kill millions. He argues, “Without moral personality, a state will not be capable of practising deterrence”.

Does India have such moral personality? No, says Berglund. He quotes the dialogues between Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagvad Gita to emphasize his point. The religious book says though war is an evil, it’s an evil that cannot be avoided.” The “morality of war” will not prevent India from using nuclear weapons.

Berglund believes many other nuclear powers also do not have a moral repository to practice deterrence. The theory of moral deterrence is an interesting one, but Berglund does not expand on it. Is India’s moral repository limited to the Bhagvad Gita. What about Gandhi’s ahimsa?

Book>> The Third Bomb •by Gregory Berglund • Jnanada Prakashan, New Delhi • 2009 • Rs.250 (Reviewed for Down to Earth)

മാര്ക്സിസതിന്റെ തിരിചു വരവു

2009-04-22T00:41:00.000-07:00

സമീര്‍ അമീന്‍ സംസാരിക്കുന്നു
ലോകം മാര്‍ക്സില്‍ അവസാനിക്കുകയല്ല, തുടങ്ങുകയാണ് ?

അതേ, ഇപ്പോള്‍ മാര്‍ക്സും മാവോയും തിരിച്ചുവന്നിരിക്കുന്നു. മാര്‍ക്സിസത്തെ മാര്‍ക്സില്‍ നിന്നാരംഭിക്കുന്ന സര്‍ഗാത്മക ചിന്തയായി മനസ്സിലാക്കുമ്പോള്‍ അത് മാര്‍ക്സില്‍ നിന്നു തുടങ്ങുകയാണ്. മാര്‍ക്സില്‍ അവസാനിക്കുകയല്ല. ഏഷ്യനാഫ്രിക്കന്‍, ലാറ്റിനമേരിക്കന്‍ രാജ്യങ്ങളിലെ സമൂഹങ്ങളെയും സാമ്രാജ്യത്വത്തെയും വര്‍ത്തമാനസാഹചര്യങ്ങളില്‍ മനസ്സിലാക്കാനുതകും വിധത്തില്‍ മാര്‍ക്സിസത്തെ സമ്പന്നമാക്കിയ മാവോയുടെ സൃഷ്ടിപരമായ സംഭാവനകള്‍ അനല്പമാണ്. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ സമൂഹത്തെ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നതിന് ഏറ്റവും അനുയോജ്യമായ ഉപകരണമാണ് മാര്‍ക്സിസവും മാവോയിസവും പ്രദാനം ചെയ്യുന്നത്. ഈ നല്ല ഉപകരണത്തിന്റെ പ്രയോഗം നിങ്ങളെ, ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന ആളിനെ, ആശ്രയിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു. ചൂഷണത്തിലും മര്‍ദ്ദനത്തിലുമധിഷ്ഠിതമായ വര്‍ത്തമാന സാമൂഹ്യവ്യവസ്ഥിതിയെ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നതിനുമാത്രമല്ല, അതിന്റെ യുക്തിശാസ്ത്രത്തെ, അതിന്റെ ആന്തരിക വൈരുദ്ധ്യങ്ങളെ, അതിന്റെ ദൌര്‍ബല്യങ്ങളെക്കൂടി കണ്ടെത്തുന്നതിന് അത് നിങ്ങളെ സഹായിക്കുന്നു. അതുകൊണ്ട് ഈ ഉപകരണം സമൂഹത്തെ മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ മാത്രമല്ല അതിനെ മാറ്റിത്തീര്‍ക്കാന്‍ കൂടിയുള്ള ഒന്നായിത്തീരുന്നു. അതായത്, ചൂഷിതജനവിഭാഗങ്ങളുടെ വിമോചനത്തിനുതകുന്ന തന്ത്രങ്ങളും നയങ്ങളും കാര്യക്ഷമമായി രൂപപ്പെടുത്താന്‍ അത് സഹായകമായിത്തീരുന്നു. ഈ ഉപകരണം ഉപയോഗിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ സാമ്പത്തിക പ്രതിസന്ധി മാത്രമല്ല വര്‍ത്തമാന മുതലാളിത്തത്തിന്റെയും സാമ്രാജ്യത്ത്വത്തിന്റെയും വ്യവസ്ഥാപരമായ പ്രതിസന്ധിയെക്കൂടി വിശകലനം ചെയ്യാനാണ് എനിക്ക് ഇഷ്ടം.

എണ്ണപ്രതിസന്ധി, ഊര്‍ജ്ജപ്രതിസന്ധി, ഭക്ഷ്യപ്രതിസന്ധി പാരിസ്ഥിതിക പ്രതിസന്ധി, സാമ്പത്തിക പ്രതിസന്ധി... മുതലാളിത്തം മുതലകൂപ്പുകുത്തുകയാണോ... എന്താണ് മാര്‍ക്സിസ്റ്റ് വിശകലനം?

പരമ്പരാഗത സാമ്പത്തിക ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞരെ സംബന്ധിച്ചിടത്തോളം ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ സാമ്പത്തിക പ്രതിസന്ധി പെട്ടെന്ന് പൊട്ടിപ്പുറപ്പെട്ട ഒന്നാണ്. പക്ഷേ, ഞങ്ങള്‍ മാര്‍ക്സിസ്റ്റ് സാമ്പത്തിക ശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞരില്‍ നല്ലൊരുവിഭാഗമെങ്കിലും പ്രതീക്ഷിച്ച ഒന്നായിരുന്നു ഈ പ്രതിസന്ധി. സാധാരണ രീതിയില്‍ ലളിതമായി പറയാറുള്ളതുപോലെ മുതലാളിത്തം പ്രതിസന്ധികളെ നേരിട്ടുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കും എന്ന പ്രസ്താവനയിലധിഷ്ഠിതമായിരുന്നില്ല ഇത്. മറിച്ച് വര്‍ത്തമാനകാലയളവിലെ നിയോലിബറല്‍ ആഗോളവത്കരണത്തിന്റെ വിശകലനം, അത് സുസ്ഥിരമല്ല എന്ന അറിവിലേക്ക് നയിച്ചു എന്നതാണ് വസ്തുത. പരമ്പരാഗത ധനശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞരില്‍പ്പെട്ട കേമന്മാര്‍പോലും ഇത് മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നതില്‍ പരാജയപ്പെട്ടു. അതു മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള ധിഷണാപരമായ ഉപകരണങ്ങള്‍ അവര്‍ക്കുണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. അതുകൊണ്ട് ആഗോളവത്കരണത്തിന് ബദലുകളില്ല എന്നവര്‍ പറഞ്ഞുകൊണ്ടിരുന്നു. ആഗോളവത്കരണത്തെ സ്വീകരിക്കേണ്ടതിന്റെയും അതിനായി സമര്‍പ്പിക്കേണ്ടതിന്റെയും അതുമായി സമരസപ്പെടേണ്ടതിന്റെയും ആവശ്യത്തെയും ഒടുവില്‍ ആഗോളവത്കരണത്തെ അനുകൂലമായി ഉപയോഗപ്പെടുത്തേണ്ട കാര്യത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുമായിരുന്നു അവരുടെ പറച്ചിലുകള്‍. ഞങ്ങളെപ്പോലുള്ളവര്‍ സാമ്രാജ്യത്വ ആഗോളവത്കരണത്തിനു ബദല്‍ സാധ്യമാണെന്നും അതു സോഷ്യലിസ്റ്റു ബദല്‍ മാത്രമാണെന്നും പറഞ്ഞു. ഈ വ്യവസ്ഥ സുസ്ഥിരമല്ല. ഇപ്പറയുന്നതിനര്‍ത്ഥം രണ്ടുവര്‍ഷങ്ങള്‍ക്കുള്ളില്‍ സോഷ്യലിസം സംജാതമാകുമെന്നല്ല, മറിച്ച്, പ്രതിസന്ധിയിലകപ്പെട്ട മുതലാളിത്തത്തിനും സാമ്രാജ്യത്ത്വത്തിനും ബദലായി ചൂഷിത-മര്‍ദ്ദിത വിഭാഗങ്ങളുടെ പക്ഷത്തുനിന്ന് സാധ്യമായ പ്രതികരണം സോഷ്യലിസത്തിനുവേണ്ടിയുള്ള പോരാട്ടങ്ങളാണ് എന്നാണ്.

ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ സാമ്പത്തികതകര്‍ച്ച സംഭവിച്ചത് ഏതാണ്ട് ആറ് മാസങ്ങള്‍ക്കു മുന്‍പാണ്. എന്നാലിത് കേവലമായ ഒരു സാമ്പത്തിക തകര്‍ച്ച മാത്രമല്ല. ഐസ് കട്ടയുടെ ഉപരിതലം മാത്രം എന്നു പറയാം. ഈ ഐസ് കട്ടയ്ക്കിടയില്‍ വാര്‍ദ്ധക്യം ബാധിച്ച മുതലാളിത്തത്തിന്റെ പ്രതിസന്ധിയാണുള്ളത്. കാലഹരണപ്പെട്ടുകഴിഞ്ഞ മുതലാളിത്തത്തിന്റെ പ്രതിസന്ധി എന്നുതന്നെ പറയാന്‍ എനിക്കു മടിയില്ല. മുതലാളിത്ത വ്യവസ്ഥയുടെ ഈ പ്രതിസന്ധി നിരവധി രൂപങ്ങളില്‍ പ്രകടമായിത്തീരുന്നുണ്ട്. എണ്ണ പ്രതിസന്ധി, ഊര്‍ജ്ജപ്രതിസന്ധി, ഭക്ഷണപ്രതിസന്ധി, പാരിസ്ഥിതിക പ്രതിസന്ധി എന്നിങ്ങനെ നിരവധി രൂപങ്ങളില്‍! പരമ്പരാഗത ധനശാസ്ത്രജ്ഞന്‍മാര്‍ ഈ ഓരോ പ്രതിസന്ധിയേയും പ്രത്യേകം പ്രത്യേകമായി വിശകലനം ചെയ്യുകയാണ് ചെയ്തത്. അവയോരോന്നും തമ്മിലുള്ള പരസ്പരബന്ധം മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ അവര്‍ ശ്രമിക്കുന്നില്ല. മാര്‍ക്സിസ്റ്റ് വിശകലനരീതി സ്വീകരിച്ച ഞങ്ങളാകട്ടെ പ്രതിസന്ധികളെ അവയുടെ പരസ്പരബന്ധങ്ങളില്‍ മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ ശ്രമിക്കുന്നു.

അതായത് മുതലാളിത്തം ആസന്നമരണാവസ്ഥയിലാണ് ?

കഴിഞ്ഞ ഇരുപത്തിയഞ്ചോ മുപ്പതോ വര്‍ഷങ്ങളായി നമ്മുടെ സാമൂഹികവ്യവസ്ഥ വാര്‍ദ്ധക്യദശയിലേക്കും വളരെ പെട്ടെന്നു പൊട്ടിത്തകരുന്ന കുമിളകളുടെ രൂപവത്കരണത്തിലേക്കും വര്‍ധിതമായ സാമ്പത്തികവത്ക്കരണത്തിലേക്കും (Financialisation) എത്തിച്ചേര്‍ന്നിരിക്കുന്നു. ഇക്കാര്യം മനസ്സിലാക്കണമെങ്കില്‍ നമ്മള്‍ നിയോലിബറലിസത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള വെറും വിവരണങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്ന് മുന്നോട്ടുപോകേണ്ടതുണ്ട്. നിയോലിബറലിസത്തിന്റെ മുഖംമൂടിക്കുപിറകില്‍ അറുപിന്തിരിപ്പനായ, നവയാഥാസ്ഥിതികമായ താത്പര്യങ്ങളും നയങ്ങളുമാണുള്ളത്. ആഗോളവത്ക്കരണം എന്ന പ്രയോഗത്തിലൂടെ അവയെല്ലാം മറച്ചുവെക്കാനുള്ള ശ്രമമാണ് നടന്നത്. യഥാര്‍ത്ഥത്തില്‍ ആഗോളവത്ക്കരണം എന്നത് മാനവചരിത്രത്തില്‍ വളരെ വളരെ വര്‍ഷങ്ങള്‍ക്കുമുന്‍പാരംഭിച്ച പ്രക്രിയയാണ്. മുതലാളിത്തം എന്നും ഒരു ആഗോളവത്ക്കരണ വ്യവസ്ഥയായിരുന്നു. യഥാര്‍ത്ഥത്തില്‍ ഇന്ത്യയുടെ കോളനിവത്ക്കരണമെന്നത് ആഗോളവത്ക്കരണത്തിന്റെ ഒരു രൂപം തന്നെയായിരുന്നില്ലേ ? എന്നാല്‍ ഇപ്പോള്‍ ഈ പ്രയോഗം നടത്തപ്പെടുന്നത്, തങ്ങള്‍ പറയുന്ന ആഗോളവത്ക്കരണം സാമ്രാജ്യത്വആഗോളവത്കരണമാണെന്ന അപ്രിയകരമായ സത്യം ഒഴിവാക്കാനാണ്.

മാന്ദ്യത്തെ നേരിടാന്‍ വ്യതസ്തമായ നയങ്ങളാണ് വേണ്ടത്, പക്ഷെ ഭരണകൂടങ്ങള്‍ നടപ്പാക്കുന്നതോ?

മുതലാളിത്ത പ്രഭുക്കന്മാരും അവരുടെ വേലക്കാരും അമേരിക്ക, യൂറാപ്പ്, ജപ്പാന്‍ എന്നിവയും മറ്റു ഗവണ്‍മെന്റുകളും എന്താണ് ചെയ്യുന്നത്? ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ സാമ്പത്തിക പ്രതിസന്ധിയില്‍ നിന്ന് കരകയറാന്‍ സെപ്റ്റംബറിലെ തകര്‍ച്ചയ്ക്കു മുന്‍പുള്ള അവസ്ഥ പുനഃസ്ഥാപിക്കുക എന്നതാണ് അവരുടെ ലക്ഷ്യം. ഒരു തരത്തിലുള്ള മാറ്റവും ലക്ഷ്യമാക്കപ്പെടുന്നില്ല. പുനഃസ്ഥാപനം മാറ്റമല്ല. പുനഃസ്ഥാപിക്കുക, ആഗോള നാണയ സാമ്പത്തിക വ്യവസ്ഥയുമായി ഏകീകരിക്കുക, അപക്രമീകരണം നടത്തുക...അങ്ങനെയങ്ങനെ... പ്രഭുക്കളുടേതുമാത്രമായ അധികാരങ്ങള്‍ നിലനിര്‍ത്തുകയും അവരവരുടെ സംരക്ഷണത്തിനുതകുന്ന ആഗോളതന്ത്രങ്ങള്‍ തുടരുകയും ചെയ്യുക. എന്നാല്‍ വരും മാസങ്ങളില്‍ എന്നല്ല വര്‍ഷങ്ങളില്‍ത്തന്നെ വ്യവസ്ഥയെ പുനഃസ്ഥാപിക്കുക എന്നത് സാധ്യമല്ലെന്നു തോന്നുന്നു. ഇതിനു മൂന്നു കാരണങ്ങളുണ്ട്.

ഒന്ന്, സാമ്പത്തിക സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളുടെ വിശ്വാസ്യത പുനഃസ്ഥാപിക്കാന്‍ ആവശ്യമായ പണം വന്‍തോതിലുള്ളതാണ്. ട്രില്യന്‍ ഡോളറുകളില്‍ ഒരുപക്ഷേ, രണ്ടായിരം ട്രില്യന്‍ ഡോളറിനും മീതെ.

രണ്ട്, പ്രതിസന്ധിക്കിരയായിത്തീര്‍ന്നവരുടെ പ്രതിഷേധം. അത് എത്രമാത്രം ശിഥിലവും രാഷ്ട്രീയ ബദല്‍ എന്ന രൂപത്തില്‍ സാംശീകരിക്കുന്നതില്‍ നിന്ന് എത്രമാത്രം ദൂരെയുമാകട്ടെ, അതിന്റേതായ പ്രതികരണങ്ങള്‍ സൃഷ്ടിക്കും.

മൂന്ന്, തെക്കന്‍ നാടുകളിലെ ഗവണ്‍മെന്റുകളില്‍പ്പെട്ട ആളുകള്‍, ആഗോള നാണയ ധന വ്യവസ്ഥയുമായി ഏകീകരിക്കുന്നതിന്റെ, വീണ്ടും ഏകീകരിക്കുന്നതിന്റെ പ്രത്യാഘാതങ്ങള്‍ മനസ്സിലാക്കും, ഈ പുനഃരേകീകരണം ലക്ഷ്യമിടുന്നത് ന്യൂനപക്ഷം വരുന്ന മുതലാളിത്ത പ്രഭുക്കള്‍ക്ക് ഏഷ്യന്‍, ആഫ്രിക്കന്‍ ലാറ്റിനമേരിക്കന്‍ രാജ്യങ്ങളിലെ പ്രകൃതിവിഭവങ്ങളെ കൊള്ളയടിക്കാനും കുറഞ്ഞ കൂലിക്ക് തൊഴില്‍ശക്തി നേടിയെടുക്കാനും ഉയര്‍ന്ന ലാഭനിരക്ക് നിലനിര്‍ത്താനും ലാഭം പങ്കിട്ടെടുക്കാനുമുള്ള സൌകര്യങ്ങളാണ്. ഈ ശ്രമത്തില്‍ അവര്‍ വിജയിക്കുകയാണെങ്കില്‍ ഏറെ താമസിയാതെ ഈ സാമൂഹികവ്യവസ്ഥ ഗുരുതരമായ പ്രതിസന്ധികളെ വീണ്ടും അഭിമുഖീകരിക്കും.

അപ്പോള്‍ ചോദ്യമിതാണ്, എന്താണ് ബദല്‍? സോഷ്യലിസമല്ലാതെ മറ്റു ബദലുകളില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്‍ എന്താണര്‍ത്ഥം?

ചരിത്രത്തില്‍ പല തരത്തിലുള്ള സോഷ്യലിസ്റുകള്‍ ഉണ്ടായിട്ടുണ്ട്. വ്യാവസായിക മുതലാളിത്തത്തിന്റെ കാലം മുതല്‍, ഫേബിയന്‍ സോഷ്യലിസ്റ്റുകള്‍, മാര്‍ക്സിസ്റ്റുകള്‍, രണ്ടാം ഇന്റര്‍നാഷണല്‍ മാര്‍ക്സിസ്റ്റുകള്‍, മൂന്നാം ഇന്റര്‍നാഷണല്‍ മാര്‍ക്സിസ്റ്റുകള്‍ എന്നിങ്ങനെ. സമഗ്രമായൊരു വിപ്ളവം; അതേത്തുടര്‍ന്ന് വളരെ ചെറിയൊരു ചരിത്ര കാലയളവിനുള്ളില്‍ ഒരു സോഷ്യലിസ്റ് സമൂഹം-ഇതായിരുന്നു സോഷ്യലിസത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള സങ്കല്പം. പക്ഷേ, ചരിത്രത്തില്‍ കൂടുതലായി നടന്ന കാര്യം വിപ്ളവങ്ങളെല്ലാം പ്രാന്തപ്രദേശരാജ്യങ്ങളിലാണ് ഉണ്ടായത് എന്നതാണ്. റഷ്യതൊട്ട് ചൈനയും ക്യൂബയും വിയറ്റ്നാമും വരെ. ദേശീയ വിമോചനത്തിനുവേണ്ടി മര്‍ദ്ദിതരാഷ്ട്രങ്ങളുടെ സമൂലമായ വന്‍ മുന്നേറ്റങ്ങള്‍. ഇരുപതാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലെ ഈ സമരങ്ങളെ സോഷ്യലിസത്തിന്റെ ഒന്നാം തരംഗം എന്നു ഞാന്‍ വിളിക്കട്ടെ. തൊഴിലാളികളുടെയും മര്‍ദിതജനങ്ങളുടെയും, വിമോചനമായിരുന്നു അതിന്റെ ലക്ഷ്യം. ആ നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലെ വസ്തുനിഷ്ട സാഹചര്യങ്ങള്‍ മാത്രമല്ല, അന്നത്തെ സാമൂഹ്യവ്യവസ്ഥയുടെ ആന്തരിക വൈരുദ്ധ്യങ്ങളും ഇത്തരമൊരു മുന്നേറ്റത്തിനു കാരണമായി. ഇപ്പോള്‍ സോഷ്യലിസത്തിനുവേണ്ടിയുള്ള സമരത്തിലെ തന്ത്രപരമായൊരു പുതിയ ദൌത്യത്തിലേക്ക് നമ്മള്‍ നീങ്ങിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുകയാണ്. ഭൂമുഖത്ത് ഒരു വര്‍ഗരഹിത സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ നിയമസാധുത സ്ഥാപിച്ചെടുക്കുന്നതിനുവേണ്ടി മാത്രമുള്ളതല്ല ഈ നീക്കം. മറിച്ച് ഒരു ദീര്‍ഘകാല പ്രാപഞ്ചിക പരിവര്‍ത്തനപ്രക്രിയയായി ഞാന്‍ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്ന സോഷ്യലിസ്റ്റ് പാതയില്‍ എങ്ങനെ മുന്നേറാം എന്നതിനെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള കാര്യക്ഷമമായ ഒരു തന്ത്രവിചാരം കൂടിയാണ് അത് (efficient strategic thinking).ഇത് അഞ്ചോ പത്തോ കൊല്ലം കൊണ്ട്, കുറേ ദേശസാല്‍ക്കരണങ്ങളിലൂടെ ധൃതിപിടിച്ചുണ്ടാക്കാന്‍ കഴിയുന്ന സോഷ്യലിസമല്ല. മറിച്ച് അടുത്ത നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലേക്കും നീളുന്ന ഒരു ദീര്‍ഘമായ പരിവര്‍ത്തനമാണ്.

*കടപ്പാട് : പി എ ജി ബുള്ളറ്റിന്‍

വിഷയം രാഷ്ട്രീയം തന്നെ

2009-04-14T07:24:00.000-07:00

ഈ തെരഞ്ഞെടുപ്പുകാലത്ത് പലവിധ വിവാദങ്ങളിലായി മാധ്യമങ്ങള്‍ മുക്കിക്കളഞ്ഞ ചില സുപ്രധാന രാഷ്ട്രീയ വിഷയങ്ങള്‍ സ്വയം ഓര്‍ക്കാനും ഉറപ്പുവരുത്താനും :

കമ്പോളമല്ല, ഗവണ്‍മെന്റാണ് രാജ്യം ഭരിക്കേണ്ടതെന്ന് പ്രഖാപിക്കാന്‍

ഭീകരതയ്ക്ക് വിത്തുവിതയ്ക്കുന്ന വര്‍ഗ്ഗീയതയെ ചെറുക്കാന്‍.
ഇന്ത്യന്‍ പൊതുമേഖല ശക്തിപ്പെടുത്താന്‍.

60% ജനങ്ങള്‍ ഉപജീവനമാര്‍ഗ്ഗം തേടുന്ന കാര്‍ഷിക മേഖലയില്‍ ചെലവാക്കുന്ന തുകയുടെ പകുതി സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ സബ്സിഡിനല്‍കുമെന്ന് പ്രഖ്യാപിക്കാന്‍.

വിദ്യാഭ്യാസം, ആരോഗ്യം, ഗതാഗതം, ജലം എന്നീ മേഖലകള്‍ സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ മേല്‍നോട്ടത്തിലും ഉടമസ്ഥതയിലും സംരക്ഷിക്കാന്‍.

പി.എഫ്. പലിശ നിരക്ക് 13% ആയി ഉയര്‍ത്തുകയും പി.എഫ് തുക സ്വകാര്യ കമ്പനികള്‍വഴി ഓഹരികമ്പോളത്തിന് കൈമാറാനുള്ള യു.പി.എ. സര്‍ക്കാരിന്റെ തീരുമാനം പിന്‍വലിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുമെന്ന് ഉറപ്പിക്കാന്‍

പെന്‍ഷന്‍ സ്വകാര്യവല്‍ക്കരണബില്‍ , ബാങ്കിംഗ് ബില്‍ , ഇന്‍ഷൂറന്‍സ് വിദേശ നിക്ഷേപ പരിധി ഉയര്‍ത്താനുള്ള ബില്‍ , എന്നിവ പിന്‍വലിക്കാന്‍

സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ അര്‍ദ്ധസര്‍ക്കാര്‍-സംസ്ഥാനസര്‍ക്കാര്‍ മേഖലകളിലും പൊതു മേഖലയിലും കഴിഞ്ഞ 15 വര്‍ഷമായി കാര്യമായി റിക്രൂട്ട്മെന്റ് നടക്കാത്തതുമൂലം ഒഴിഞ്ഞു കിടക്കുന്ന 50 ലക്ഷം വേക്കന്‍സികളില്‍ ഉടന്‍ നിയമനം നടത്തുമെന്ന് ഉറപ്പുവരുത്താന്‍

ഇന്ത്യയുടെ പരമാധികാരവും സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യവും സാമ്പത്തിക മുന്‍ഗണനകളും തകര്‍ക്കുന്ന അന്താരാഷ്ട്ര കരാറുകളില്‍ നിന്ന് പിന്മാറുമെന്നും പാര്‍ലമെന്റിന്റെ അനുമതിയില്ലാതെ അത്തരം കരാറുകളില്‍ ഇനി ഏര്‍പ്പെടില്ലന്നും ഉറപ്പുവരുത്താന്‍

തൊഴില്‍ സുരക്ഷ ഉറപ്പുവരുത്താന്‍, പണിമുടക്കാനും വിലപേശാനും തൊഴിലാളികള്‍ക്കുള്ള അവകാശം സംരക്ഷിക്കാന്‍

ഭൂപരിഷ്കരണം നടപ്പാക്കുവാനും സെസുകള്‍ക്കുവേണ്ടി അന്യായമായി കര്‍ഷകരുടെ ഭൂമി ഏറ്റെടുക്കില്ലെന്ന് ഉറപ്പുവരുത്താന്‍

കോര്‍പ്പറേറ്റ് നികുതി 50 ശതമാനമായി ഉയര്‍ത്താനും ഓഹരി കമ്പോളത്തിലെ ഇടപാടുകള്‍ക്ക് നികുതി ചുമത്താനുനുമുള്ള രാഷ്ട്രീയ ഇച്ഛാശക്തി കാട്ടാന്‍

സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്ന് പിരിച്ചെടുക്കുന്ന കേന്ദ്രനികുതി വരുമാനം അതത് സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങള്‍ക്കുതന്നെ നല്‍കുമെന്ന് ഉറപ്പുനല്‍കാന്‍.

*Modified from PAG Bulletin
പോസ്റ്റര്‍ ഡിസൈന്‍ : പരാജിതന്‍

Sashi Tharoor: Whose Candidate?

2009-03-28T07:28:00.000-07:00

Noted UN diplomat and writer Sashi Tharoor is now the Congress candidate from Thiruvananthapuram constituency. Recently, a UDF supporter told me in a very personal conversation that Tharoor's name was imposed by the Congress leadership on the KPCC.

When did Tharoor become a Congress activist? The critics of the Gandhi family have hardly been encouraged by the Congress party. And Tharoor is a known critic of the Gandhi family and has written so much, criticising the the grand old party in the past. And when the same Tharoor is cherry-picked by the Congress leadership, it's obvious that UDF-backers ask: Whose candidate is Shashi Tharoor?

The establishment is pro-American, undoubtedly. And the pro-US lobby in the country has successfully steered the foreign policy establishment to the Right-wing agenda over the last two decades. Now there's nothing to hide, though our ministers may still be "dreaming of an independent Palestinian nation".

*We have a nuclear agreement and a strategic partnership with the American Empire.

*We have enhancing but less-transparent defence partnership with the terror state Israel (See http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1242337 and http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1242675)

*We have supported the imperial project against Iran twice in the IAEA.

*We have a ruling party spokesperson who wants former US President George Bush, who was greeted by shoes by a proud Iraqi nationalist, be honoured with the highest civilian award - Bharat Ratna.

This pro-US establishment has enough bureaucratic chickens, but they want political faces, who can defend the New Right agenda both inside and outside parliament and take on the Left and the liberal intelligentsia. One doesn't need to prove the imperialist credentials of Tharoor (Read his article in Israel's leading liberal daily Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057981.html)

In the article Tharoor makes some points :

*He believes the insurgency in Kashmir and the freedom movement in the Palestinian territories are same.

*He believes Lashkar e Taiba and Jaish e Mohammad, the Pakistan-based terror outfits that kill innocent peoples, are the Indian equivalents of Hamas, an Islamist movement fighting for a just cause - a nation for the Palestinian people.

*He wants India to follow Israel's footsteps to outdo the terrorists. But, cannot do it as we are not as powerful as Israel.

With elections round the corner, the same Tharoor writes in Madhyamam, a newspaper run by Jamaat-e-Islami, that he had always supported an Independent Palestinian nation. (http://www.madhyamam.com/news_details.asp?id=8&nid=217313&page=1).

So, who wants Tharoor in Parliament? What will be his mission if he's elected? And if inducted into the councill of ministers, provided the Congress gets one more opportunity? Whose interest he's going to protect?

Can the BJP disown Varun Gandhi?

2009-03-23T03:48:00.000-07:00

"This is not the (Congress symbol) ‘hand’, this is the hand of the ‘lotus’. It will cut the throat of the (derogatory reference to a Muslim) after the elections… Varun Gandhi will cut… Cut that hand, cut it, cut it. Go to your villages and give the call that all Hindus must unite to save this area from becoming Pakistan…
Is it not true… that if (a woman) is asked her name and she says Bimla Devi, she is told we’ll see, we’ll think (about giving Government aid), give us Rs 5,000 first… But if her name is Saira Bano or whatever begum Hukum Begum… I don’t even know… These people have such scary-sounding names… Karimullah, Mazharullah… If you ever encountered them at night, you’d be scared." From BJP's national executive member Varun Gandhi's speeches in a series of election rallies in Pilibhit in UP.

The Hindu newspaper's mysterious cartoonist Keshav once called Ayodhya a hot election tourist spot (That was one of his rare cartoons I truly enjoyed). When the BJP, the country's largest communal party, was floated in early 1980s, its leaders, including Vajpayee and Advani, called it a "Party with Difference". Their earlier slogan, as we all know, was "Gandhian Socialism" and they later converted it into RSS' swadeshi philosophy. In early 1990s, the BJP proved on what grounds it was different from the other political outfits in the country. Advani drove his chariot through a pool of communal blood across the country to take his party to power.

Exactly 10 years after the demolition of the Babri masjid, we had a Narendra Modi who steered the killing of more than 2,000 Muslims (according to Teesta Setalvad, the number is many-fold high) in Gujarat. With the mass killing, the BJP underpinned the idea that it's a Party with Difference. Have you ever met any RSS acticist repenting on what happened in Gujarat in 2002 February-March. I wish you had, but it's mostly unlikelky given their socio-political upbringing. They won't repent. Because Hindutva is a fascist ideology based on hatred and RSS is its offspring.

How can Varun Gandhi be different? How can the BJP disown him? He said what BJP has done many times in its 29 years of existence and wit may do in the future as well. That's why the Saffron party is getting agitated when the Election Commission censors Varun Gandhi. That's why the Hindutva outfit rejected the Election Commission's advice to remove Gandhi from the candidates' list, saying "the EC doesn't have the right to give us such an advice". Remember, even when Chandrababu Naidu (yes the ever-green Third Front man) threatened to withdraw his outside support to the NDA government if it did not remove Modi from the chief minister's post, M/s Advani and team stood rock solid behind the perpetrator of the Gujarat violence. That's what the BJP is. As a close comrade put it, "the RSS is not a group of misguided men. It's an army of guided and well-trained communalists". We the secular Left has to remain extremely careful.

Adding a friend's comment on the post which he sent to gmail

Pardon Varun for Being Sincere to BJP's Ethos

Irony could never get it more apt than this. When a remorseless Varun Feroz Gandhi shamelessly denounced the media for “doctoring” the video tapes that showed the BJP poster boy spewing venom against Muslims in India, he was undermining at least a couple of shiny principles that the last two suffixes in his name represented. One need not be a holistic student of Indian history to know who was Feroz Gandhi and what were the values he championed. Feroz was a crusader of press freedom and the Parzi firebrand always spoke out for the right of the massmedia to expose politicians’ hideous romances with power. As a senior journalist recently said: “We would never have got a chance to see what’s going inside the Parliament had Freoz wasn’t there.” In 2002, in a tribute in the Hindu, former union minister Satya Prakash Malaviya wrote this: “His work in the field of the Indian press, journalism and its freedom has been no less outstanding. Healthy journalism was a great ideal to him. He believed that without an independent and fearless press all over the country, democracy could not be safe.”

And, imagine, what his grandson is doing.

On another note, one must pardon Varun for his utterances. In fact, there is a tinge of sincerity in his controversial delivery. The poor lad, it seems, was being true to his party. Who on the Earth have taken the BJP as a party that does not want to slit the throat of Muslims in the country? What Varun was spiting out was nothing but what he and many of us knew and beloved: the BJP is no motley of secular politics. How mild such a vicious agenda can get? And for how long? So, pardon poor Varun for being sincere to his ethos. He was stating just the obvious, which, when exposed, his beloved barbarous party brass is mockingly trying to polish. This is a party which choreographed one of the most meticulous pogroms in the history in Gujarat. That the world’s most notorious ‘pogromer’, Adolph Hitler, if alive, would have definitely found ultimate bliss in a membership with Varun’s party would not come as yet another historical jape to many of us. So, forget Varun if you cannot focus on his party. We all know Varun has little Gandhi in him. (By Jayjay)

Why the fascists should be defeated again?

2009-03-04T07:25:00.000-08:00

The day the 2004 Lok Sabha election results were declared was one the happiest days in the life of many of our generation. The unexpected blow the ruling Hindu terrorists suffered in the elections, as Asian Age Editor M.J. Akbar put it, showed that Indian voters were not "headless chickens". Well, there were enough write-ups comparing the 2004 mandate with the defeat of the Congress post-emergency. In a general election that held two years after the ruling party steered a pogrom in one of its laboratory-states, the election of a secular (in its relative meaning) government was a historical necessity. That was necessary for the survival of our secular polity. Another term for the Communalists would have put out even the last rays of hope in the hearts of many who love this country. Rejecting the Rightwing forces, Indian voters said two big NOs. One to the 6 years of communal build-up and the other to the unbriddled neoliberal concervativism of the so-called Swadeshi-bhakts.

It's not the intention of this post to assess the performance of the UPA regime. The 2009 elections take place against sweeping changes at domestic as well as regional levels. The Left and the Congress have parted ways over the India-US nuclear deal (thanks to Manmohan Singh). The Left is unlikely to win as many seats as they did last time. The rightwing Communalists are still down (It seems). Congress' situation is worse in several states than the last time. So, a fractured verdict that will require a complicated solution is guaranteed. We witness strange developments like somebody like Chandra Babu Naidu criticising "crony capitalism" and Deve Gauda shouting for secularism. Well, election time is a season for strange happenings.

On the other side, the world economy, powered by neoliberal finance capital, is collapsing, leaving tens of thousands of people in unemployment and danger. The religious fundamentalists are ever more stronger in the neighbourhood. Afghanistan is a country in shambles. The Taliban is inching ahead to topple the system (so to call) in Pakistan. Bloodletting continues unbridled in Sri Lanka. How do we save Indian democracy and our secular polity when most of neighboring countries plunge into deep chaos? How do we avoid its spill-over effects in a country, which has always had uneasy religious and social equations? How do we rebuild the economy when the finance capital is devastating everything?

We need a big government. We need a government that strengthens the secular democratic institutions, a government that rebuilds the confidence among the poor and minorities, a government that can spend without being afraid of the neoliberal dictates. If a BJP dispensation comes back into power at this time, that would be suicidal for the liberal India. Who wants fascists to dictate things in times of economic depression?

തുറക്കുന്ന ചില്ലുവാതിലുകള്‍ ഉയരുന്ന പൊന്‍വിരിപ്പുകള്‍ (പുസ്തക നിരൂപണം)

2009-02-03T07:10:00.000-08:00

"അയാള്‍ കിണറ്റിലേക്ക് കൂപ്പുകുത്തി. കിണറു കടന്ന് ഉള്‍കിണറ്റിലേക്ക്. വെള്ളത്തിന്റെ വില്ലീസുപടുതകളിലൂടെ അയാള്‍ നീങ്ങി. ചില്ലുവാതിലുകള്‍ കടന്നു സ്വപ്നത്തിലൂടെ സാന്ധ്യ പ്രജ്ഞയിലൂടെ തന്നെ കൈനീട്ടി വിളിച്ച പൊരുളിന്റെ നേര്‍ക്ക് അയാള്‍ യാത്രയായി. അയാള്‍ക്ക് പിന്നില്‍ ചില്ല് വാതിലുകള്‍ ഒന്നോന്നായി അടഞ്ഞു." - ഖസാക്കിന്റെ ഇതിഹാസം

'വാക്കുരിഞ്ഞാല്‍ ചോര വരുമെന്നു' വിശ്വസിക്കുന്ന കവിക്ക്‌ ഭാഷയില്‍ കുഴിബോംബുകള്‍ വെക്കാനാവുമോ? വിധ്വംസനമല്ല ഈ കവിതകളുടെ ആജണ്ട. വില്ലീസ്‌പടുതകളിലൂടെ സ്വപ്നത്തിലൂടെ സാന്ധ്യ പ്രജ്ഞയിലൂടെയുള്ള ഊളിയിടലാണ് ഈ കവിതകള്‍ തുറന്നു വെയ്ക്കുന്ന അനുഭവതലം. കിണറുകള്‍ തേടിയലഞ്ഞ ചക്രു റാവുത്തര്‍ ഒടുവില്‍ ചില്ല് വാതിലുകള്‍ കടന്നു അപ്രത്യക്ഷനായത്‌ പൊരുള്‍ തേടിയല്ലേന്ന് ഖസാക്കിനു പുറത്തുള്ള എല്ലാവര്‍ക്കുമറിയാം. അതു പോലെ വായനക്കാരുടെ അലച്ചിലോ, ഊളിയിടലോ ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്നുണ്ട്‌ ഈ കവിതകള്‍. എളുപ്പത്തില്‍ കണ്ടു തിരിച്ചു വരാവുന്ന നഗരത്തിലെ 'മൃഗശാലയല്ല', മറിച്ചു 'വാക്കുകളുടെ പെരുങ്കല്ലുകള്‍ അരയില്‍ കെട്ടിവച്ചു ഭാഷയിലേക്ക് ഊളിയിടുന്ന' കവിതകളാണ് വിനോദ് എഴുതുന്നത്‌. അതില്‍ 'തണുപ്പിന്റെ ചില്ല്ലുനൂലുകളുടെ സാംഗീതവും' 'ബാക്ടീറിയയോട് സംസാരിക്കുന്ന ദൈവത്തിന്റെ' അരക്ഷിതവസ്ഥയുമുണ്ട്‌. കിനാവുകളുടെ സൌന്ദര്യത്തിനും 'കീറും മുന്‍പ്‌ ഉണങ്ങിപോയ' അനുഭവങ്ങളുടെ മുറിവുകള്‍ക്കുമിടക്ക് 'കണിശമായ ആനുപാതത്തില്‍' വീതിക്കപ്പെട്ട വാക്കുകളാണ്' ഈ സമാഹാരത്തിലുള്ളത്.
ആരും കാണാത്ത ശബ്ദങ്ങള്‍ കേള്‍ക്കാനും, ഒന്നിനേയും 'റദ്ദു ചെയ്യാത്ത വിസ്മയങ്ങള്‍' ശേഖരിക്കാനും കവി നടത്തുന്ന ആത്മാര്‍ത്ഥ ശ്രമങ്ങള്‍ സൂക്ഷ്മ രാഷ്ട്രീയത്തിന്റെ ഒരു വിശാല തലം തുറന്നിടുന്നുണ്ട്‌. 'ജലതുള്ളി ഇലപ്പചയില്‍ നിന്നും വേര്‍പ്പെടുന്ന ശബ്ദത്ിലാണ്‌' കവി സ്വപ്നം കാണുന്നത്‌. 'പച്ചമണ്ണില്‍ വെയില്‍ വീഴുന്ന ഒച്ചയെ' ചൊല്ലി പോലും ആതുരമാവുന്ന കവിതകള്‍ക്ക് എങ്ങിനെയാണ്‌ ബ്രൂഹദാഖ്യാനങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് വേണ്ടി കാത്തിരിക്കാനാവുക, 'കമ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ് പച്ച' അത്തരത്തിലുള്ള സൂചനകള്‍ തരുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കില്‍ പോലും.
എന്താണ് ഈ ആതുരതയുടെ മറുപുറം? പ്രത്യാശയുടെ തുറസ്സിലേക്കല്ലാ, വെള്ളത്തിന്റെ പൊന്‍ വിരിപ്പുകളും ചില്ല് പാളികളും കടന്നു മുങ്ങാംകുഴി പോയത്‌ നിശ്ചലതയിലേക്കാണ്‌. ഒരു സ്ക്രൂവിന്റെ ആത്മകഥ തുരുമ്പിന്റെ ഭാഷയില്‍ അതിന്റെ കീറിയ തലയില്‍ എഴുതപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. 'പിരിഞ്ഞു മുറുകി അനങ്ങാതെയുള്ള ആ ഇരിപ്പ്' ഒരു തുറന്ന സാക്ഷ്യമാണ്‌. അതു കൊണ്ടാണ് വാക്കുകള്‍ കൊണ്ട്‌ പണിത ഉള്‍കിണറിന്റെ ആഴത്തില്‍ കവി വായനക്കാരെ അനാഥമാക്കുന്നത്‌. അവിടെ 'കാറ്റില്‍ അലിഞ്ഞു പോയ കരച്ചിലുകളുടെ മുഴക്കമുണ്ട്‌'. 'ഓടിയാലും ഓടിയാലും തീര്‍ന്നുകിട്ടാത്ത ഓട്ടമുണ്ട്'. മരണത്തിന്റെ ഗന്ധമുണ്ട്‌.
സൌന്ദര്യമൊലിക്കുന്ന ബിംബങ്ങള്‍ കൊണ്ട്‌ വരക്കപ്പെട്ട താഴ്വാരങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് പകരം, തൊലിയുരിയപ്പെട്ട, വിചാരണ ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ട വാക്കുകള്‍ കൊണ്ട്‌ ഇവിടെ ഒരു പാതാള ഗോപുരം ഉയര്‍ന്നിരിക്കുന്നു. അവിടെ ആരും കേള്‍ക്കാത്ത ശബ്ദങ്ങളും, അവഗണിക്കപ്പെട്ട ചലനങ്ങളും 'സമയത്തിലേക്ക് തുളയുന്ന വേരുകളുമുണ്ട്‌'. 'ഭൂമിയിലെ അവസാനത്തെ ചിലന്തിയുടെ ചുംബനമുണ്ട്'.

(പുസ്തകത്തിന്റെ കോപ്പി ബുക്ക് ചെയ്യുവാന്‍ ഇവിടം സന്ദര്‍ശിക്കുക - http://lapudabook.com/lapuda/lapuda.php)

The massacre continues

2009-02-01T03:40:00.001-08:00

A friend candidly said a couple of days back that "ours is a strange time when the Jews themselves force everybody else to become anti-semitc". Our forefathers might not have presaged that yesteryear's victims would turn into the biggest killers of our times. Anyway, let's not get into antisemitism and all. Why did Israel bomb Gaza, nearly three years after they were forced to "disengage" from the strip? I find only one answer, Israel's detente, something that shaped its security policy for the last 50 years, has been at stake since 2000. See, it had to withdraw troops from Lebanon in 2000, from Gaza in 2005 and suffer a humiliating blow in Lebanon again in 2006. Who is afraid of Israel's "military might" honey? Israel wants to restore that. Also, it wants to do it before the lawless bloody Bush administration, its closest ally, steps down. A new Prez may give push to the "peace process". Israel wants to destroy the Hamas' infrastructure before a new start by Obama. Obama might also have been kept in the know abt the attacks. He hasn't spelt a word. Sorry to say that Arabs do not have balls. Saudis are busy seeking a secret deal with Israel, Jordan always keeps mum, Egypt is a loyal servile of the American Empire, Saddam was murdered and Assad is playing brinkmanship. Israel is playing great game, at the expense of the mankind. We stand helpless..

(Letter sent to Zubair and other comrades, January 8, 2008)

Post-Mumbai: Will India’s soft-power diplomacy work?

2009-02-01T03:23:00.001-08:00

New Delhi, Dec 13 (IANS) Did someone expect a ’stronger’ response from India after the Nov 26-28 terrorist attack on Mumbai?The international media wasted no time in calling it India’s Sep 11, drawing parallels between the Mumbai siege and the terror attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York. US president-elect Barack Obama said India had the “right to defend itself”. Republican Senator John Mccain said in Lahore that India would launch an aerial strike “if Pakistan fails to act against terrorists”.
But, still, the official Indian response was less rhetorical. Those who witnessed the aggressive diplomacy and military mobilisation after the parliament attack of Dec 13, 2001, might have been amused over the way India dealt with Pakistan post-Mumbai.
As The Economist weekly put it, India showed “laudable restraint” and was wary of not attacking the weak civilian government in Pakistan. It, however, painstakingly focussed on the terror cells operating in that country and the support they receive from the Pakistani army and other agencies.
“The Indian government has already alluded to ISI’s (Inter Service Intelligence) support for terror elements operating out of Pakistan. It has built up pressure by postponing composite talks and sharing intelligence with other international spy agencies. This has been carefully done keeping in mind Pakistan’s reluctance to accept any evidence from India,” Ashok K. Behuria, a research fellow and Pakistan expert at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), told IANS.
According to Behuria, India’s reluctance to bring in enough pressure on the weak civilian government was perhaps “guided by the reasoning that the government has absolutely no control over the security apparatus”.
“They (India) do not want to create a situation which will bring the (Pakistani) army back on to the centre stage,” he added.
It is worth noting that even after the months-long troops mobilisation (called Operation Parakram) following the parliament attack, India gained nothing great, neither diplomatically nor militarily. Though the Musharraf government banned the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in January 2002, the terror outfit continued to enjoy the support of Pakistan’s notorious spy agency.
When the governments in the Middle East and East Asia took strong measures to crack down on the terror groups operating in their territories, LeT “flourished” in Pakistan with the help of ISI and a huge fund-raising organisation, Jamat-ud-Dawa, the New York Times reported recently, quoting unnamed American intelligence officials.
The Mumbai terror attacks took place against this background. Any policy level decision from India should have taken at least two things into consideration - the widening chasm between the army and the civilian government in Pakistan and a growing LeT that enjoys the support of the security establishment.
Any use of the hard power would have brought the Pakistani army back on to the centre stage. Carefully avoiding that, India adopted a realistic approach to win international support to force Pakistan to act against the militants.
“I am making it quite clear that it (war) is not a solution,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told parliament Thursday, adding “controllers of Mumbai attacks were in Pakistan. Islamabad should act against them.”
The post-Mumbai situation is providing an opportunity to New Delhi to test its soft power at the international level. It is a major crisis the country is facing after cementing its strategic tie-up with the US through the civilian nuclear deal.
Could New Delhi use this “strategic advantage” effectively to force Pakistan act?
Pakistan has reportedly cracked down on the Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s office in Muzaffarabad and placed restrictions on the movement of many militant leaders, including Maulana Masood Azhar of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), LeT’s founder leader Hafiz Muhammed Saeed and its operational level head Zaki ur-Rehman Lakhvi.
Given the futility of similar detentions of militant leaders following the parliament attack and the 2006 Mumbai train bombing, India has reasons to remain sceptical. Mukherjee made the position clear while asking Pakistan to act. “Mere expression of intention is not adequate.”
India wants Pakistan to destroy the terror cells operating in its territory. That is where the soft-power diplomacy faces its real test. Is it realistic to expect the Pakistani army, which gives overt support to anti-India militants, to take military action against them? Could the civilian government that has little muscle go against the wishes of the military?
These questions remain to be answered. But India’s delicate engagement has made advances on two fronts - it denied the Pakistani army that is bogged down in a dirty war in the Afghan border an opportunity to come back to the eastern border and it brought the civilian government directly under severe international pressure.
Now Pakistan has to find a way out. If not, as Mukherjee said, it will not be “business as usual” for that country.
(John Stanly, written for IANS, December 13, 2008)

The Unending Iranian Nuclear Crisis

2008-08-10T02:36:00.001-07:00

If anybody thought that a change of talk in the Bush administration’s Iran policy would be enough to induce the “isolated” Tehran to give up its intransigence and toe the western line, the July 19 meeting proved him or her wrong. Before the Geneva meeting between Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, the US sent feelers to Tehran. In a clear indication that Washington was prepared to change its belligerent stand towards Tehran, the Bush administration announced that William Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, would attend the meet. In addition, unconfirmed reports said the US was planning to open a diplomatic post in Tehran for the first time since relations were severed during the 444-day occupation of the American embassy in Tehran nearly three decades ago.
Iran welcomed the developments and said it was ready for a “comprehensive agreement” with the five-plus-one powers (the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany), which initiated the latest diplomatic push to find a breakthrough to the impasse over the Iranian nuclear issue. However, despite these goodwill gestures, the Geneva talks ended in another deadlock, thanks to the complexities of the proposal the six-power bloc laid down before Iran and the latter’s increasing inflexibility.
The recent diplomatic initiative gained momentum as Solana, along with the representatives of the five countries (excluding the US) visited Tehran on June 14 with the incentive package that offered political and economic benefits to Iran. The proposal offered direct talks between the six-power bloc and Tehran but only if the Islamic Republic stops producing enriched uranium, which can be used to make electricity or fuel bombs. It also asked Iran to freeze further expansion of its enrichment activities for six months as a confidence building measure in return for the international community freezing its efforts to impose more sanctions on Iran during the same period.
Iran has long made it clear that any precondition to the talks is not acceptable. Soon after Solana’s Tehran visit, President Mohammad Ahmadinejad said that his country was open for talks with the US and other powers, but would not change its nuclear policies. According to many analysts, Iran was responding to the West’s carrot-and-stick policy in the same coin. Tehran does not want to send a message to the outside world that it is weak and vulnerable to the American and Israeli pressure tactics. When Israel carried out a major military exercise in June, which many American officials said was a rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran responded in July with the test-firing of long-range Shahab-3 missiles which can hit Israel. The Islamic Republic has also carried out Prophet Mohammad III war games and reportedly given orders to soldiers to dig 320,000 graves in Iran’s border provinces, in which to bury the bodies of invading soldiers.
General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, also threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz through which almost 40 per cent of the region’s oil flows, if Iran were attacked. In an apparent move to protect the oil installations in the Gulf in case of emergencies, the US, Britain and Bahrain jointly carried out a naval exercise codenamed ‘Operation Stake Net’. These war preparations and threats were going on at the same time when the Iranian diplomats were preparing a written response to the six-power group’s incentive package. Israeli commentator Uri Avnery calls it “psychological warfare”. He wrote recently that the war games and rhetoric could well be part of the strategies of both sides to increase their bargaining capacity in a possible diplomatic engagement.
Iran also understands the complex dynamics in the region very well. It knows that its former President Mohammad Khatami suspended the country’s nuclear activities owing to the pressure of the West, but gained nothing in return. Unlike the Khatami era, today’s Iran is emerging as a regional power, thanks to the wars that the US and Israel have fought in the last few years. Today, when the US is bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Hezbollah has emerged more powerful in Lebanon after Israel’s 2006 summer attack, Iran’s regional importance is much higher. Also, record energy prices would force second thoughts before planning an offensive against the world’s second-largest oil producer.
Ahmadinejad’s government has clearly indicated that it is willing for a diplomatic engagement, but not ready to give up the enrichment programme, which is a key bargaining chip in its talks with the West. The fact that Iran did not reject the latest proposal out of hand, like it did two years ago, demonstrates its willingness for talks. Besides, a powerful lobby within the Iranian establishment is increasingly critical of the way Ahmadinejad has handled the nuclear issue. This difference came into open when Ali Akbar Velayati, foreign policy adviser of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, publicly urged the government to accept the European package. In what was seen as an indirect attack on the president, he warned the Iranian leadership not to make provocative statements on the nuclear issue.
So what is the outcome? Ahmadinejad is playing diplomacy without giving up his nuclear intransigence. The two-page note Iran circulated in the July 19 meeting, “The Modality for Comprehensive Negotiations (Non-Paper),” clearly underscores this stand. Iranian diplomats appear to be very cautious and optimistic while talking to the media, in sharp contrast to their president’s public speeches. After the Geneva talks, Saeed Jalili reiterated that his country was ready for a comprehensive agreement with the international community. But Iran’s letter does not address the key demand of the West – ending enrichment activities. Instead, Iran has proposed at least three more meetings with Solana and six more meetings at the foreign ministerial level, which would start with the halting of sanctions against Iran. The New York Times quoted an unnamed diplomatic source saying, “If you were to try to implement it, it would take minimum of several years.”
Europe has asked Iran to respond to the “freeze-to-freeze” proposal in two weeks. Both the US and Britain have threatened more sanctions. Whether Iran would change its policy and accept the “freeze-to-freeze” proposal still remains unclear. Iran appears not to be in a mood to make concessions to the administration of President George Bush, though its quest for a diplomatic solution still remains strong. The two-page response indicates that Iran wants to buy more time, perhaps thinking that a new incumbent in the White House would be more flexible. One also has to wait for the official response of Russia and China, two powers which have resisted harsh sanctions against Iran, to the Geneva meeting. One thing is, however, clear. The Iranian nuclear crisis is unlikely to be resolved any time soon.

(John Stanly, written for IDSA Strategic Comments July 25, 2008)

We were Bought (Letter to Deep and other comrades)

2008-07-26T07:44:00.000-07:00

When Manmohan Singh became the prime minister in 2004 I was working as an editorial trainee in Mangalam daily in Kottayam. The se cular left in MG University as well as in the newspaper was genuinely happy with the poll outcome. We believed that a non-BJP government at the centre was a historical necessity given the atrocities of the Muslim genocide in Gujarat in 2002 engineered by the fascist Narendra Modi and the shameless way the Advani & Co defended them. There was so much hope in the air. We called the critics of the Left-Congress alliance cynics. But a colleague of mine in Mangalam, a Leftist and a committed secularist, warned that it would prove to be a fundamental error if the Left backs Manmohan Singh, a servile of the global capitalism, as the prime minister of the country. We also shared apprehensions at that time, but tried to remain hopeful. I still strongly believe that the decision to support the UPA was a historical one. Historians may judge how this ideological tie-up helped restore the faith of Indian poor and the minorities in the democratic institutions that were completely maligned by the fascist BJP. But as Kishore Abraham, my Mangalam friend, warned, Manmohan Singh steered the corporatisation of Indian democracy through out the last 4 years. He buried down the attempts of the Congress party to regain its social democratic agenda and paved the way for the complete corporate takeover of Indian democracy. When India first voted against Iran in the IAEA, we saw how the Left upped the ante along with the Samajwadi Party and others. In a class room discussion, I asked a JNU professor if India would change its vote in the second IAEA meet. She was blunt: "We were bought". And India again voted against Iran. Those words get louder now. Desperately we have to admit Deepak, we all were bought by the American imperialism.
(John Stanly)

Why the deal should be screwed?

2008-07-26T07:36:00.000-07:00

* The deal backers, including the prime minister, says it would lead to a sort of nuclear renaissance and bring about a revolution in India's energy sector. Is it so? Many independent (not part of the govt) scientists have made one point clear. The nuclear deal is not going to make any major difference in India's energy sector why becoz the nuclear energy satisfies only 2.13 percent of our total energy requirement.
* R. Ramachandran, The Hindu's science editor, wrote recently in an opinion editorial that the demand-supply mismatch in the uranium sector is because of the govt's continuous apathy for the last two decades. He argues India could produce enough amount of uranium to run its reactors investing one third of the money it's now paying to the US to buy reactors.
*It was Manmohan Singh, who was the then FM, cut down the spending for uranium production in early 1990s, saying "nuclear energy is not viable" for a big country like India.
*Once India set up the new reactors and started receiving uranium from the US, it will have to ensure, by any cost, the uninterrupted supply of uranium, which according to many, gives a strategic upper hand to the US.
*The PM lied in the Parliament that the 123 agreement overrides the Hyde Act. In fact, State Sec Condy Rice has more than once informed the Congress, which has to ratify the deal that the legislation is binding. The Hyde Act requires the US to stop uranium supplies to any country that conducts weapon tests.
*The deal backers say the US cannot influence the Indian foreign policy since safeguards agreement underscores India's right keep a "Strategic Reserve" of uranium and take "corrective measures" if the uranium supply gets interrupted. But both these options are mentioned only in the preamble of the Safeguards Agreement and have not been explained further. (We know what happened to the proposal of keeping a strategic energy reserve at global level to meet the fuel crisis).
* The basic argument is that whether India shd align itself with the US, an Empire which is on the decline. We know how Indian FP was taken over by the pro-US lobby in the last two decades. If the US is a myth, as what the deal backers argue, why India voted against Iran in the IAEA. Why the NDA government initially decided to send troops to Iraq. (Dont forget that the VP Singh government backed Saddam Hussein when he attacked Kuwait, a move that tarnished India's image in the Arab world).
*Why this deal? It's for whom? Why the government is doing everything possible, including intimidation (CBI reopens cases against Maya), horse trading (Talks with smaller parties) and even reaching an ambigous behind-the-scene deal with the SP, only to sail the deal thru, at a time when the country is reeling under high inflation? It’s an undesirable, mysterious deal in the name of nuclear energy, which is not able to meet even 2.5 of the total energy requirements of the country.

(John Stanly)

Iran: Moving towards confrontation?

2008-07-15T00:11:00.000-07:00

The Iranian nuclear crisis is unlikely to go quite. It was not long back, the American National Intelligence Estimate said it had “high confidence” that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapon programme in late 2003. This development appeared to have pushed the ‘war talk’ backwards and signalled a somewhat peaceful solution to the controversial nuclear programme. But that did not happen.

With Iran insisting on its “right to enrich uranium” and the West demanding the enrichment be stopped for any further progress in the diplomatic mission, the crisis is again looming large over West Asia. Though European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana visited Tehran on Jun 14 with a proposal of incentives, not many Iran-watchers think that the latest “diplomatic push” would lead to any breakthrough in the nuclear crisis. Tehran rejects the carrot and stick policy of the West. It says “any precondition is unacceptable”. But the US, on the other hand, has made it clear that the diplomatic mission will take off only if Tehran abandons its enrichment activities.

The US, where Iran is featured in a big way in this election year, is apparently building up pressure on Tehran. The Iranian issue was one of the top agenda of US President George W. Bush when he visited Europe last week. Speaking to reporters in Slovenia after meeting European leaders, Bush said: "Iran with a nuclear weapon would be incredibly dangerous for world peace.” In Germany he seemed tougher. Speaking after holding talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush said he wanted to pursue diplomacy to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme, but “all options are on the table”.

Bush’s remarks cannot be seen as mere isolated threats of a president, who is in his last months in office. On June 6, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said military strikes to stop Iran from going nuclear looked “unavoidable”. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, while addressing the AIPAC Policy Conference 2008 on June 3, said the “Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means”. He emphasized that the economic and political sanctions “are only an initial step”.

Even Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate who earlier proposed to hold direct talks with Tehran, is now echoing President Bush. Speaking to the AIPAC conference, he said he would do “everything in his power” to prevent Iran from going nuclear. So the message is clear. The ‘Iran action plan’, whatever it is, still on the table.

The pressure-building game is on. These all developments indicate that all major powers, the US, Europe and Israel, have resumed discussing different options to deal with Iran. However, Tehran’s response to the European proposal was on expected lines. Iran did not formally reject it, but said its response would depend on how the West reacted to Iran’s May 13 proposal which called for international talks and international inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities. But it added that the regime would continue to enrich uranium against the wishes of the West. This chilly response seems to have worsened the crisis. Hours after Solana met Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and handed out the proposal, President Bush, who was in Paris, accused Iran of rejecting the “generous offer out of hand”.

The proposal, according to reports, puts forward a precondition that Iran should stop enrichment. Upon that condition, talks between Iran and six world powers – the US, France, Russia, China, UK and Germany. The six countries “will refrain from any new action in the Security Council,” while Iran “will refrain from any new nuclear activity, including the installation of any new centrifuges”.

However, with Iran rejecting any precondition and the US accusing Tehran of rejecting the proposal itself, the impasse is likely to continue. That Iran did not outrightly reject the offer shows that it wants to buy more time. With the Bush presidency is in its waning days, Tehran hopes that it can hold less conditioned talks with a new administration in Washington. But it remains unclear what would be the immediate move of the western countries if Iran formally rejects the offer. Solana has said the world powers had not reached any agreement on more sanctions against Iran. But President Bush during his European trip managed to win the support of the major European countries for harsher sanctions on Iran if it did not stop enrichment. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in a joint press conference with Bush in London, said on June 16 that the European Union would freeze the overseas assets of Iran’s largest commercial bank, Bank Melli. Some reports say a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf or the refusal to supply western technology needed for Iran’s oil industry are also under consideration.

Earlier this month Iranian media reported that the Islamic regime had started transferring billions of dollars from European banks to Asian Banks, and buying gold and equities to protect its oil revenue. This shows that Iran is also preparing to face more economic hardships. However, the big question is that whether Russia and China would support tougher measures, particularly when oil prices are all-time high. But, if Iran rejects the proposal which seeks a diplomatic solution to the crisis, those who argue for tougher measures would get a say. This tone was visible in Bush’s Paris speech. Speaking in a joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Bush said on June 14 that the Iranian response to the proposal was a “clear indication that its leadership was willing to isolate Iranians further”.

The West is unlikely to back off from its key demand: no nuclear enrichment. Iran so far seems to be determined to continue with the enrichment activities. It seems to be sceptical of the promise that the US would cooperate with other world powers to build a nuclear reactor in Iran that would help Iran meet its energy requirements. It has reason to be sceptical of the key western demand that enrichment activities be stopped. Though the previous Iranian president Mohammad Khatami suspended its enrichment activities, it did not lead to any breakthrough.
If both sides continue sticking to their positions, the latest diplomatic initiative will never take off. Rather, the nuclear tussle will lead to an unhealthy confrontation.

John Stanly

The Politics of Global Food and Energy Crisis

2008-06-29T01:49:00.000-07:00

The soaring food prices and the global energy crisis that are glaring at us today have proved many optimists of the past wrong. Some of these optimists had said three decades ago that the world will never have to face the current scenario as had been predicted by some Malthusian thinkers then.
In 1972, the Club of Rome, a global think-tank that deals with various policy issues, published a report entitled "The Limits to Growth" on the predicament of mankind. The report that predicted a major resource crunch by the end of the 20th century drew flak from many capitalist economists at that time. The Club of Rome wrote 30 years ago that only "550 billion barrels of oil remained and that would run out by 1990". Today, as oil prices cross $139 a barrel, many economists fear that the production has now reached its geological limits, or the peak oil.
When the food prices went high, US President George W. Bush had said it was a result of the "growing prosperity" of India and some other economies like China. Whom will the US now blame for the energy crisis? The rest of the world is actually eager to listen to what the world's highest energy consumer - which unleashed a disastrous war in the oil-rich Middle East five years ago - has to say. High prices have sent alarm signals across the world. Indonesia announced that it would quit the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to protest the oil cartel's policies. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called for austerity and efficient energy use as one of the ways to address the crisis. French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested more subsidies, as his country's fishermen staged protests at ports. British Prime Minster Gordon Brown asked oil exporters to raise production as lorry drivers blocked roads in London and Cardiff. Even the US, the apostle of free market policies, is also planning some gas-tax holidays to ease the consumer's burden.
What made the oil market so vulnerable?
"The price of oil was $51 in January 2007, it is now touching $138 a barrel. In the last six months it has risen by 42 percent and this situation is unlikely to change," R.S. Kalha, India's former ambassador to Iraq, told this writer. Many experts say the Bush presidency started the dangerous global fuel-game. Oil economist Mamdouh Salameh, an advisor to the World Bank, recently told Britain's The Independent newspaper that the oil price would now be no more than $40 a barrel had there not been the Iraq war. Before the 2003 war, Iraq pumped some 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, but this has now fallen to just two million barrels.
"Perhaps one of the few countries that has sufficient oil reserves and can easily meet the growing demand is Iraq. With reserves of 115 billion barrels, its present output is not even anywhere near the pre-invasion (2003) levels and is still less than pre-war (first Gulf war of 1990) times," Kalha, the author of the recently published book "The Ultimate Prize - Oil and Saddam's Iraq", said. "If political stability can be ensured and Iraqi oil begins to flow to the markets of the world, much of the present economic distress can easily be avoided and political convulsion contained," he added.
But will that happen in the near future?
The war tightened supplies, setting the stage for a steep rise in the prices. At just under 86 million barrels a day, global oil production has actually stagnated. Another reason, many economists say, for the high energy prices is speculation in the commodities markets. With the global slump in economies, speculators keep moving their funds from sector to sector in search of higher returns. Now, around $260 billion is invested in commodity funds, a 20-fold rise from 2003. The data released by the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), the world's biggest market for oil, show that the number of transactions involving oil futures on the NYMEX has almost tripled since 2004. Whatever reasons the economists have, one thing is clear - the world is leading to a major resource-crunch that will have disastrous political implications - and even food riots as seen in some countries. Food prices have already triggered civil unrest in many parts of the Caribbean and Africa. If energy prices continue to rise, the unrest will spill over to the developing economies like India and China, the experts warn.
The future is bleak. Global consultancy Goldman Sachs says that oil prices will cross $200 in 2009. Though the industry discovered some new oil reserves in Latin America recently, energy economists say it will take years to pump it out from these reserves because of technological reasons. If the situation remains, the oil producers will cut down exports to meet their domestic demand, throwing the international prices into orbit. How will the world survive such a situation? Iraq invasion, according to many, was the first "oil war" in human history. The post-war situation shows that it was just the beginning.

(John Stanly, written for IANS June 18, 2008)

Cracks begin to appear in the US-Pakistan alliance

2008-06-28T05:26:00.000-07:00

The June 10 cross border attack by American F-15E fighter bombers on Pakistani paramilitary troops is the latest indication of the changing dynamics of the much discussed US-Pakistani alliance against terrorism.

The attack took place in Mohmand, a dangerous border area, part of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The US version of the story is simple. Taliban fighters from Mohmand crossed into the Afghan border and unleashed attacks on the coalition troops with rocket-propelled grenade fire. The international troops returned fire and drove the militants back into Pakistan. Then, three US fighter planes crossed the border and dropped about a dozen bombs. The US expressed regrets over the incident. State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told reporters in Washington that the incident was a reminder that “better cross border communications between forces is vital”.

Is that all? This is not the first time the US jets cross the border and bomb Pakistani people. In March, an American aircraft dropped bombs in South Waziristan, haven of the militants, killing nine people. Similar incidents had occurred in January also. The latest attack comes at a crucial time when the Pakistani government is negotiating a deal with the militants in the borderland, a move that irked the US and its European allies. The change in Islamabad’s counter terrorism strategy, according to many analysts, shook the foundations of the so-called anti-terror alliance between Pakistan and the US.

Islamabad’s response to the Mohmand attack underscored this perception. When Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani denounced the attack as an affront to the country’s “sovereignty, dignity and self-respect” the military’s response was more stunning. The US attack “hit at the very basis of co-operation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the coalition in the war against terror”, said a military spokesman. The act was “absolutely unprovoked and cowardly”, he added. The strong response of the Pakistan army makes one thing clear: army has completely moved away from President Pervez Musharraf’s grip. There’s a strong perception in Pakistan, even within its army, that the so-called anti-terror campaign in Waziristan and other border regions is being fought at the behest of the US.

The civilian government appears to hold this view. It says many of the tribal leaders now support the Taliban because of the relentless military raids in the borderland. The government thinks a peace deal with the militants would help it limit their influence within the border districts. However, this policy shift comes at the expense of the US’ interests in South Asia. Holding talks with militants is an anti-thesis to the so-called Bush doctrine, which calls for “eradicating” terror cells through military campaigns. Besides, it undermined Bush’s plan to make headway in its anti-terror campaign in the tribal area before he leaves office by the end of this year.

The frustration was visible as the US many times went public against the Pakistan government in the past three months. NATO, citing figures, stated that there were more cross-border attacks against the coalition troops in Afghanistan in May 2008 comparing to the year-ago period. It added that the peace talks and Pakistani government’s plan to downsize troops in the border region would backfire as the militants were regrouping themselves. The US has also complained that it does not get any military support from Pakistan to continue the fight against Taliban. The Mohmand attack took place against this background. Given the recent developments in the bilateral ties, the bombing is expected to make things more complicated for both sides.

When the Damadola missile attack took place Oct 29, 2006, the Pakistani army suddenly took the responsibility of the attack and actively resisted any attempt to link the US with the incident. The attack on Damadola religious seminary, which killed 82 people, incidentally took place on the same day the provincial government was supposed to sign the Bajour Accord with the local tribes. Many reports at that time claimed that the US, which was opposed to the deal, was behind the attack. But now the scene is different. Both the federal government and army are unlikely to defend the US if any such incident occurs. But, at the same time, many Pakistan-watchers think the US may go to any extend to stop a possible deal with the militants.
It is not yet clear whether the peace talks would bring in any result. Even the Pakistani government’s counter terror strategy looks vague. But, Islamabad seems to be determined to honour its pledges to break with the Musharraf regime. Of course, a bad news for the Americans.

(John Stanly)

Bush is Right - but Equally Wrong: The Global Food Debate

2008-06-06T10:07:00.000-07:00

Is there anything common between US President George W. Bush and the 18th century British political economist Thomas Malthus? Most unlikely. But Bush's "discovery" that the growing "prosperity" of India has shot up global demand for food brings back the 'Malthusian Catastrophe' to the centre of the global food debate. The British economist warned the world way back in 1798 that population growth would outpace agricultural production in the future resulting in the "premature death" of the human race.

Many economists would contest the Malthusian fears. But not many would disagree that the current food crisis is a result of the mismatch between surging demand and resource crunch. The UN World Food Programme's Josette Sheeran recently called the food crisis a "silent tsunami".According to UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), wheat and rice prices soared 77 percent and 16 percent respectively last year. This year, the scene was worse with rice prices soaring 141 percent and wheat 25 percent till April. Hunger has triggered food riots in many parts of the world and even sent Haiti's prime minister packing. Countries like Cameroon, Egypt, Bangladesh and Philippines are already under stress.India has also adopted a slew of measures to counter the soaring prices.

According to a report by the New Delhi-based Centre for Science of Environment, low support prices, private players and a drought in wheat exporting countries like Canada, the US and Australia triggered panic in the Indian wheat market. The report added that India would have to import three million tonnes of wheat in the current fiscal to shore up its stocks.According to the FAO, global grain stockpiles are at their lowest level in 25 years. The world has consumed more than it produced for the last seven years. World Bank President Robert Zoellick has already warned that 100 million people could be pushed deeper into poverty due to the current crisis.The situation is grave. According to The Economist, around 1 billion people who live on $1-a-day, are cutting back on wheat, vegetables and one or two meals. Those who live on 50-cent-a-day face a total disaster, the magazine warns.

Bush's statement came in such a situation when most of the poor nations were struggling to deal with the crisis. His remarks have come in for sharp criticism from almost all political parties in the country.However, according to many economists what Bush said was true, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. According to British environmentalist and writer Mark Lynas, the rapid economic growth in India and China has created a new middle class that demands more food - thereby increasing the quantity of grain required for livestock production. But he emphasise that the global resource war initiated by the advanced industrialised world is the major reason for the crisis.Similar to the food price jump of 1973, following the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt, today's crisis is also more or less related to energy. The shift towards biofuel is seen as the major factor that pushed up food prices. Both in South and North America, more and more land is being diverted to produce biofuel and maize, widely used as cattle feed in the West and being used for production of ethanol.As the rich Indian and Chinese middle class, along with their European and Middle Eastern counterparts demand Western style diets high in meat and diary products, demand for such products obviously goes up. The cattle farmers in many countries replace wheat with maize as cattle feed. This eventually shoots up the prices of grains in international markets.Along with this, economists list out other reasons like drought in North America because of climatic changes, the fertilizer crunch that affects agricultural productivity, the futures trade and the unbridled consumption promoted by the profit-driven market capitalism. All these factors are directly or indirectly related with the economic policies of the US. China with more than 1 billion people consumes 7.9 million barrels of oil a day.

The US with less than one quarter as many people, consumes 20.7 million barrels. This energy greed is now making the world, as Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz warns, an "unviable place".The US, instead of blaming the developing world, should first admit its faults and come forward to work with other major countries to ease the crisis. Otherwise, Malthusian fears may revisit mankind.

(John Stanly, written for IANS, May 18, 2008)

Ahmadinejad’s visit - India intensifies global energy game

2008-05-13T09:33:00.000-07:00

Iranian President Mohammad Ahmadinejad’s brief but significant visit to India and his cautious criticism against the “bullying” policies of the “rulers of the world” (read the US and its European allies) make one point clear - New Delhi has finally come out of its strategic confusion. When India sent a strong message to the US ahead of the Iranian president’s visit saying the “two ancient civilizations” needed no guidance in dealing with each other, Ahmadinejad, seemingly understanding the sensitivity of India-US ties, did not use the platform in New Delhi to hit out at his “enemies” in the same fashion as he often does in other capitals. This guarded approach from both sides set the stage for broader India-Iran cooperation in the rapidly intensifying global energy game.

New Delhi’s decision to welcome Ahmadinejad must have taken at least a few of India watchers by surprise. It was just two years ago that India, under pressure from Washington, voted twice against the Iranian nuclear programme in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Since then India’s ties with Iran had not been as warm as they used to be. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has often been criticised both at home and abroad for not showing real interest in the proposed India-Pakistan-Iran (IPI) gas pipeline. Besides, bilateral ties between the two countries hit a new low earlier this year as Israel blasted off a spy satellite with the help of India. Iran’s envoy to India even went public criticising New Delhi over the issue.

Then why this turnaround?

This could be seen as part of India’s changing energy policy. According to a recent New York Times report, cosy relations with Iran are important for India at least for three reasons. Iran is India’s second largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, is a potential source of natural gas in the future and wields influence in Afghanistan, a gateway for New Delhi to enter Central Asia’s rich oil and gas fields. Still, India had been reluctant to engage Iran, particularly after the US intensified its campaign to isolate the Islamic Republic. The rumours of a possible US attack on Tehran have also pulled India back from going ahead with its ambitious energy plans.
Now, with the US bogged down in Iraq and the possibility of an attack on Tehran looking remote, New Delhi is back on front-foot in the energy game. With oil prices skyrocketing, India does not have many options but to enter into comprehensive energy cooperation with resource-rich countries. The supply-demand mismatch in India has already sent out warning signals across the ruling class.

India, which imports more than two- thirds of its oil needs, fears that the demand would rise by 90 percent by 2030. According to a recent report, India’s average gas supply between April 2007 and January 2008 was 37 million standard cubic metres against the requirement of 77 million standard cubic metres.

This rising demand of oil and gas across the world has already set the stage for a resource war at the global level in which countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia will become key players. The global scenario demands a tough policy decision from any emerging power like India.
This realisation at the top level was visible when India took another diplomatic U-turn and welcomed the Myanmar military junta’s second most important person, General Maung Aye, earlier this month. Myanmar, with proven gas reserves of 19 trillion cubic feet and vast unexplored areas, could become a potential partner in India’s energy projects.
If External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said India was against imposing sanctions on Myanmar’s junta ahead of Maung Aye’s visit, it was National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan’s turn to signal the thaw in India-Iran relations ahead of Ahmadinejad’s visit. Speaking at an international strategic conference in New Delhi, Narayanan said the Iran issue should be handled diplomatically, not with force. This change in Iran policy seems to have come at the right time.
Iran is no longer an isolated, untouchable republic as what the US wants it to be. Its clout is increasing across the Middle East. It has good relations with Iraq and Syria and enjoys the loyalty of Hezbollah, which virtually shattered Israel’s plans in the second Lebanon war in 2006. Tehran extends moral support to the Palestinian Hamas and stands as an inspiration to the political Islamic movements across the region that challenge the cultural and military hegemony of the West.

After all, India must be calculating that a new president in the White House in 2009 January, possibly a Democrat, will have better ties with Tehran than the Bush administration. Besides, Ahmadinejad’s visit would help the UPA government counter the criticisms at home that it was acting as a client state of Washington. The UPA, which is preparing for the next year’s general election, could use the improving India-Iran ties (if it happens) as a barometer of its “independent foreign policy”.

However, the worst is not yet over. Although both Ahmadinejad and India’s Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon expressed optimism over the $7.6-billion IPI pipeline, several questions remain unanswered. Even if the price issue is settled, India’s main concern would be the security of the pipeline. India wants two assurances from Islamabad and Tehran - Pakistan should ensure security to the pipeline, which runs through the troublesome Baloch area, and both Islamabad and Tehran should guarantee the continuous supply of gas irrespective of the political developments in those countries.

New Delhi is also planning another pipeline project aimed at taking out gas from Turkmenistan via Iran and Pakistan to India. Talks about this project took centrestage as the earlier proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) project looked impossible given the security situation in Afghanistan.

Plans galore. But could New Delhi deliver?

It is a tough test for India. It has to draw out policies to meet its energy requirements without antagonising its strategic allies. Relationship with the US remains the top priority of the policy makers in New Delhi. Israel is India’s second largest supplier of defence equipment after Russia. How would India draw out a clear Iran policy without disturbing the existing equations? That is the major test New Delhi faces.

(John Stanly - written for IANS, May 5, 2008)

Afghanistan Steps Deeper into Security Quagmire

2008-05-10T10:03:00.000-07:00

The attempt on President Hamid Karzai's life in the heart of the capital city of Kabul by suspected Taliban militants underscores the growing pessimism about security in the country. If the April 27 attack is anything to go by, Taliban militants are increasing their influence all across the country. Soon after the attack, the Taliban claimed responsibility saying its aim was to show that it could strike from the capital. The message is clear - the Taliban has reached the capital.It was not long ago that US President George W. Bush pledged to "smoke" the terrorists "out of their holes" in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. However, almost seven years after he declared a war on terrorism, Taliban militants, once driven out of Kabul by the US with the help of the Northern Alliance, have shown that they can carry out a well-coordinated attack even against the president in his turf.Given the security situation and the incompetence of the Karzai regime, the latest attack is unlikely to take anybody by surprise. Critics of the US' Afghan invasion long ago warned that Washington could not win over the Taliban with its muscle power.Even after seven years of counter-insurgency operations with perhaps the most sophisticated weapons, the Afghan government and its "international allies" are still struggling to ensure security to the citizens staying outside Kabul. Acute poverty and security threats from the Taliban have forced the citizens, mostly in the south, to shift their loyalty to the insurgents. The government's failure to reach out to the people and take care of their basic needs has driven the Afghans away from Kabul, which is largely perceived as a puppet establishment of Washington.According to the United Nations, 78 of 376 districts in the country are Taliban strongholds where the government's security apparatus is totally non-functional. Government officials agree that there is a growing gap between the government and the people that is being exploited by the Taliban. The government is unable to even carry out reconstruction work in the south as Taliban militants frequently attack government forces and often kidnap aid workers.The Kabul attack shows that the militants are no longer hiding in their "holes" in the Tora Bora Mountains waiting for their opportunity to strike against the foreign troops. They are out in the streets, targeting the supporters and the top leadership of the government - the same strategy the militants used against the Soviet troops in the 1980s. If they succeed in creating a permanent internal security threat among the citizens, they would have won the first part of the battle.This poses serious doubts about the counter-insurgency strategy of the NATO-led international troops. Last year, more than 8,000 people died in violence related to insurgency, and there were 160 suicide attacks. Kabul, where a large number of international troops are stationed, has been considered relatively calm since the American invasion. However, with the latest attack, the militants have shattered the security claims of the government. The ability of the militants to get so close to Karzai with weapons shows that they had inside help.The growing concern over the failure of the Afghan strategy was visible when Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov made it clear at the recent NATO summit in Bucharest that NATO alone could not ensure security in Afghanistan. According to him, apart from the NATO and the US, major powers like China and Russia and also the Central Asian republics should be allowed to play a larger role in Afghanistan. It however still remains unclear whether the US would be ready for a realignment of troops in Afghanistan. Russia, on the other side, has so far been reluctant to get involved in Afghanistan though it has strong interests in Central Asia.A paradigm shift in the western governments' Afghan policy is inevitable, as the situation gets worse day by day. It is already clear that the puppet government in Kabul, even with the support of the international troops, is not capable of quelling the insurgency. The rise of Sunni Islamists in Afghanistan is in nobody's interest. To prevent such a catastrophe, the international community should ensure wider cooperation and consider all possible options.

(John Stanly; written for Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) April 30, 2008)

On Food Crisis ( a letter sent to Jinoy and other comrades)

2008-04-18T08:49:00.000-07:00

Jinoy,

This is just the continuation of the debate. You must be remembering an article by Fidel Castro on the Bush admin's energy policy, published on Granma almost one year back. Castro's article was timely written when Brazil's "socialist" president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva visited Washington to clinch a bio-fuel agreement with the Bush admin. Your magazine (Down to Earth) had published one Lead soon after, unless I am mistaken. One year after, we have got all of our international magazines running cover stories and news papers leading debates on the global food crisis. I am not saying that the bio-fuel policy alone is responsible for the crisis. Rather, my focus is on the resource crunch. One argument from the free marketist bloc is that the scarcity of resources and subsequent high prices have eventually led to conservation and innovation. I remember reading somewhere recently about how people a couple of centuries back switched to kerosene from whale oil to fuel lamps. They argue the technological advancement, clean production of electricity, desalination...etc would ultimately help us overcome the resource crunch. Is it so? The criticisms against capitalist mode of production and the free-market driven consumption spree were always rejected as moralist arguments by many among us (including myself). Now Stiglitz warns that if the markets continue their free-run, the world will soon become unviable. Newstatesman asks how did the rich starve the world (http://newstatesman.com/200804170025)? The World Bank warns of riots for food in future. The international press is concerned of the "empty bellies (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/world/americas/18food.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin). Your magazine has also run a cover sty on the same issue (http://www.downtoearth.org.in/section.asp?sec_id=9&foldername=20080415). Perhaps my friends from science background could help me understand this better? We have seen several changes in the Capitalist development pattern in the past. After the great economic depression, they stood for more regulation and welfarism. We had Keyenes. And in 1970s, with Reagan and Thacher coming to the helm, we witnessed a radical overhaul in the world economy. Now the Wall street economists argue for more regulations, but only to save the monetary institutions and corporate majors. This is what somebody critically said abt neoliberalism, Capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. Is it so?

stanly

Left bounces back in business

2008-04-05T10:53:00.000-07:00

A spectre is haunting the capitalist Germany now. The spectre of eastern communism. It’s been almost three decades now since the Berlin Wall was brought down & West Germany triumphed over the East. Throughout this long period, the mainstream German political parties, be it the Christian Democrats (CDU), the Liberal Free Democrats (FDP), the Social Democrats (SPD) or the Greens, collectively treated the children of East German communism as pariahs. Did they succeed in their effort? Yes, but only until some members of the erstwhile East German Communist Party reinvented themselves in a changed political landscape through the formation of a new political outfit.

The Left Party, daring the de facto political untouchability, set out a fresh campaign, which eventually started producing results. When the results of the Feb. 24 Hamburg state election were out, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU lost absolute majority in the state, which simply endorsed the shift of political Centre to the Left. The CDU won 42.7% of popular votes down from the 47% it bagged in 2004. CDU’s main rival SDP scored 34%, 4% higher than the 2004 figure. The most interesting performance is that of the Left Party which is set to enter the Hamburg Parliament for the first time with 6.5% of the votes. Hamburg result was just the continuation of what happened in the state of Hesse in January. The Christian democrats lost absolute majority in Hesse as the Left Party, along with the Social Democrats, emerged as a crucial player. When the Left Party bagged some seats in the 2005 general elections, both the conservatives & the Social Democrats joined hands together to deny any national relevance to the communists.

That cooperation led to the formation of Volksparteien – the CDU and SPD alliance – which has now become a liability for both the parties. The SPD, which earlier ruled out any kind of alliance with the Left, has now changed its tone, expressing willingness to have an informal power sharing agreement at state levels. In Hesse, they started efforts to win the outside support of the Left. SPD chairman Kurt Beck has backed the move. On the other side, Hamburg’s conservative mayor Ole von Beust is now hoping to retain power by winning the support of the Greens. The Left knows that the current political impasse in the country could not be solved without taking them into the mainstream political process. Today or tomorrow, it has to happen. After all, it is election season in Germany. And the spectres seem to be on their way back.

(John Stanly, Published in Business & Economy, 20/03/2008)

The Obama phenomenon!

2008-03-28T09:47:00.000-07:00

When could he deliver? So ask Americans who see a potential president in Barak Hessein Obama, a senator from Illinois and a charismatic contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. They wrote him off at the beginning, saying the 47-year-old “inexperienced” Illinois senator could not even pose a potential threat to the former first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton. But, as things stand today, Obama’s popularity is surging day-by-day cutting across the community lines. He has won eight of the nine primaries and caucuses held since Super Tuesday on February 5, while his experienced rival could take only one victory (New Mexico). He has won by much larger margins, both in black and white dominated states. Now more and more corporate houses are ready to pump money into the Obama campaign. The identity politicians and black academia are also fuelling the political debate, although Obama has so far kept himself away from racially-focussed campaigning. Furthermore, his keyword, Change, seems to have shaken up the Democratic campaign as more and more party activists see him as a vibrant better option than Hillary, who is indirectly dubbed as a status-quoist by the Obama camp. So the stage is set for the Illinois senator? Not exactly. Despite Obama’s surging popularity, he is unlikely to win enough number of pledged delegates before the August national convention of the Democratic Party. If neither Obama nor Clinton wins 2,025 delegates, necessary to take the nomination after the final Democratic caucus in Puerto Rico on June 7, the 795 democratic insiders, known as Super-Delegates, would elect the candidate. Since the Super-Delegates are not bound by the popular will, they could pick up anybody who enjoys greater influence within the party.

The Super- Delegates (the country’s Democratic governors, Democratic members of the Congress and the high-ranking party officials) were instituted in 1982 in order to give the elite more control over the common activists. Sensing the danger lurking in the August convention, the Obama campaign has already called on the Super- Delegates to follow the popular opinion. So far, Clinton has got the support of more Super-Delegates than Obama. However, a majority of them, including influential Democrats like Al Gore, haven’t opened their mind. In such a complex, emotional scenario, in which a black Democrat is moving past his rival, the wife of a two-time president, could the Democratic leadership override the popular opinion? Wouldn’t that traumatise the entire Democratic party in the November presidential race? Recent events indicate that the wind has changed its direction. Veteran Vietnam war hero John McCain will be the Republican candidate. The senior leaders of the Democratic party seem to have realised that the party cannot go against the ground level activists. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has publicly admitted this. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” said Pelosi in an interview last week, giving enough indication that she would support Obama. Furthermore, veteran black Representative John Lewis, snubbed Hillary last week to declare his support for Obama. Yes, Obama is gaining momentum. If his own party elite don’t block him, he might emerge as potential rival to Republican challenge.

John Stanly (Published in Business and Economy, 06,03, 2008)

Is Tibetan Lama Movement Feudal?

2008-03-26T01:36:00.000-07:00

I was talking with a friend over the recent violence in Tibet. She also seemed to be obsessed with the "worst human rights records" of the "communist China" and the sympathy towards the Lama Movement. Nancy Pelosy and her fellow Americans certainly looked great in the photographs with the Dali Lama which speaks a great deal of the cultural richness of Tibet. Do we like to see Tibetans as mere cultural dolls forever? I was asking myself. Below is a letter appeared on Newstatesman.

stanly

The Tibetans that have the biggest voice are from the rich, the nobilities, the religious, the lamas. Does any body hear from the poor class and peasants who are the silent majority and benefit from the Chinese government minority policies. Traditionally they worked like slaves for the rich, the powerful and the lamas. Their minds were controlled by religion not to complain. Now the hollywood kind such as Richard Gere came to find meanings from Dalai Lama. Tibet is viewed as so sureal, so enlightened, local Tibetans are viewed not in human terms. They don't seem to need to eat or to live a material life, but just to exist to entertain the hollywood kinds. The media has been led down this path too. When did you see a good report about ordinary life of common Tibetans, whether their lives fare better or worse than ten or twenty years ago, or for that matter sixty years ago when they were ruled by the lamas. The Tibetan culture is fascinating, but when is the media going to treat the Tibetans in the coverage like ordinary human beings, that they need to make a living, to deal with normal human desires, to move up in the economic ladder. If the media thinks that they don't need all these and they are happy, then the media has been pickled by the lamas deeper and longer than theTibetans.

As for China's Olympics, that is no big deal. All the great nations' olympics have been boycotted, US's in 1984 Los Angeles, USSR's in 1990 Moscow. If you are boycotted in Olympics, that means you have arrived, you have made it.

I understand the point you are talking about. Of course it is a matter of concern. But could u tell, why the ambiguity remains about the people of Tibet? Who is hiding the real life there? I don’t think it is the Dalai Lama. If China was an open structure and the situation is like as we fear, do u believe that the Lama would get such a wide support throughout the world? If the situation is worse because of the Budhist monks, the only force that keeps it hiding is the Communist Govt in china.

And while we call Lama a feudal lord, we must be very careful. You may be aware how the Forbes magazine called Castro a millionaire. Let it be an open system first. Then the rotten things will come out naturally. Even it is Lama or the Communist China.

Deepak Chandran

If Forbes magazine calls Fidel Castro a millionaire, why shd I be "more careful" while calling the Lama Movement feudal? We all know that Fidel was an autocrat. A radical autocrat, who earned the love and reverence of the youth and the left-leaned people across the world. If he's a millionaire, we don’t need to hide it.

I would agree that China, like any previous Leninist country, is a closed society. Many people hate China for the same reason. I was just wondering whether the "global sympathy" towards the Lama Movement is by any chance insulated from this hatred! The international press is very sensitive whenever it reports the Lamas, the elite Tibetans.. I would disagree with you at one level. We have plenty of literature abt the neoliberal turn China engineers and the authoritative brutalities of the communist govt though it is a closed system. So, being politically closed might not stop revealing the other side of the Tibetan sty, I think.

I was also going thru some literature these days abt Tibetan feudalism (which, according to many historians) lasted till early 1950s) and cultural nationalism, the ideological pillar of the Lama Movement. And I would like to continue this exploration a bit further

stanly

Earning love and reverence become irrelevant when a revolutionist become a millionaire through the power he has been given by the people to serve them. Any way that is not the case here. Forbes called Fidel a millionaire by counting the investments Cuba had in their public sector companies and other governmental enterprises. It can only be taken as a conspiracy. It is a tool of capitalist. When we call some one as a feudal we have to make sure we are not using the same tool that makes ant to an elephant. I am not telling he is not a feudal, but in a state where every thing is hidden how I can believe the stories the govt is telling. Let them keep the system open. And more over, what the new companies are doing in china. And what about the party? I dont think Lama is a bigger feudal than them. First of all they must become a open society.

In cuba, many electronic items can not be used as people in the other part of the world do. But they never hide it. They openly tell that there is a mammoth shortage of power due to the sanctions by US. So they keep a regulation on electronic items including computer to serve their hospitals, govt offices and their productive systems. Why we can not see such a straight forward business in china.

Frankly speaking for a sympathy towards communism if we start supporting china it will be another crime towards humanity. And more over I dont keep any sympathy towards communism, unless it doesn't represent the real problem of human kind.

Deepak Chandran

I think our debate gets stuck in one larger question. What shd be the future model of governance in China? Whether it shd remain a one-party ruled authoritarian country or an "open society" perhaps in the same lines of Russia , right? I definitely keep a sympathy towards communism for a variety of reasons. First of all, I believe that it has the potential to change the world, to change the life of the masses, to change the course of history. I know you will have thousands of examples from history to point out the brutalities and the authoritarian course of the communist regimes, right from the Soviet Union to Cuba. But that doesn't prevent me from keeping my sympathy, not towards China nor to Cuba, but to the ideology alive, given the historical context.
In Castro's case, you yourself say that he was called a millionaire by the Forbes magazine counting the asset of the nationalised resources. You call it a propaganda. Castro, like any of the Communist forefathers, was an autocrat. Not even a single communist head of the state has betrayed the dictatorial tendencies of the "proletarian regime", unless I am mistaken. So the question is the fundamental one, which many of the Marxists have been working on at least for the last couple of decades. And I really doubt that it will have a single answer, like what the western liberals argue. Shd that be based on the grand notion of "human kind" which u mentioned? Who is going to "open" the Chinese society? Deepak, the problem with many of us is that we think we could replicate history in all the pockets of the world. If X is "free" Z shd also be "free" (the term is highly relative). Two decades after the disintegration of the USSR, we understand that Russian society remains as closed as it used to be, but sans a Communist Party.

I am afraid that we dont touch upon the history of Tibet. Not even a single Western government is ready to support the government-in-exile of the Tibetans. But everybody seems to be very sympathetic towards the "Tibetan cause". My question is that whether this policy, or position is insulated from the larger hate-China stand or a notion-based historical one? We think the Lamas represent millions of Tibetans. Was the recent upsurge was a political movement or an ethnic attack on the Han Chinese group? China's authoritarian political identity itself does not infuse sympathy into my political beliefs towards the Lamas. That's what I am saying. I am against cultural nationalism. I dont mind calling them feudal either though i would also disagree with the Chinese mainland over a number of issues.

stanly

I was also trying to gather some information of the Tibet movement lately.

a) I think it is a well documented fact that the theocratic state called Tibet was one of the most backward regions on earth, prior to Chinese invasion. Feudal Tibet, in which most of the cultivable lands were occupied by monastery, Dalai lamas were enjoying the unquestionable power for centuries. It has also been documented that there was an instituted condition of slavery and the penile code contains various forms of corporal punishments ( which has also been admited by Dalai Lama). Whatever Dalai Lama is, he is surely not a symbol of freedom. The word "invasion" itself is a bit tricky, because, many parts of the pre -second world war China was ruled by a bunch of feudal war lords. One can also argue that the whole China is "occupied".
Please see the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Criticism

b) All the communist governments now exist were formed during last century, when the idea of democracy was still infantile. It came as a historic experiment to provide something better than the then existing democracy, where a privileged few were still getting all. I think, at present any serious political movement cannot go further without recognizing the spread of democratic values. Many things in China cannot be accepted by anyone. But any analysis won't be complete without seeing incidents on a larger canvas. One has to see the developments in th context of economic and political antagonism of developing countries like china and India towards USA. The blatant involvement of CIA in Tibet is a well documented thing now, as its involvement in Cuba.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOhDBo6x2ZY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwu5qYosTo0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2iaIcoHBl4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJYamwYSe2M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FviSTNWRgHU&feature=related
There are interviews ( can be seen in this video ) of former CIA operatives, one of them happily admits that the Tibet operation was really good because it cost them very less ( all the "man power" were Tibetans) and they made a big menace for the Chinese govt. The CIA involvement was also been admitted by the exile Tibetan govt. officials.

Recently Dalai Lama accused Chinese govt. for bringing more Chinese people to Tibet in order to make Tibetans a minority on their own territory (sounds like Raj Thakrey). But the census data will show that about 93% of population are still Tibetans and there is a large number of Tibetans working and living elsewhere in China just as in any other country where people migrate to other parts of country looking for better living. Critics point out that this is an attempt of Lama to give the issue a racist color and make another Bosnia out of China.

Unfortunately the western media seems to be hiding many of these facts. They are so keen to color Lama as a spiritual leader and symbol of freedom
Raghunath C

There may not be much difference in arguments. But let me clarify my point once again in detail.

There surely is an obstacle in our debate, not only on the future model of Chinese govt, but also our understanding what really is communism. As Stanly mentioned we have a number of experiences and examples to go through. In Russia, certainly it was a power of change towards the society and the life of common man. That time it was not only in Russia, but all over the world Russian revolution give a great hope of change. That hope was that of common men to change their horrible life to a comfortable one. That is the key element, that to give a comfortable life to the common man, what we expect from a revolution and a communist regime. If my understanding is true, before the revolution in Cuba there was a communist party there and it was against the revolution. After the revolution Fidel and other comrades identified themselves that their questions as a continuation to those fundamental questions what Marx has risen. In china, the party has earned enough to be considered as billionaire corporate. I don't know much about Russia. But it is not difficult to understand from the infrastructure of communist parties of china and India that in Russia also it may not been different. There is no need of a single person to accumulate money using power, but doing the same by a party also is enough to call as an evil.

Cuba still keep a high note because, to consider Fidel as a millionaire Forbs has to count the asset of the public enterprises. But if they are doing the same in china the asset of the communist party alone will be enough. It is not just a matter of assets; sometimes having wealth can be natural. But from the recent history we can see the situation of farmers in China is clearly different from that of the party. In Cuba the party could provide a better life to their common man and still doing that. A Michael Moor can go there and could take a picture called 'sicko' to open up the fake side of American imperialist system. They have shown a great way of agriculture to the world where there is no need of any Monsanto. What is there like that china can convey to their common man and to the rest of the world. Millions of tons of industrial wastes of the global corporates! Nothing more !!! They allow the entire international corporate to come and exploit and torture their people, providing a system with no labor laws and regulations. I was talking about this difference all the time.

The communist parties them self identify as the authority to talk about communism throughout the history. There was a period where they called Fidel a CIA agent. I tell this just to mention the irrelevance of labels. The fundamental thing is that whether they address the questions Marx once aroused in the society which are still relevant. They are relevant not because a Marx raised them, but it addresses the fundamentals of economics and politics from the point of view of a common man. As far as I am concerned, who does address these fundamental thoughts is only relevent. If it is party I will be with them and when they fail to do so, there is no point in defending them.

Specifically speaking the issues in China, as I mentioned before, things are not transparent without a reason. If they can achieve at least a silly thing on the sake of this autocracy, one can have support the rulers. But unfortunately that is not the case. So, I think keep the society open first, let the people see the world beyond china. And let them learn that Lama is a Feudal Lord. And let them reject him if he is the same as those articles say.

What we see and learn about Tibet through Wikipedia, youtube, google etc. are not accessible to Chinese people(google.cn is allowed). What does it mean? Being the biggest Feudal, the action of the Chinese govt against Lama never is justifiable. It is just like the way US is talking about Cuba for not having a democratic system while they are supporting monarchs throughout the world.

It is true that the Tibetan land was very poor even before Chinese invasion. And still it remains the same. Who is responsible? Lama or Chinese govt. Our country also was not rich and forward before the independence. If it is not developed now whom we will blame, the land lords or the govt.

I thought of talking to Chinese students here at this point. I am not sure what they tell are completely true or not. But I think it is worth to hear what they have to tell.

Initially when the people's republic of china was established, the inner-Mangolia and Tibet were given autonomy. But it lasted for only a few years. That time they were allowed to use their own local language (As our malayalam, tamil etc.). But latter the govt restricted to use them and declared Chinese as the only official language. Even though other languages can be used to speak (!!!) they were not allowed it to use for official purposes. A farmer in inner-Mongolia cannot use their language scripts to write the address on a letter to his son living some other part of inner-Mongolia. Many people of these region still dont know the chinese language. Many Chinese are telling the govt was not interested on Tibet or inner-Mongolia for a long Period. When the govt identified the Tibetan and Mongolian land have tourist and industrial interests (also some other) they tried to access the land. But the people in Tibet don't like the changes in nature due to religious reasons also the mongoliangs for some thir own reasons (That may be the reason of recent issue). The govt tried to send people from the main land to Tibet and inner-Mongolia to defend their stands. When other people comes, the govt help and other benefits restricted only to the new comers. It is because the govt notification and other official helps are accessible only to them due to the Chinese language. I think that may be the reason the Tibetans and Mongolians oppose the migration. Let me tell that I didn't gone through the links provided by Raghu. Let me do it latter and I will discuss it with the Chinese students here and let you their impression on it.
Deepak

Back to square one!

2008-03-02T09:02:00.000-08:00

President Bush wrapped up his Israel trip last week, visiting the Mt. of Beatitudes in Jerusalem where Jesus is believed to have said “blessed are the peace-makers” & ruins of the biblical city Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee. Quite symbolical a start is for a man who has waged two ugly wars in the name of fighting terrorism. Given the past seven years in power, nobody would doubt Bush’s ability to make rhetoric on all the issues, whether it is the domestic economy, ‘war on terror’ or the West Asian peace process. Does his recent visit to the Holy Land mean anything other than a damage control exercise organised by conservatives in the White House?

Well, before the November 2007 Annapolis peace conference, observers had issued sceptical notes against Bush’s diplomatic gambling. Invariably, American presidents in their last year in power, use soft hands in dealing with the West Asian conflict. And now, it’s Bush’s turn. After holding talks with Palestinian Authority (PA) President Abu Mazen in Ramalla, West Bank, Bush challenged the “sceptics” saying, “I believe it’s going to happen that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office.” Is it as easy as taking a decision to bomb a weak Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad? Many experts would disagree. Speaking to B&E, the Director of Gulf Studies Programme at JNU, Prof. Gulshan Dietl said, “Bush’s political clout is weaning tremendously. This visit is a theatre set for his own personal history.

Not only that, the leaders who have to reach an agreement are domestically too weak to take any decision. So, this visit is not going to change anything in the ground.” Two months after Annapolis, it’s obvious that the US & Israel are unlikely to take any step beyond their conventional understanding of the national identity of Palestinians. All this is happening amid reports that Israel, with the tacit support of the PA, would attack and reoccupy the Gaza strip, which has been under the control of Hamas since last June. Hamas on the other side declared, “The only dialogue with the enemy will be with rifles & rockets.” If Israel is going to do that, the entire region would be plunged into a civil war. Even if the PA, by any chance, reaches a political agreement with Israel, as years go by, the number of “core issues” only goes up, not down.

john stanly (published in Business and Economy, 7/2/2008)

Confining peace to conferences!

2008-02-27T21:54:00.000-08:00

Peace has always been a mirage in West Asia. The region has seen as many wars as conferences for peace. Therefore, a peace meet itself would hardly kindle hopes for the war-ravaged people in the region. Yet, the November 27 peace conference that took place in Annapolis Naval Academy, Maryland, gained much attention, despite West Asia watchers’ repeated warnings to avoid high expectations. What makes Annapolis so different? First of all, it signals a change in President George Bush’s West Asia policy. Till now, the Bush Administration refused to invest its political capital in the Arab-Palestinian conflict. Ever since the electoral victory of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Bush, along with his European allies, took a ‘Boycott Hamas’ stand. His Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice launched her shuttle diplomacy only after Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen sacked Hamas from power & appointed a new puppet government. White House & the European capitals understood that this was the moment to isolate Hamas & to go ahead with a conciliatory Abu Mazen. Most of the Arab countries, including Syria, turned up to attend the Annapolis meet. Both the Palestinian & Israeli representatives issued a joint declaration which promised to bring peace by December 2008. “The Annapolis conference did produce one achievement: for the first time in seven years, the Israelis and the Palestinians plan to hold regular negotiations on fundamental issues that divide them,” Greg Myre, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute & a former New York Times correspondent told B&E.

But for achieving long-lasting peace, both parties need to compromise. “Israelis and Palestinians need to negotiate peace directly, under the US-UN—Arab-international umbrella. What is likely, however, is that, it will be left to next US administration to complete this process. I would expect — and one can only hope — that the next US Administration will not do what the Bush Administration did and abandon the Israeli and Palestinian people,” Hady Amr, Director of the Brookings Doha Centre told B&E.

Both Abu Mazen & Olmert look weaker in their respective domestic politics. A weak leader at home is unlikely to take strong decisions. Although the Olmert Government has promised to halt the construction of settlement houses in the West Bank, the Jewish hawks are seemingly determined to block any attempt to dismantle the settlements. Moreover, contentious issues such as border of the prospective Palestinian state, status of Jerusalem & refugees remain untouched.

Still, some would still say, something is better than nothing.

john stanly (published in Business and Economy on 27/12/2007)

Thumping win for Putin’s politics

2008-02-27T21:39:00.001-08:00

When the Soviet Union collapsed in early 1990s, the West was busy preaching lessons of liberal democracy to Russians. America’s ‘triumph over the evil empire’ was celebrated as the greatest moment of 20th century liberalism. Sixteen years down the line, where does Russia stand in global democratic industry? Not impressive, if one goes by standards of Western democracies. Well before the December 2 Parliamentary elections, liberal press had warned that President Vladamir Putin, who is leaving Kremlin in March, would use the results to tighten his grip over Kremlin. Despite widespread international campaign against Putin, his United Russia party emerged victorious with 315 seats, 14 seats more than the 2/3rd majority needed to pass constitutional amendments. The only opposition, United Russia would face in the Houses would be Communists. Putin had defeated the liberal opposition parties, Yabloko & the Union of Right, well before the elections, by increasing, the minimum requirement of percentage of total votes, for having a seat in Duma, to 7%.

“In the election campaign, the Unified Russia declared that it was a referendum on Putin’s policies. The “referendum” proved that Russians back Putin & his policies. However, it has not helped Russian democracy in general. Rather, it exposes the facets of Russian political system,” Sidorenko Alexy, a Russian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told B&E. Putin, with huge majority in the Parliament, is more powerful now. He has already declared that he would step down in March 2008. What’s in his mind is unknown. But everybody knows that, after investing this much political capital in the parliamentary elections, he’s unlikely to give up his influence in Russian politics.

john stanly (published in Business and Economy on 27/12/2007)

Crack begin to appear in fortress

2008-02-27T21:23:00.000-08:00

For almost a decade, the Venezuelan Opposition hasn’t known what a victory is, at the national level. They played all the tactics, right from boycotting elections to staging a coup against the elected president. On the other side, President Hugo Chavez grew in strength. The more the Opposition attacked him, the stronger he became. This was the domestic scene for the last nine years. Yet, the divided Opposition managed to defeat Chavez’s ambitious constitutional reforms by a narrow margin in the December 2 referendum. Chavez sought a series of reforms including letting the President run for re-election indefinitely. The reforms, in his words, would have sped up Venezuela’s transformation into a socialist country. However, many of his supporters, who gave him a victory in the December presidential elections last year, did not turn up to vote ‘yes’ for their Leftist President. Speaking to B&E, Dr. Shannon K. O’Neil, a Latin American expert at the Council of Foreign Relations, said, “This is the first setback for Chavez. Nevertheless, he still maintains substantial power – control of the presidency, the Congress, the courts, most of the media, and most of the local & regional governments. He has significant decree powers, so many of the issues he tried to pass through the referendum could potentially be passed through the pro-Chavez legislature.” The referendum has sparked off a new debate across the US. Is it the beginning of the end of Chavezism in South America? Certainly not in the near future at least, he still has the capacity to withstand setbacks.
John Stanly (published in Business and Economy on27/12/2007)

She’s back in the race

2008-02-25T05:53:00.000-08:00

Former US President Bill Clinton called Barack Obama a “kid” ahead of the Nevada Caucus. His wife & Democratic contender for presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, said that electing Obama would tantamount to electing “another Bush” to the White House. On the eve of the Caucus, the Hillary camp complained that their supporters in the state’s unions were threatened by the union leaders, who backed Obama. The Obama backers hit back saying they received many telephone calls, which made continuous references to “Barack Hussein Obama.” Nevada saw it all. Still, Obama, the charismatic Illinois Senator who changed the entire arithmetic of Democratic contest, could not defeat the former first lady in Nevada.

What went wrong for Obama? He failed to keep up the hype, set by his own media managers, as the campaign spread to other parts of the country. His vulnerability to attract different demographic votes was visible in New Hampshire & Nevada. Although the Obama camp, having understood this fact, attacked the Clintons, saying they haven’t done much for the Hispanic community, it failed to pay. The Hispanic groups, the growing number of Democratic supporters, voted for Clinton in large numbers. She could also walk away with women votes as Obama managed to retain support of the blacks. Obama’s stunning Iowa victory has started to fade away with his straight losses in New Hampshire & Nevada.

“The Clinton-Obama contest is a fascinating showpiece of American political theatre. In addition to the male/female and black/white aspects, the personalities embody a contrast, few other countries embrace that of new v/s old & change v/s continuity. I cannot think of any country apart from the USA where political experience is an electoral liability. The two leading contenders for the democratic nomination, embody these observations, and Obama is praised for his strong commitment to “change” without defining what this means while Clinton emphasises her “experience” without convincingly demonstrating that she has any. It’s American, it’s “show business”, and it’s exciting, even if somewhat primitive,” Dr. Robert

McGeehan, an associate fellow at Chatham House, told B&E. The next Obama-Clinton fight will be on January 26 in South Carolina where the black community is crucial factor. Though the black voters were loyal to the Clintons since the first presidency of Bill, this time, according to the polls, Obama is more popular among them. A victory on Saturday is crucial for Obama to go to the Super Tuesday campaigns with confidence. Obama hasn’t so far played his racial cards vigorously, which many analysts say is a “strategic error.” Would he take them out in pretty American style? Well, let’s wait and see.

John Stanly (published in Business and Economy, 7/2/08)

Are Bush & Mush nuclear allies?

2008-02-24T03:46:00.000-08:00

The recent political unrest in Pakistan has again revived the old debate. How secure are the nuclear weapons of Pakistan? One thing is clear. Protecting Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, either through coercion or through inducement, have occupied the centre-stage of the Bush Administration’s South Asia policy in the post-9/11 order.

Fuelling the debate, a well-referred intelligence journal recently claimed that the US took control of the Pakistan nuclear assets soon after September 11. In what could open a Pandora’s Box in US- Pak strategic affairs, the journal stated that Pakistan was given an ultimatum by the US to either allow the Americans to take control of the nuclear weapons or to be prepared to face the consequences. If Pakistan protested, “the US would be left with no choice but to destroy those facilities, possibly with India’s help,” stated the journal. “This was a fait accompli that Musharraf, for credibility reasons, had every reason to cover-up & pretend it never happened, & Washington was fully willing to keep things quiet,” it added. Earlier the US press had reported that the Bush Administration had already spent about $100 million to help Pakistan secure the nuclear safeguards. A New York Times report claimed that the US was building a training centre for nuclear security inside Pakistan. Does the US really have a grip on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals? Is it the major reason for uninterrupted Bush’s support to Musharraf?

It is a fact that Musharraf has used the threat of a possible jihadi takeover of arsenals to ensure American support even for his dictatorial moves. The central goal of the general’s strategy is to convince Washington & the European capitals that the nuclear country would be plunged into deep crisis if he was removed from the helm. This ‘deluge-after-me’ strategy appears to have gone down well at least with the US. The military regime lets the Americans enjoy control over the warheads, in return the US continues its assistance to Islamabad. This was evident when State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, “... ultimately, the major responsibility for that (securing arsenals) falls with the Pakistani Government. They have made public comments to the effect that the arsenal is secure, that they have taken a number of different steps to ensure that. We ourselves see no indication to indicate to the contrary.” The question, however, is that how long the ‘super power’ & Cold War ally continue this cat & mouse game? How long the US continue its support for a general who is almost disowned by his own people? The classic crisis the US faces is, it can’t disown Pakistan overnight. But the longer it extends support to Musharraf, the deeper Pakistan’s falls. The more, not the merrier, at least in this case.

(Published in Business and Economy, 13/12/2007)

The Bush meltdown begins

2008-02-24T03:39:00.000-08:00

Which is this the man whom the Western media calls the crusader of the 21st century? Is he still capable of leading the American empire? The president is still busy defending his policies & justifying his adventures in Afghanistan & Iraq. His arguments, however, might not go down well with all in the US, as his policies fail one by one.

The latest in a series of events that exposed the inability of his administration to cope with the challenges of the new world order was the resignation of State Department’s Public Diplomacy chief Karen P. Hughes. Hughes is known to be one of the last members of Bush’s inner circles. Bush brought her to the State Department in an apparent effort to do an image makeover of the US in the muslim world. Was this counterbalancing game successful? If so, she would not have stepped down. Dr. Chinthamani Mahapatra, professor of International Relations at JNU told B&E, “Growing number of American population & Republican leaders are angry with the foreign policy of the Bush administration. Though the resignation of Hughes might have many dimensions, it shows that the administration is in a crisis of sorts. It’s a fact that America’s image is getting worse in the muslim world.”

Hughes is not the first presidential aide to leave. Bush’s troubles started with Rumsfeld’s resignation on 8th November last year. In the following month, Bush failed to get the appointment of John Bolton ratified in the Congress. Last August, his closest ally and the man who was called as the ‘Bush Brain’, Carl Rove, had to quit his team in wake of some fresh scandals. Sixteen frontline people have deserted the president. Does President Bush take any lessons from these setbacks? Most unlikely. He appears to be busy lobbying to get more war funds approved in the Congress & expand the global war zones.

(Published in Business and Economy, 29/11/2007)

Lebanon LIngers

2008-02-24T03:29:00.000-08:00

The Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri recently announced a further delay in presidential elections which was scheduled to be held on October 23. The Lebanese president is elected by Parliament, not by popular vote. So far, the ruling coalition & the opposition led by Shiite party Hezbollah have been unable to reach a consensus on a candidate. According to many observers, if the 128-member Parliament fails to elect a successor to President Emile Lahoud before his term ends on November 24, the consequences would be unpredictable. Though the speaker has announced that a new parliamentary session has been scheduled from November 12, not many are hopeful that the election would be carried out smoothly.

The differences between the pro-Western government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora & the powerful opposition Hezbollah have paralysed the government for past 11 months. Given the ground situation, it is illogical to assume that Hezbollah would support the Saniora Government to elect a president of its choice. Similarly, the government too will not settle for a pro-Syrian candidate supported by Hezbollah. The West, which is looking for an opportunity to further isolate Syria in the region, has jumped onto the scene accusing Syria of deliberately attempting to block the Lebanese elections. “Lebanon is sitting on a powder keg; undue interference of Syria has made the situation volatile. There is a planned conspiracy to pull down a democratically elected government. There is a need for dismantling the Syrian apparatus first; elections can wait....” Ziad K. Abdelnour, editor of Middle East Intelligence Bulletin told B&E.

It is now the Lebanese population which can stop the country from becoming a theatre of war between Western style liberal democracy & the political Islamist world view.

(Published in Business & Economy, 15/11/07)

Politics of Comparisons (A letter sent to friends)

2007-11-30T03:25:00.000-08:00

Hi,

We are living in a world of comparisons. Our political analyses are so embedded with comparisons that we could understand things in a better way. But what stunned me a few days back was the attempts of Indian corporate media and the extreme left (weak-minded radicals if I use a friend's term) to draw parallels between Budhadeb and the fascist Narendra Modi. We know that every political formation will have its own agenda. Even the middle class apologetics keep their plans wide open in our polity. Initially, I just wrote this bizzare comparison off thinking that it would not work. However, things took a drastic turn as the weak-minded radicals, along with the corporate media, made this Modi-Budhadeb comparison as a weapon to attack the Left.

One can argue that thousands of Muslims were butchered in Modiland in early 2002 while a couple of dozen Bengalis were killed in the March 14 Nandigram firing. Still, I am not after head-counts. Rather, I would like to see the politics behind these incidents and the agenda behind these comparisons. The corporate media, which is anti-Left by its own definition, won in driving a point home. For them, BJP, which is led by the likes of Modi, is a party which shares their economic philosophy. Modi, a Neo-Rightist by all definitions, calls himself the Messiah of corporate Gujarat.
On the other side, the Left, though it's modified its stand on many economic issues including SEZ's, still is a stumbling block for many of the neoliberal projects. Though Budhadeb was the blue-eyed communist of the India Inc., they have always been at odds with the party. There were ample criticisms from leftist corners against the economic policies of Budhadeb well before Nandigram tragedy. Actually, Nandigram should have fuelled the leftist debates about the neo-liberal regime and corporate industrialisation. But the corporate media, which has never tolerated any criticism against the free-flow of the metropolitan capital, wanted to deflect the post-Nandigram debates. The same media houses which once showered Budhadeb with praises, took a U turn to call him a Stalinist dictator. He was compared with Narenda Modi and the party was blamed for its Stalinist nature. Whatever happened was not because of the corporate industrialisation but because of the Stalinist nature of the Marxist party. Singing the same tune, the weak-minded radicals found it an opportunity to beat the mainstream left and started out a campaign calling CPM a ‘Social Fascist’ organisation. This is something

Leon

Trostsky called Stalin in 1930s criticising his socio-economic policies. Did the radicals become Trostsko-Libertarian anarchists an overnight only because CPM is called a Stalinist party? Or, they are too ignorant to understand the historical significance of the Trotskian term ‘Social fascists’? Malayalies, who read the Naxalite turned Neoliberal, K Venu, might be familiar with that term. Venu started calling CPM a ‘Social Fascist’ party right from early 1990s.
My point is simple. Deflecting the entire leftist debate is an agendum of the corporate houses. Attacking the mainstream left blue and black is, unfortunately, not a way but the objective of the weak-minded radicals. In their combined effort, what's missing is the real focus on the neoliberal barbarism. Whether it is the West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh or Orissa, the common people are suffering because the neoliberal regime. SEZ's are going to be the graveyards of Indian farmers. Instead of pointing out that, we are so caught up with the left-bashing of the corporate

India

. Drawing parallels between Budhadeb and a cultural fascist like Narenda Modi is ultimately aimed at giving a face-lift to Modi and his fascist agenda. And that's what the corporate

India

wants to happen.

Stanlee

Well Known, Still a Shock

2007-10-27T01:30:00.001-07:00

I WAS SAFE in my hometown in Kerala when Muslims were butchered in Modiland. Thanks to the Malayalam media, we received horrible descriptions of the genocidal State-sponsored crime of the deshi fascists. We knew that everything was pre-planned. We knew that the “protectors” themselves organised this genocide. We knew Modi would be re-elected in December 2002. We knew the victims of the genocide would not get justice. We knew that not even a single RSS supporter would change his or her political outlook and social view.
Yet I was shocked to see TEHELKA’s latest issue. I was shocked when I saw a VHP leaderproudly claim to have torn out the womb of a pregnant women after killing her. I lost control of my senses when he said that they did not spare even a single Muslim in Naroda Patiya, even though I already knew that that was what they had done. I cursed myself when I read about how Muslims were dumped in a well in Naroda Patiya and burned alive. I felt low again when I thought that I was also born in the same country where Modi is a ruler.
Where is one to look for a resolution?
Practically speaking, it is in the reproduction of the facts. The horror of a genocide that took place in front of us should haunt the collective conscience of secular Indians. The miseries of the poor of Gujarat should remain in our debates, in our public sphere, our media, our art, our literature, our cinema. A permanent reproduction of the facts. That should be the foundation of the anti-communal crusade of our generation. We should remind ourselves that we are the children of the killings.
When the Babri Masjid was demolished by the Hindutva fundamentalists, we failed to launch an all-out campaign against the perpetrators. Ten years later, they struck again, killing thousands of Muslims in Modiland. If we fail once again, we do not know what awaits us in 2012.

(Published in Tehelka November 17, 2007)

Manhood Defined

2007-10-26T04:53:00.000-07:00

What makes Ernesto Che Guevara one of the most charismatic revolutionaries of the twentieth century? Unlike other leading Marxist leaders of last century such as Lenin and Mao, Che was neither a theoretician nor a supreme leader of any revolution. An Argentine-born doctor, Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, was handpicked by Fidel Castro when the latter was preparing for the Moncado barrack attack. Ever since they met each other in Mexico, Che became a member of Fidel’s July 26^th movement and later the second commandant of the guerilla army that waged a successful war against American backed General Fulgencio Batista in Havana.

As many political scientists have pointed out, Che Guevara was a professional revolutionary. He subscribed to Fidel’s intellection of spreading revolution across Americas with his heart. “The duty of the revolutionary is to make the revolution,” so said Che describing his own eventful life of long battles. After winning the Sierra Maestra battle, we would find him fighting in the Congo. He was entrusted by Fidel to “liquidate the counter revolutionaries in order to save the

revolution”. He even quit Castro’s ruling team to join hands with the Bolivian guerillas, who were fighting the military dictatorship of Rene Barrientos. As noted British Marxist Tariq Ali observes, that single decision changed Che’s image and appeal altogether. As many of the other revolutionaries relinquished their revolutionary credentials after their respective triumphs, Che gave up power to build up a guerilla movement in Bolivian forests against Barrientos. Unlike in Sierra Maestra where he played second fiddle to Fidel, he was the supreme leader of Bolivian guerillas. But history hardly repeats. The heavy hands of Bolivian military generals crushed the rebellion and shot dead its 39-year-old leader on 8^th October 1967.

However, the death of Che Guevara was only the beginning of the story. Fidel Castro declared the year of 1967 as “the year of great revolutionaries”. Drawing inspiration from Che the students and youth across the Europe intensified the anti-war and anti-imperial movements. Che was the icon of the French students who led the May 1968 movement that caused the eventual collapse of the De Gaulle regime. Che became of charismatic larger than life figure, more popular than his own leader Fidel, not only in Cuba, but across the world. His challenge to American capitalism to “create two, three...many Vietnams” echoed in different parts of the world. He was largely considered as a symbol of romantic rebellion during the heydays of the Cold War.

However, the antithesis to this revolutionary appeal is ‘Brand Che’. Fidel Castro might have survived the fall of Soviet Union in the early 1990s. But the changing dynamics in the post-Cold war world order, transformed Che’s image. He once dared capitalism to create more Vietnams. But capitalism, understanding his mass appeal, incorporated him in its market economy as a brand name. Now Che is more a market tool than a revolutionary icon. A glamorous photograph of Che taken by Cuban photographer Alberto Korda Diaz on March 5, 1960, has become a favorite symbol for the neoliberal marketists as well as the Anti American leftists. The bearded face with long hair and eyes fixed at infinity is everywhere in today’s world. Its there on T-shirts, cigarettes, ice cream, socks, alcohols and even on the bodies of football stars. Recently a designer put Che on a bikini. American retailer giant Target has recently reported that its Che Guevara CD cases had topped last Christmas season in the country. “Che is a symbol of romantic idealism. His immortal image has a value which can be used by the market forces as well as for a larger social cause. The contemporary capitalism which is dominated by the media culture has taken Che Guevara’s image out of the context and made it as a brand. Now we witness the icon floating free in the market. But at the same time there are serious attempts to bring the icon back into its revolutionary origin, especially in Latin America,” A.K. Ramakrishnan, a professor of International Relations at Mahatma Gandhi University told B&E.

The “21^st century socialists” such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia seem to have undertaken this mission of liberating the revolutionary from the clutches of market capitalism. Chavez has already said that he wanted to create the guevarista “new man” across the continent. Time would show who would win in this strange battle waged in the name of a charismatic revolutionary.

(Published on Business & Economy, November 1, 2007)

Chikungunya In northern Italy

2007-10-23T08:37:00.000-07:00

The recent outbreak of chikungunya, a tropical disease spread by mosquitoes, in the Italian province of Ravenna, has sparked an unusual debate among the scientists. Last month the Italian Health Ministry had officially confirmed the outbreak of chikungunya in the northern parts of the country. Acording to officials, more than 200 cases have so far been detected in Italy. One death was also reported. Sending alrm rings across the continent, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has warned that the debilitating tropical virus might sweep through the other European countries. Many experts blamed the changes in the temperature for the latest outbreak of the disease in Europe. According to Professor Antoine Flahault, the coordinator of French research on chikungunya, “Though the Tiger mosquitoes were present in

Italy

for several years, the increased temperatures and humidity make the climate more tropical and favour the proliferation of mosquitoes." The World Health Organisation officials have also underscored the same point. "We cannot say that the disease was caused by climate change, but the conditions in Italy are now suitable for the Tiger mosquito," said Dr Bettina Menne of the WHO about the outbreak. However, Professor Paul Reiter, the director of the Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit of the Paris-based Institut Pasteur, has come up with a different argument.

Prof. Reiter, who has also worked for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for over 20 years, has claimed in a recently published article that the WHO official’s statement is aimed at diverting attention from the real cause: “the increasing globalization of disease as a result of modern transportation.” He recalls an incident of finding tires that contained rainwater infested with Aedes albopictus (today’s Asian Tiger mosquito) in the US city of Houston two decades ago. He also discovered that the company which shipped scavenged tires to many Central American countries imported them from Japan. “The tiger arrived in Italy in the 1990s in tires from Atlanta, Georgia and is ubiquitous from the Alps to Naples,” says Prof. Reiter. Citing the endemics that gripped the tropical as well as the non tropical regions, he says, “the globalization of mosquitoes and mosquito-borne diseases is nothing new and we can expect further surprises in the future.” Reiter’s arguments have raised many eyebrows as he lashes out at the alarmists of the global warming saying they are actually distorting scientific facts in order to fit their arguments.

(Published on Business&Economy on November 1, 2007)

Waiting For The Sport In Paris

2007-10-23T08:01:00.000-07:00

"There could be sport - and not just in the rugby stadiums," said Bernard Thibault, the leader of France’s powerful communist-leaning CGT union, sending an alarm note to President Nicolas Sarkozy, who announced pension reforms last week. This sentence gives indication about the tough time lies ahead of the reform-minded president. Thibault’s warning could not be played down in a country like France where the unionized workforce could even bring down the government in the past in order to save the social security system. The showdown between the trade unions and the conservative President, Sarkozy hit a new high as the latter announced that he would bring an end to the so-called “special regimes” which offer retirement privileges for state workers. The “special regimes” that date back to the Second World War ensure special retirement privileges for certain state workers including bus and train drivers, miners, merchant sailors. According to the president, it’s the highest liability of the French state these days to sustain the costly social security policies. Promising to “modernize” France’s economic sector and to meet the European Union deadline of 2012 to balance the budget, Sarkozy sends out a tough message to the highly organized French workforce.

Given the history of French unionism, Sarkozy is out to play a risky game. Touching the holy cow of French revolution, the welfare state, has never been an easy task for any leader in France. Whenever the previous governments tried to axe the Special Regimes, they had been badly beaten by the workers. In 1995, workers paralysed the whole country and brought down the first government of Jacques Chirac when he tried to reform the pension scheme. The Socialists who suffered a setback in the last presidential elections have already upped the ante accusing Sarkozy of suffering from "small man syndrome". Referring to president’s reform plan, Benoît Hamon, a Socialist spokesman, said, "In psychoanalysis, this is what you call the syndrome of the small man who considers that everything he does is bigger than anything that has ever happened.

With Nicolas Sarkozy, all he does, all he touches, he considers it to be the greatest. In reality, we have never witnessed such a step backwards since the liberation - on the social issue, as well as on immigration."

So, the writing on the wall is clear. If Sarkozy is serious in bringing in reforms, he would have to strike a deal with the workers. If not, he should be prepared to face the ire of the most powerful workforce in the continent.

(Published on Business and Economy on 6 September 2007)

The Bleeding Hills

2007-09-28T03:11:00.000-07:00

“We will smoke them out their hiding holes,” said US President George W. Bush before launching his war on Taliban-controlled

Afghanistan

in 2001. Six years have gone by since the war was declared. Perhaps, Bush himself might have forgotten these words as the Western army is still busy fighting the Taliban extremists in the hilly areas of this South Asian country. Recent reports say that the Taliban is on the rise in the South. Though, the NATO led forces have been deployed across southern

Afghanistan

, the kidnapping of 23 Korean Christians on the country’s main highway last month illustrates the burgeoning influence of Taliban.

After six years of relentless fighting, now it’s almost clear that the victory against Taliban militants in Afghanistan is not as easy as expected. The puppet regime in Kabul is still struggling, despite the military support of the western troops, to expand its authority beyond the boundaries of Kabul city. President Hamid Karzai is more or less acting as Kabul mayor. Outside the capital, large swathes of the country remain under the control of tribal warlords. Across the south, the regrouping Taliban fighters gain influence. On the eastern side, Taliban has hideouts in the tribal areas of Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas. Though the Musharraf regime claimed to have taken strong action against Taliban in Northern Pakistan, the attempt has proven failure as the militants still unleash bloody attacks in the border areas. The militants also control the opium trade out of which they can generate funds for their operations.

Britain has at least in principle accepted this reality. Brigadier John Lorimer, the Commander of UK forces in Helmland province of Afghanistan recently told The Observer that it would take minimum 38 years for the British troops to withdraw from the war-torn country. The British army’s largest mission in its military history is the 38-year long Northern Ireland operation. If Brig Lorimer foresees a larger military operation in Afghanistan than the Ireland adventure, it’s only because of the worsening conditions of Afghanistan.

However, the US, the largest ally in the Afghan mission, appears to be in no mood to accept the grim reality in Afghanistan. Earlier this month US Assistant Secretary of state for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher seemed so confident while he talked to reporters about Afghanistan. “Afghanistan is in a much better position now than it ever was before as a nation,” said Boucher. However, Boucher’s optimism proved hollow as the latest report of the Human Rights Watch depicted the grim picture of Afghanistan. According to the New York based group, the western army has dropped more than 400 bombs on Afghanistan in the past three months. Some other military sources reveal that more than 6,000 people have been killed in the fight between the army and the militants in the past one and a half years.

Without taking any concrete steps either to build a functioning democracy or to cope with the growing insurgency, the Americans, as well as the Afghan forces, are now trying to turn the heat on Iran. The Afghan military leaders recently accused the Islamic government of Iran of trafficking weapons and other explosives to Afghanistan in order to help the Taliban fight the western forces. Colonel Rahmatullah Safi, head of the border police of for western Afghanistan recently said that the “Iranian made armour-piercing roadside bombs” were found in the frontier town of Islam Qala, near Herat on the Afghan-Iran border area. The US military leaders have also expressed concerns over the alleged “Iranian influence” in Afghanistan. In the words of Colonel Thomas Kelly, an American under the command of the NATO, the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which were found in Afghanistan, “were not manufactured in any other place to our knowledge than Iran.”

The US is hitting the Islamic Republic with fresh allegations without producing any evidences. Earlier this year, the newly appointed Secretary of Defence Robert Gates had accused Iran of supplying the Iraqi militants with the IEDs. As they repeat the same allegations in Afghanistan also, one might get confused of the sincerity of this blame game. Furthermore, many analysts are of the view that the ideological differences between the Iranian Shiite regime and the Sunni Taliban prevent both sides from any engagement. It’s better to be recalled that the Islamic Republic had cooperated with the Americans when the latter launched the Afghan invasion in October 2001. Iran has always been a hardcore critic of the Sunni Taliban politics particularly since the massacre of Shiites in Herat under the Taliban rule.

However the Bush administration, which failed terribly both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, is busy spending its energy and time in the international blame game against Iran without trying to rectify its own mistakes. It’s pretty contradictory to know that the US which is waging a global war against Islamic militancy is not even able to rein in the situations in Afghanistan where it has started the war six years ago.

Stanly Mambilly

Resilence Of Political Islam

2007-09-21T04:03:00.000-07:00

With the triumph of Hamas in last month's election in Palestine, politics in Islamic countries has taken a historic turn. In an international scenario in which Islamic polity, or Islamism, poses cultural challenges to the West, the victory of Hamas seems to haveredrawn the political landscape of the region, challenging the US's "democratisation" process. Many commentators are of the opinion that the Hamas triumph harks back to the so-called Iranian revolution of 1979.The Islamists had overthrown the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979. The Iranian society that was reasonably secular under Shah did not have an option but to live under repressive mullahs.A declared objective of Iranian foreign policy was to export 'revolution' to other Islamic countries. But the worried West Asian monarchs along with the US put an effective check on the mullahs. The eight-year long Iran-Iraq war was a planned one. The chosen scapegoat, the self-declared saviour of the Arab cause, Saddam Hussein, fought against Iran on behalf of the Americans and the Islamic monarchs.In the early 1990s, Islamism had become less of a threat. Iran had come out of its revolutionary nostalgia, and become pragmatic. But post 9/11, Islamism has burst onto the world scene with vengeance.Islamism has had two versions: One, the Al-Qaeda-type terrorism and the other, mass movements led by the Muslim Brotherhood. Both these factions are militant, rigid in religious matters and offer resistance to a common enemy: Democratic plulalism.
The recent election result in West Asia shows the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to new heights. Now an isolated Iran is not able to spread Islamism in other countries. Yet, Islamist governments are coming to power in its neighbourhood, that too through the democratic process. This is the biggest challenge that the US and other liberal democracies are facing in West Asia.In a municipal election held in Saudi Arabia last April Wahhabi Islamists emerged victorious. The Muslim Brotherhood, brutally suppressed since Nasser's time, performed remarkably well in the Egyptian parliamentary election held last December. Following the US's biggest blunder in West Asia, Iraq became the first country in the world that elected Islamists to power. The Shia-led Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) coalition swept the 2005December election. The SCIRI has close links with Iran and is inimical to the US and all liberal democracies. Therefore, Hamas' victory is just the continuation of the Islamists'triumph in West Asia. Hamas is universally recognised as a terrorist organisation.
And this terrorist organisation has been elected to power ironically through democratic means. This is the paradox that the US confronts. If it goes ahead with its so-called democratization process, it will see Islamist Governments coming to power in theentire region.Anti-Americanism lies at the core of the illiberal and fundamentalist philosophy Islamism in modern times. In addition Islamists are sworn enemies of Israel. If the US goes after its next target which is Iran, Islamism will only grow in political strength.With this theinternational community confronts a new scenario. It has to make a distinction between terrorism and Islamist movements. How else can it deal with the new Islamist Governments that have come to power.
(Published on The Pioneer on February 19, 2006)

Honey, I Shrunk The Party

2007-09-21T00:44:00.000-07:00

Call it the new age dialectics invented by those in charge of concocted revolution. The political dilemma that the politburo of the CPI(M) faces now is purely historical, but with a difference; it is paradoxically historical. It now embattles the enigmatic irony of a political Right-turn which has been vehemently checked by an army of comrades who now face the threat of isolation and retaliatory action just because they seemed a stumbling block to the new-age CPI(M).
It all started with the March 12 Central Committee decision that barred the Politburo members from contesting Assembly election. A shot in the arm for the capitalist comrades in Kerala who were waiting for a chance to herald the political death of VS Achuthanandan, the leader of the die-hard ideologues in the State.
The Central Committee decision paved the way for the March 16 Kerala State Committee announcement that denied him a seat in the coming Assembly election. The move invited protests from supporters of the VS faction who considered Mr Achuthanandan the only means to check the surging onslaught of the so-called agenda of globalisation in the State.
However, the capitalist comrades in the Kerala CPI(M), who have all been up in arms against this apostle of ideal Marxism, have made up their mind, scripting what they called the requiem on the political existence of the old Red admiral.
This very episode makes one recall the enigma of the metamorphosis of the Marxist party into a post-modern social democratic party that discards the very credentials of its own ideology, a transformation into a market-driven Marxist party. Is this accidental? No. Historical by all means, but as we stated above, with a difference.
The ideological churn that has been haunting the Indian Left in the post-Soviet era has produced its offspring now, though quite accidentally. Blind to the rational and radical developments that whirlpooled the Indian political arena, the Politburo now is a divided
lot. The party in Kerala always relied on Mr Achuthanandan, a vocal critic of the neo-liberal economic environment, to gather momentum in the battle against capitalism. It upheld his personality as an ambassador of "anti-capitalist agenda". But the shift in the political stance has forced it to invent a new political vocabulary using which it can never script the sort of revolution it is used to.
That Mr Achuthanandan is the last name that the capitalist comrades in the Kerala CPI(M) can think of when it comes to facing the 2006 Assembly election means the political ideology that he represented has become obsolete to them. A drastic change, indeed. For the new-age Marxist messiahs in Kerala, Mr Achuthanandan is a stale Marxist metaphor. So, doing away with that metaphor comes only as the last step in the historic transformation of a Marxist party to the so-called social democratic party.
The violent outbreak of protests against the leadership - that too in Kerala - underscores the very transition of Marxist party. The party has never faced such a crisis; that of its own activists leading protest march to the AKG Bhavan - the secretarial palace of Kerala party - even when former Red hands like Ms KR Gouri and Mr MV Raghavan were sacked from the party. This has also shed light on the political and organisational challenges that the party faces in the eve of another crucial Assemble election. The Indian Left may still fight and win revolutions on paper, but how long they can keep silent on the questions rising against their own ideological dilemma?

(Article Published on The Pioneer, March 12, 2006)

Vietnam Comes Back To Haunt...

2007-09-19T08:10:00.001-07:00

"The price of America's withdrawal (from Vietnam) was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like boat people, re-education camps and killing fields," so said US President George W. Bush in an unexpected attempt to draw parallels between the Iraq war and America’s cold war nightmare in Vietnam. In Bush’s view, an immediate withdrawal of the U.S. troops from the war-torn

Iraq would lead to serious consequences in that country. He hinted that Iraqis would have to undergo the similar “sufferings” of the Vietnamese people under the Communist regime. Moreover, Bush argued that if the US gets out of Iraq when the threat of militancy looms large over the West Asian country that would affect the credibility and morale of the US in its global “war on terrorism.”

So far the critics of the Bush administration have called the Iraq fiasco, the Vietnam of President Bush. And the supporters of the war, particularly the neo-cons in the administration resisted any move to draw parallels between the most contentious two wars in the history of the US. As things stand so, why this change of tone? Now, one might wonder as Bush himself accepts this analogy. Though Bush helped his enemies revive the old debate over the Iraq-Vietnam wars, his intentions look different from that of his detractors. The president is trying to shift the entire focus from Iraq invasion to the presumed consequences of an immediate withdrawal. Many US watchers are of the view that Bush’s risky game with historical examples is aimed at wining the support of the conservatives, who, still, believe that the Vietnam withdrawal was the manifest of vulnerability of the American political class.

If the critics used the Vietnam comparison to expose the flaws of Bush’s Iraq policy, the president invoked the so-called post-withdrawal miseries of the Vietnamese to defend his “stay the course” policy. “The Vietnam fiasco had serious consequences in US. The US lost its credibility among its own allies. President Bush doesn’t want to repeat the same. He believes the war in Iraq is winnable and he wants to get the job done. In another words, he was telling his critics: don’t tell me to repeat Vietnam in Iraq by withdrawing troops prematurely,” Prof. Chinthamani Mahapatra of Jawaharlal Nehru University told B&E. Bush has made plain that the White House would not show its green signal to any troop cut so long as he remains in power. “Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is more than ideological. Vietnam doesn’t have oil where as Iraq plays a central role in America’s grand energy plans. Bush doesn’t want to lose that,” Prof Mahapatra added.

Bush’s remarks have come just one month ahead of the scheduled tabling of the Iraq progress report by Gen. David Petraeus, which is unlikely to sound different from the official stand. Bush will use both the report and Vietnam tp once again befool the public and inform Pentagon that democracy would not be allowed to interfere with military demands.

(Published on Business and Economy, 20 September 2007)

Stanly Mambilly

Political Turmoil In Japan

2007-09-19T07:52:00.000-07:00

"In the present situation, it is difficult to push ahead with effective policies that win the support of the public…We need a change in this situation. I find myself unable to keep my [political] promises," said former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on September 12 declaring his decision to step down. Though the decision was inevitable, the timing was surprising. Abe, the grandson of a former prime minister and the son of a former foreign minister, came to power one year back after the Liberal Democratic Party won a landslide victory in the Lower House of the Diet (Parliament). As a prime minister, he started impressively with bold moves to revive the moribund economy and sincere efforts to mend ties with China and South Korea.

However, the 52-year-old prime minister has proven to be a failure in retaining the faith and support of the people who have backed the LDP for more than half a century. The resignation of four ministers over corruption allegations and the suicide of another tainted minister in a short span of time made the Abe government extremely unpopular. Furthermore, his inability to rescue agricultural sector which was badly hit by the structural reforms of the Koizumi government drove away the rural population from Abe. This disaffection of voters was evident when the ruling LDP and its allies lost the Upper House majority to the principal opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). Though the election defeat eroded Abe’s morale to continue in power, the August 27 cabinet reshuffle sent out a different message. The prime minister was expected to continue in office. But, Abe’s unexpected announcement of resignation took everybody by surprise. Many reasons were cited by the Japan watchers for Abe’s abrupt decision including his “ill health” and corruption scandals against him. “The prime minister’s resignation signals that the ‘Old Order’ is emerging powerful in the ruling LDP. The senior leaders, who were very critical of Abe’s neo-conservative policies wanted him to step down soon after the July election debacle. Abe’s subsequent decision to include corrupt leaders into the cabinet made his position more vulnerable within the party. Finally, he had to bow down to the inevitable,” Prof HS Prabhakar of Jawaharlal Nehru University told B&E. The resignation has come a few weeks ahead of the expiring of the “anti-terror law” which currently allows the the Japanese troops to continue to provide logistical support to the US military in Afghanistan. Abe wanted to extend the law, due to expire on November 1. However the ‘Old Order’ in the LDP and the opposition parties were against extending the law.

Anyway, Abe’s resignation has exposed the internal problems within the ruling party. Two leaders, the veteran Yasuo Fukuda and the LDP’s number two Taro Aso have already declared that they wanted to stand in the party election to be held on August 23. It’s widely perceived as a struggle between the Old Order and the New Order in the LDP. “The fundamental question at this point of time is that whether Japan, the most reliable ally of the US in the region, would remain so even after the elections,” said Dr. Prabhakar.

(Published on Business & Economy on September 27, 2007

Stanly Mambilly

leftovers

2007-09-19T07:38:00.001-07:00

Some Faces Are Simply Unforgettable