by R. Upadhyay
According to media reports on Egyptian crisis, an agreement has been arrived at after talks between Vice President Omar Suleiman and the Opposition leaders, including Mohammad ElBaradei and the representatives of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) for constitutional reforms.
But a close look into the background of MB suggests that the possibility of the orderly transformation of democratic power in this heart of the Arab World is not so certain particularly when this outlawed radical Islamist group was also on negotiating table.
This Egypt-born fundamentalist organisation which was founded by an ultra Islamist reformer school teacher Al Hussain Banna(1906-1949) in 1928 might not have been at the centre stage of the over two-week mass upsurge in this most populous Arab country which led to many deaths- participation of this largest opposition group along with a number of smaller liberal and leftist groups during the negotiation with the government on February 6 should certainly be a matter of concern for those who want a transformation into a new democratic and secular government.
Dedicated to the credo – “The Prophet is our leader, Qur'an is our law, Jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope", Muslim Brotherhood does not believe in democracy, secularism, human rights and social justice. Its recorded history of “working under the doctrine of concealment (Kitman)” (Rachel Enherenfeld) and close link with Wahhabi society of Saudi Arabia suggests that it can go to any extent to create an Islamist state by exploiting the present turmoil in Egypt. Even USA is aware of its radical Islamist designs. “Wahhabism, which R. James Woolsey, former CIA Director identified as “IslamoNazi” ideology, may turn out to be the new emissaries carrying the fanatical Wahhabi creed that is bound to advance the MB agenda in the U.S.” (Ibid.).
Ever since the MB was disbanded in 1948 by the Egyptian monarchy which led to the assassination of its Prime Minister and in return Al Banna, the founder of this organisation was also assassinated in 1949, it has been in the news of international concern. But in 1954 when Gamal Abdel Naseer became president of Egypt in 1954 after plotting a bloodless coup against the monarchy and gained immense popularity by heralding a new period of modernization and socialist reforms in his country, he cracked down on the MB activists due to their suspected attempt on his assassination. As a result thousands of their members fled to neighbouring countries including Saudi Arabia.
Since then the Saudi King used them against Nasser and "nasserism" and also funded them for an independent faculty in the Islamic University in Medina. Thus with financial support from Saudi Kingdom, it emerged as an Islamist force for chalking out a Jihadi strategy against the "infidels". It thus became an organization of international concern due to its global network and close connections with various violent Jihadi groups like al-Jihad and al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya in Egypt, HAMAS in Palestine and Islamist terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. Gradually, with its branches in over 70 countries of the world, including: Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Indonesia, Philippines, Britain, Switzerland, Lebanon, Pakistan, Morocco, France, India, Jordan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and the United States and many radical Islamist organizations like Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and Students Islamic Movement of India and Islamic Chhatra Shibir of Bangladesh also.
The MB has not only made a visible dent in Muslim world but also become a known organization of International concern.. Even Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in an interview re-iterated the slogan of MB saying “Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers” (Pioneer dated December 6, 2009).
Although, MB is a banned organization in Egypt its members have been contesting election as independent candidates. In 2005 Parliamentary election it secured 88 seats and was the largest opposition bloc. Even though it could get only one of its members elected to the parliament in last election in November 2010 ( it is now openly admitted that it was a rigged one) its demand for a fresh election suggests that it is confident to exploit the political, economic and social unrest and use its wide net work of madrasas and other social fronts to be a spring board for asserting control in formation of a possible new government and would try to impose its brand totalitarian ideology.
MB’s move to instruct the people for organising demonstrations without taking the leadership even in Alexandria where it has a sound base, reveals that its tactical low profile is a part of Islamist strategy. Being in opposition since Egypt had its revolution in 1952; it has made a visible political space in the country. Although, it claims to be a non-violent organisation, its involvement in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel and also in several attempts to assassinate Mubarak proves otherwise. It may be mentioned that top Al Qaeda leaders namely Osama bin Laden and his deputy Zawahiri started their Islamist career in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Thus beginning with Tunisia toppling its dictatorial regime and its likely repetition in Egypt, there are clear signals that the enraged Arab youths may fall in the trap of Islamists as they do not have any nationally accepted leader leading their uprising. In case this radical Islamist political group succeeds in holding the key in formation of next government in Egypt, the most powerful Arab state, it could play a pro-active role in transforming the entire Middle East into an Islamist controlled region as power in its hand would accelerate the growing instability in many other Islamic countries where Muslim Brotherhood has a wide network.
Against the backdrop of the violent activities of this longest lasting and best organized 83-year old opposition group in Egypt which believes in Islamism as the only solution to the problem of people, it is difficult to understand whether it will co-operate for the desired change. The question arises that even if a new government is established; will Islamism be the solution to poverty, price rise, unemployment, gender equality, ethnic and regional quarrel and miseries of common people?
The disorder resulting from the sudden spurt of political activism against the thirty year rule of Mubarak might have shown a sense of Egyptian national unity but in the absence of any nationally accepted leader believing in democracy and secularism, (except for Al Baradei) it is difficult to understand whether the uprising led by people of different persuasions from leftists to Islamists will be able to meet the democratic aspirations of the people of this country. People expecting a change for the better should therefore be cautious lest the power from one dictatorial and dynastic regime is not shifted to another dictatorial and authoritarian Islamist regime. Violence is central to the history and culture of such groups and therefore if the mosque and state are allowed to have an alliance to run the new government the whole exercise will be futile.
(The author can be reached at e-mail ramashray60@rediffmail.com)
February 07, 2011
Balochistan International Conference 2011, Washington, DC. USA
http://www.bso-na.org/2011/Feb/003.html
Baloch Society of North America is going to organize a one-day international conference on Balochistan on Saturday April 30th, 2011 in Washington DC.
The conference will focus on the following Agenda:
* Balochistan’s Case and prospects
* Human Right Violations in Balochistan
* Baloch IDPs and disappearances
* Baloch Target Killings and Genocide
* BALOCHISTAN: The geostrategic importance for Peace and Security in South Asia
HH Khan of Kalat will be the chief guest while the international law experts, eminent scholars and analysts from all over the world are being invited to take part in the deliberations and examine Baloch options. Please mark your calendar for
Saturday April 30th, 2011 for this historic event.. >> More
Where: Carnegie Endowment for Int'l Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel:
To join please click here >>> J\oin BSO-NA
To learn more, please visit, http://www.bso-na.org
Baloch Society Of North America (BSO-NA)
1629 K Street NW, Suit 300, Washington D.C 20036 USA
Tel: (202) 349-1682 , Fax: (202) 331-3759
E-mail: Contact@bso-na.org
CORRUPTION: After 2G, Isro’s S-band scam rattles Govt
February 08, 2011 9:05:16 AM
PNS | New Delhi
CAG REPORT
http://www.dailypioneer.com/316288/After-2G-Isro%E2%80%99s-S-band-scam-rattles-Govt.html
Worth Rs 2 lakh cr, latest racket leads straight to PM
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday found himself in the line of Opposition’s fire as a new ‘spectrum scam’ threatened to create fresh trouble for the embattled UPA Government.
The target has shifted from former Telecom Minister A Raja to the Prime Minister following a news report quoting the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India’s preliminary findings that the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) — under the Department of Space which is headed by Manmohan Singh — allotted huge spectrum to a private operator, Devas Multimedia, at throwaway prices without going through any bidding process. Devas is owned by MG Chandrasekhar, a former scientific secretary at Isro.
Pegging the State exchequer’s loss to the tune of `2 lakh crore, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has asked Singh to clarify his stand on this deal. “Recently, BSNL and MTNL were allotted only 20 MHz for `12,487 crore. But for allocation of 70 MHz to this private operator, the Government is charging only `1,000 crore,” BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman told newspersons here on Monday.
The BJP also demanded that the agreement be nullified, spectrum recovered and a comprehensive inquiry conducted to establish criminality. “This whole affair is vitiated by fraud… As a result, this country is facing not only loss of revenue but frittering away valuable national asset,” Sitharaman added.
Terming the revelations “very serious”, the Left parties demanded a thorough investigation into the “new scam”. CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury said, “This is a new issue. The Isro is under the Department of Space, which is under the (charge of) Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh). This is a new scam.”
CPI national secretary D Raja said the new revelations were “very serious”, a view echoed by senior RSP leader Abani Roy, who demanded a JPC into the matter.
Meanwhile, the BJP also questioned the manner in which the spectrum was allocated without bringing the issue into the public domain. “This is the first time that the allocation for this band has taken place. It is a very unique band which relates to a very high MHz frequency. And this allocation was made very quietly, without any public auction or bringing it in public domain and given to a private operator,” Sitharaman said.
The BJP leader pointed out that only 190 MHz of S-band was available. Of this, 150 MHz is with the Department of Space, of which 70 MHz was allotted to Devas Multimedia.
Drawing a comparison between values of different spectrum, Sitharaman said, “The 2G spectrum is much inferior. But 2G spectrum related to only 4.4 MHz. CAG said the loss was `1.76 lakh crore. The 3G is 50 MHz. Here due to pressure from the media and public, it went for auction. And the Government’s earning in this case was `67,719 crore,” Sitharaman said.
Meanwhile, ISRO sought to clarify that the matter was being reviewed by the Department of Space and a decision in the matter was likely to be taken soon. “The CAG has already clarified in a statement on Monday that the audit of the Department of Space is under way and that only preliminary queries have been raised on the matter. These will be replied to by the Department of Space,” Isro stated on Monday.
“However,” it added, “The department wishes to clarify that the agreement entered into by Antrix, the commercial arm of Isro, and Devas on January 28, 2005, is already under review by the Department of Space … The Government will take whatever steps are necessary to safeguard public interest. A decision on the matter is likely to be taken soon.”
Sport and Politics - Sometimes a Good Mix
The English outcry at FIFA's decision to award the World Cup to Russia and Qatar has obscured what might be a brilliant gesture of goodwill.
By Gerard DeGroot for ISN Insights
Nearly forty years ago, Glenn Cowan boarded a bus and changed the world. Cowan was an ordinary American teenager; his only distinguishing feature was his passion for ping-pong, at which he was world class. In April 1971, during the world championships in Japan, he mistakenly got on a bus meant for the Chinese team and immediately started talking to his idols. That put the Chinese in a difficult position. Since the communist revolution of 1949, there had been an embargo on civility between the US and China. The Americans pretended that the People's Republic did not exist, while the Chinese considered America the epitome of capitalist evil. In truth, both sides wanted a normalization of relations. Neither, however, could figure out how to pry open a jammed door. Then came Cowan.
When Zhuang Zedong, captain of the Chinese team, met Cowan's gesture with Confucian civility, not Maoist aloofness, that door swung open. "Never before in history has a sport been used so effectively as a tool of international diplomacy", the Chinese premier Zhou Enlai later remarked. Within a week, the American team was touring China, followed everywhere by the world's press. That visit prompted Mao to invite President Richard Nixon to China. Full normalization was a long and rigorous process, but the most difficult problem was accidentally solved at the very beginning by Cowan. As Zhou remarked, "a ball bounced over the net and the whole world was shocked. The big globe was set in motion by a tiny globe - something inexplicable in physics but not impossible in politics."
Sport - a common language
Cowan's actions reveal the power of sport as a universal language. Sport allows ordinary people to engage with one another in an environment free from the antagonisms fostered by their governments. On neutral ground - the playing field or ping-pong table - they find a commonality. What Cowan and Zhuang discovered, and their respective countrymen enjoyed vicariously, was that the passions they shared outweighed the suspicions that divided them. Their governments then took guidance from that lesson.
Journalists and politicians are fond of the cliché that ' politics and sport do not mix'. But history suggests otherwise. Olympics games have always been political and became overtly so during the Cold War. European football closely mirrors political, religious and ethnic rivalries on the continent. But commentators too often concentrate on the negative ramifications when sport and politics intersect, ignoring the much more common benefits. Jackie Robinson, the first black player in baseball, forced Americans to reconsider their racial prejudice, for the simple reason that he was so good at the game. Cathy Freeman, star of the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, had the same effect on her fellow Australians. The football match between Iran and the USA at the 1998 World Cup started as a clash between bitter adversaries, but soon became a lesson in reconciliation.
Corruption or Noble Purpose?
Sepp Blatter, president of football's governing body FIFA, seems to understand the power of sport to foster goodwill. On 10 December 2010, he announced that the 2018 World Cup would go to Russia and the 2022 tournament to Qatar. England, who had presented what they thought was an unassailable bid for the 2018 Cup, reacted to Blatter's decision with unified outrage - and accusations of bribery. The English campaign had been based on a simple axiom: "We invented the game, we deserve the Cup; football should come home." FIFA, however, was not impressed with an argument based on simple entitlement. England came last in the voting.
"It's a fix," screamed The Sun, "A shame for England. A shame for football. And shame on FIFA." A somewhat more sober reporter in The Times said essentially the same thing: "The system of World Cup elections is abysmally corrupt. It is too small, making it easily manipulated, and it is too secret, protecting it from scrutiny." In theIndependent, James Lawton simply concluded: "Damn the World Cup". Consensus of this sort has not been seen in England since the Second World War.
Granted, allegations of bribery have some foundation. Prior to the meeting in Zurich, two FIFA delegates were exposed for trying to sell their votes and FIFA is admittedly not known for its transparency. But the furor that followed Blatter's announcement eclipsed any measured assessment of what FIFA might have been trying to achieve. Allegations about nefarious practices smothered consideration of the idea that noble purpose could have been behind FIFA's decision.
"I really sense in some reactions a bit of the arrogance of the Western world of Christian background", Blatter later remarked. "Some simply can't bear it if others get a chance for a change. What can be wrong if we start football in regions where this sport demonstrates a potential which goes far beyond sport?" He was referring to the way sport can foster international harmony, a concept understood by Zhou, Nixon and Cowan. The French President Nicholas Sarkozy agrees: "I can't agree with people insisting competitions should continually take place in the same old countries, the same old continents. Sport is a global thing, it's Asia, it's Arab countries. And by sport we're going to open the world."
The former French international Marcel Desailly noticed what almost every English commentator missed. The FIFA decision, he feels, was about the healing power of sport: "It's about sharing the power of the World Cup." FIFA, he believes, has a unique opportunity to communicate directly with the people of a nation, rather than their governments. Through this, the people of Russia and Qatar have been told that they belong to a world community based on harmony, not antagonism. By the same token, the rest of the world has been given the opportunity (through watching or attending the World Cup) to discover the realities of Russia and Qatar beyond stereotypes. If football opens the world just a tiny bit, that should be cause for celebration.
As Zhou recognized, a big globe can be "set in motion by a tiny globe".
Last year, the footballing world went to South Africa for the World Cup. Both visitors and hosts were enriched by the experience. We will probably never know precisely what motivated the recent FIFA decision and if corruption indeed played a part. But now the focus should be on the impact of the decision. "Sport opens the mind", says Desailly. As the furor over the selection process demonstrates, England seems the exception to that axiom, but perhaps minds might open in - and toward - Russia and Qatar.
Dr Gerard DeGroot is Professor of Modern History at the University of St Andrews in Scotland and author of The Bomb: A Life.
Coming ME flashpoint: Hizballah faces terror, murder charges at Hariri tribunal
DEBKAfile
Exclusive Report February 7, 2011, 3:00 PM (GMT+02:00)Tags: Hariri tribunal-SLT Hizballah Iran Lebanon Syria
Special Lebanon Tribunal jumps the gun on Hizballah
Special Lebanese Tribunal Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen asked the court to define crimes of terrorism, conspiracy and premeditated murder when the tribunal held its first hearing Monday, Feb. 7. Another of his 15 questions was: Under which law should these definitions be made – Lebanese or international or both?
DEBKAfile's intelligence sources report that within days, Judge Fransen is scheduled to publish indictments based on the findings of Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare's probe of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minster Rafiq Hariri in 2005.
The court's accelerated schedule and the gravity of its charges have caught the primary suspects, big shots of the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, unprepared. They face being convicted as international criminals on charges of terrorism, conspiracy and premeditated murder. There is not much they can do but openly flout the court's expected summons for their extradition by force of arms. With no end of the Egyptian standoff in sight, therefore, a showdown in Lebanon looms large.
The international judges jumped the gun not only for Hizballah but also for its bosses in Damascus and Tehran and even up to a point for Washington, which has supported the court's work but had hoped indictments would not be ready for some months. The last thing the Obama administration needs at this moment is a second Middle East bonfire.
But whether they like it or not, the Special Tribunal got down to its first hearing in Leidschendam near The Hague Monday, Feb. 7. The first session withheld the names of individuals contained in the sealed indictment document Bellemare filed with Fransen on Jan. 17. This and future sessions will be held in public, so the full list of accused may be only be a week or ten days away from release.
This finds the plan carefully crafted by Iran, Syria and Hizballah to make sure that that point was never reached coming apart at the seams: They managed to get rid of pro-Western Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri and replace him with Najib Miqati, friend to Hizballah and Syrian leaders, whose first task was to have been to disqualify the STL, nullify its indictments and sever ties with the tribunal. But their handpicked candidate for prime minister has not managed to form a government because of three obstacles:
1. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman insists he will only endorse a national unity administration, which would necessitate the participation of Saad Hariri's March 14 bloc.
2. Suleiman wants a March 14 candidate – not a Miqati man - appointed Interior Minister to head the most powerful government department which holds the levers of the national domestic security and intelligence services and is authorized to declare a national state of emergency.
3. Miqati is not eager to head a narrow-based government either, because it would expose him as a Syrian-Hizballah rubber stamp and he would be ostracized by the United States and much of the West.
The Iran-Syrian-Hizballah alliance has consequently lost its race to beat the international Hariri tribunal to the draw. The court has not only outpaced Hizballah, it promises landmark decisions on the most incendiary issues of the day, definitions of terrorism and such questions as cumulative charges in cases of conspiracy.
Hizballah may still cast about for a fast worker to take over from Migati and rush a new government through - or, alternatively, exercise force to seize control of Beirut and government institutions and establish an alternative "Free Lebanon" administration to sever ties with the STL.
These options are fraught with the threat of civil violence.
Special Lebanon Tribunal jumps the gun on Hizballah
Special Lebanese Tribunal Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen asked the court to define crimes of terrorism, conspiracy and premeditated murder when the tribunal held its first hearing Monday, Feb. 7. Another of his 15 questions was: Under which law should these definitions be made – Lebanese or international or both?
DEBKAfile's intelligence sources report that within days, Judge Fransen is scheduled to publish indictments based on the findings of Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare's probe of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minster Rafiq Hariri in 2005.
The court's accelerated schedule and the gravity of its charges have caught the primary suspects, big shots of the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, unprepared. They face being convicted as international criminals on charges of terrorism, conspiracy and premeditated murder. There is not much they can do but openly flout the court's expected summons for their extradition by force of arms. With no end of the Egyptian standoff in sight, therefore, a showdown in Lebanon looms large.
The international judges jumped the gun not only for Hizballah but also for its bosses in Damascus and Tehran and even up to a point for Washington, which has supported the court's work but had hoped indictments would not be ready for some months. The last thing the Obama administration needs at this moment is a second Middle East bonfire.
But whether they like it or not, the Special Tribunal got down to its first hearing in Leidschendam near The Hague Monday, Feb. 7. The first session withheld the names of individuals contained in the sealed indictment document Bellemare filed with Fransen on Jan. 17. This and future sessions will be held in public, so the full list of accused may be only be a week or ten days away from release.
This finds the plan carefully crafted by Iran, Syria and Hizballah to make sure that that point was never reached coming apart at the seams: They managed to get rid of pro-Western Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri and replace him with Najib Miqati, friend to Hizballah and Syrian leaders, whose first task was to have been to disqualify the STL, nullify its indictments and sever ties with the tribunal. But their handpicked candidate for prime minister has not managed to form a government because of three obstacles:
1. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman insists he will only endorse a national unity administration, which would necessitate the participation of Saad Hariri's March 14 bloc.
2. Suleiman wants a March 14 candidate – not a Miqati man - appointed Interior Minister to head the most powerful government department which holds the levers of the national domestic security and intelligence services and is authorized to declare a national state of emergency.
3. Miqati is not eager to head a narrow-based government either, because it would expose him as a Syrian-Hizballah rubber stamp and he would be ostracized by the United States and much of the West.
The Iran-Syrian-Hizballah alliance has consequently lost its race to beat the international Hariri tribunal to the draw. The court has not only outpaced Hizballah, it promises landmark decisions on the most incendiary issues of the day, definitions of terrorism and such questions as cumulative charges in cases of conspiracy.
Hizballah may still cast about for a fast worker to take over from Migati and rush a new government through - or, alternatively, exercise force to seize control of Beirut and government institutions and establish an alternative "Free Lebanon" administration to sever ties with the STL.
These options are fraught with the threat of civil violence.
Tribute to Shri. K.Subrahmanyam
By Shyamala B. Cowsik, IFS (Retd.)
Fmr Member, National Security Advisory Board
A very warm, perceptive and moving tribute to a great visionary who belongs to that very rare breed, those who are irreplaceable. What I liked above all in it is the wonderful summing up of Shri. K, Subrahmanyam's overall national strategic mantra:the single-minded advocacy of national power not devoid of principle. If only we could get the powers that be to desist from the knee-jerk reactions and general bent towards soft options that complicate our foreign policy these days, whether toward Pakistan or the US or China or elsewhere, we could manage our innumerable problems much better.
Though not all of us have had the good luck of having been closely associated with Shri. K. Subrahmanyam as Cde. Uday Bhaskar has had, many of us have fond memories of him. My own favourite is of watching him, in 1980, at a special round table that I, then First Secretary (Political) in our Embassy in Washington, had organised for him at Brookings, take Richard Haas apart, gently but comprehensively. He could always remember and cite some long past example of American hypocrisy and/ or perfidy to stump their later attempts at sanctimonious preaching to us. But he never lost sight of the national interest or let his personal exasperations cloud his assessment of our best policy options, whence his whole-hearted support of the India-US rapprochement during the Bush years, and of the nuclear deal as well.
I am sure that he is now busy, in Heaven, analysing the likely post-Mubarak scenario and its implications for India, the Arabs, and the rest of the world. I wish, so much, that he could share it with us.
Shyamala B. Cowsik, IFS (Retd.)
Fmr Member, National Security Advisory Board
K Subrahmanyam: A gentleman Brahmin
It's a strange paradox of life that sometimes when someone who agrees with you dies, you shrug in sadness, but when an opponent you have disagreed with passes away, you want to salute him. For someone raised in the alternative tradition of pluralism and peace, K Subrahmanyam was the opponent. He literally founded defence studies in India, differentiated it from international relations, gave it an identity and a different competence.
I never knew him but I loved hearing stories about him from colleagues, relatives and friends. One was from an Indian Civil Service officer in my college days. The gentleman, fondly called 'Annaji', had retired from service and was still known for his alertness and curiosity. One day, almost nostalgically, he said, "Wonder what happened to a young man I knew. He did chemistry I think. Subbu. He is the one to watch. He will go far." I think the comments were prescient because Subrahmanyam became one of the great policy intellectuals of our era.
When one mentions the word policy intellectual, one thinks of PC Mahalanobis, Sukhamoy Chakravarti, Pitamber Pant or MS Swaminathan. Subrahmanyam stands tall even in this tribe. He took the idea of defence and rescued it from illiteracy and panic after the 1962 China defeat.
At that time, I worked at the Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), which was vociferous in its critique of him. My senior colleagues tried to create a sociological picture of him. They argued he was like all displaced Tamil Brahmins: having no power in Chennai, the Tamil Brahmin was the source of a hawkish ideology. As a generalisation, it was true, even insightful. But Subrahmanyam, for all his nationalism, escaped such stereotypes. Like my senior colleagues at the CSDS such as Rajni Kothari, Ashis Nandy and Giri Deshingkar, KS understood power. And like them, he was never seduced by power. But the former critiqued policy, KS made it. Subrahmanyam stood at the centre of power as an immaculate maverick. He was never tempted by it. He never fetishised it. He could dissent with equal ease as he did during the Emergency.
He could stand up quietly for his ideas. In that sense, he was a presence without being a performance. He was a strategist in all senses, but tactical enough to realise when change was essential. He was a patriot who lived out the travails of the Indian Nation-State at its most vulnerable moments. He was neither overtly left or right. What made him maddening was that he was utterly matter of fact about it. He played caretaker and trustee of defence policy and created, at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), the nursery for independent and autonomous ideas about defence. He was the ideal policy intellectual as a role model, and yet unique enough to deny imitations.
My former colleague and a leading China hand, the late Giri Deshingkar, was constructed as an intellectual foil to
KS. Yet, two stories I heard from Giri best capture KS. Giri was a creature of habit. He worked hard the whole day needing his drink at six in the evening. One day I saw him hurrying out at five. "Where are you going?" I asked. "Subbu's son is getting married I have to be there," adding, "Subbu, he is one of us." It was a tribute to an adversary as a friend.
On August 24, 1984, the Indian Airlines plane was hijacked to Lahore and onward to Dubai. I walked into Giri's corner room soon after and found him reading Subrahmanyam's hijack diaries marking its key points. "What a man," said Giri. "He gets hijacked and produces a meticulous diary while everyone produces complaints. It's the Brahmin in him... Subbu was never an opportunist. But look at the opportunism of the man. He sees the hijack as a learning experience!"
Deshingkar saw 'KS the Brahmin' as a hero. This was a sense of the Brahminic not as a caste orientation or in the sense of ritual or status. It was the Brahmin as advisor to kings: learned, scholarly, true to the mandarin code, yet distant from the seduction of power, austere, productive almost as a form of everyday discipline, prolific beyond 60 where the word retirement was an epithet for lesser mortals.
I must confess that for a peacenik and an anti-nuclear activist like me, Subrahmanyam was anathema. I felt the KS who talked peace had no sense of peace movements. I could not understand his pro-nuclear stand and my ambivalence to the man stemmed from this. I felt he was separating the ethical and the tactical. I guess he probably felt there was a touch of romance about people like me. He was probably more aware of India's vulnerability in an age that produced the genocidal impulse of a Kissinger or the epidemic of terrorism. Yet KS was always the hawk who advised nuclear restraint; a discourse that sees the Nation-State as vulnerable allows little focus for civil society views of vulnerability.
I remember during the heyday of the United Nations University projects on militarisation and demilitarisation, Rajni Kothari asked me to take over the little magazine on militarisation and demilitarisation in Asia. He jokingly added that he was setting up one 'Tam-Brahm' to fight another. There was no prejudice in what Kothari said. It was a challenge to civil society views of peace to meet the standards of integrity that KS had set. Even in his absence, he was a presence. Even as an opponent, KS almost became the muse.
KS died fighting cancer. I am sure if he had time he might have produced a systematic book on that too. But I guess the nation kept him absorbed. He towered over other hawks because of his vision and his professionalism. Yet deep down he represented a style of Brahmin scholar-bureaucrats. One will always miss him for the austerity, the inventiveness and the integrity he brought to public life.
Shiv Visvanathan is a social scientist. The views expressed by the author are personal.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/659334.aspx
I never knew him but I loved hearing stories about him from colleagues, relatives and friends. One was from an Indian Civil Service officer in my college days. The gentleman, fondly called 'Annaji', had retired from service and was still known for his alertness and curiosity. One day, almost nostalgically, he said, "Wonder what happened to a young man I knew. He did chemistry I think. Subbu. He is the one to watch. He will go far." I think the comments were prescient because Subrahmanyam became one of the great policy intellectuals of our era.
When one mentions the word policy intellectual, one thinks of PC Mahalanobis, Sukhamoy Chakravarti, Pitamber Pant or MS Swaminathan. Subrahmanyam stands tall even in this tribe. He took the idea of defence and rescued it from illiteracy and panic after the 1962 China defeat.
At that time, I worked at the Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), which was vociferous in its critique of him. My senior colleagues tried to create a sociological picture of him. They argued he was like all displaced Tamil Brahmins: having no power in Chennai, the Tamil Brahmin was the source of a hawkish ideology. As a generalisation, it was true, even insightful. But Subrahmanyam, for all his nationalism, escaped such stereotypes. Like my senior colleagues at the CSDS such as Rajni Kothari, Ashis Nandy and Giri Deshingkar, KS understood power. And like them, he was never seduced by power. But the former critiqued policy, KS made it. Subrahmanyam stood at the centre of power as an immaculate maverick. He was never tempted by it. He never fetishised it. He could dissent with equal ease as he did during the Emergency.
He could stand up quietly for his ideas. In that sense, he was a presence without being a performance. He was a strategist in all senses, but tactical enough to realise when change was essential. He was a patriot who lived out the travails of the Indian Nation-State at its most vulnerable moments. He was neither overtly left or right. What made him maddening was that he was utterly matter of fact about it. He played caretaker and trustee of defence policy and created, at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), the nursery for independent and autonomous ideas about defence. He was the ideal policy intellectual as a role model, and yet unique enough to deny imitations.
My former colleague and a leading China hand, the late Giri Deshingkar, was constructed as an intellectual foil to
KS. Yet, two stories I heard from Giri best capture KS. Giri was a creature of habit. He worked hard the whole day needing his drink at six in the evening. One day I saw him hurrying out at five. "Where are you going?" I asked. "Subbu's son is getting married I have to be there," adding, "Subbu, he is one of us." It was a tribute to an adversary as a friend.
On August 24, 1984, the Indian Airlines plane was hijacked to Lahore and onward to Dubai. I walked into Giri's corner room soon after and found him reading Subrahmanyam's hijack diaries marking its key points. "What a man," said Giri. "He gets hijacked and produces a meticulous diary while everyone produces complaints. It's the Brahmin in him... Subbu was never an opportunist. But look at the opportunism of the man. He sees the hijack as a learning experience!"
Deshingkar saw 'KS the Brahmin' as a hero. This was a sense of the Brahminic not as a caste orientation or in the sense of ritual or status. It was the Brahmin as advisor to kings: learned, scholarly, true to the mandarin code, yet distant from the seduction of power, austere, productive almost as a form of everyday discipline, prolific beyond 60 where the word retirement was an epithet for lesser mortals.
I must confess that for a peacenik and an anti-nuclear activist like me, Subrahmanyam was anathema. I felt the KS who talked peace had no sense of peace movements. I could not understand his pro-nuclear stand and my ambivalence to the man stemmed from this. I felt he was separating the ethical and the tactical. I guess he probably felt there was a touch of romance about people like me. He was probably more aware of India's vulnerability in an age that produced the genocidal impulse of a Kissinger or the epidemic of terrorism. Yet KS was always the hawk who advised nuclear restraint; a discourse that sees the Nation-State as vulnerable allows little focus for civil society views of vulnerability.
I remember during the heyday of the United Nations University projects on militarisation and demilitarisation, Rajni Kothari asked me to take over the little magazine on militarisation and demilitarisation in Asia. He jokingly added that he was setting up one 'Tam-Brahm' to fight another. There was no prejudice in what Kothari said. It was a challenge to civil society views of peace to meet the standards of integrity that KS had set. Even in his absence, he was a presence. Even as an opponent, KS almost became the muse.
KS died fighting cancer. I am sure if he had time he might have produced a systematic book on that too. But I guess the nation kept him absorbed. He towered over other hawks because of his vision and his professionalism. Yet deep down he represented a style of Brahmin scholar-bureaucrats. One will always miss him for the austerity, the inventiveness and the integrity he brought to public life.
Shiv Visvanathan is a social scientist. The views expressed by the author are personal.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/659334.aspx
Warning: Security perils for India on road ahead
http://www.rediff.com/news/column/warning-security-perils-for-india-on-road-ahead/20110125.htm
As India [ Images ] approaches the end of the 60th year as a republic, bad news seems to be coming in an avalanche.
The neighbourhood is in turmoil as even the President and prime minister of our western neighbour seek 'foreign' bodyguards. If ever there was a sign that radical forces like the Taliban [ Images ] are about to come to power there, this is it. With Wikileaks threatening to reveal the names of Swiss bank account holders, there is panic in the political class. Thus the external and internal crisis seem to be coming together to create a crisis that may well endanger the existence of our country.
The Indian nation is likely to be in peril in the coming decade. Will India survive this turbulence unscathed? With all my patriotic instincts in tact, the unfortunate answer to this loaded question is may be!
Readers bombarded with the recent endorsement of 'Brand India' by the high and mighty nations of the world, with President Barack Obama [ Images ] declaring that India has already emerged as a superpower, may wonder and even question the author's sanity.
This apparent Indian smugness and inability to see the gathering clouds on the security horizon, is at the heart of the dire prediction about India. But to uncover the looming danger to the nation's security in the coming decade, a brief look at the decade that is about to end is necessary. For the seeds of our possible misfortune lie in the events and policies of the past ten years.
India has long cherished a myth that there is something 'special' in Indian civilisation that has ensured that it has survived. Mohammed Iqbal, the poet, gave expression to this by saying that there is something special in us that guarantees our existence as a nation. Realistically speaking, the 7,000-year-old Indian civilisation owes its continued existence to accidents of history.
A navigational error led Columbus to America and Europeans hordes destroyed Red Indians instead of brown Indians. In the middle ages rulers like Aurangzeb embarked on a sincere mission to destroy Indian civilisation but the limitations of technology of killing (no machine guns and no nuclear weapons thwarted his ambition and Chhatrapati Shivaji led the Marathas in a un-Indian like resistance). Today the 'intent' of our adversaries remains the same and modern technology has given them the tools to achieve it.
The closing decade can well be called a dismal decade as far security is concerned. The attack on Parliament in 2001, co-ordinated bomb blasts in Delhi [ Images ]/Jaipur [ Images ]/Ahmedabad [ Images ]/Varanasi and two horrific attacks on Mumbai [ Images ] (the 2006 train blasts and 2008 armed attack on the metropolis), all had direct or indirect connection to Pakistan.
In 2001 in response to the attack on Parliament, India mobilised its armed forces and threatened all out war, but retreated. In case of the Mumbai attack of 2008, again we took no action. The lack of action in 2008 was all the more surprising as since 2001 India has been working on an appropriate response for precisely such an event.
The obvious conclusion is that we lack the necessary military superiority to carry out our threats. Even more worrying, leaks emerged that Pakistan is engaged in furiously increasing its nuclear arsenal -- at a pace fastest ever in world history.
To counter this we seem to be at a loss. The closing year saw multiple failures of the Agni missile tests. Even our space programme (of dual use) also had a string of failures. With loss of satellites to monitor our adversaries we will be at a distinct disadvantage. The sum of it all is that Pakistan has a distinct impression that it has overtaken us in nuclear and missile fields. There is an ever present danger that this would encourage adventurism.
Indian emphasis right from independence has been on economic development and minimal expenditure on security. But in the last six years of the United Progressive Alliance [ Images ] rule the obsession with GDP growth has been marked with neglect of defence.
Defence and development are like two legs, if one remains too far back the person/nation falls. But even more worrisome is the directionless-ness that one witnessed in the near fiasco of the Commonwealth Games [ Images ]! Here was an international event in which the nation had invested its prestige, yet the government only woke up when the foreign media highlighted the shoddy preparations.
In a typical knee-jerk reaction, last minute efforts were made to rectify the situation with the prime minister, no less, inspecting the Games Village! Is this also trend in our defence preparedness? The memories of how a bunch of ten desperados held Mumbai to ransom for 60 hours are still fresh.
Some months ago a leading national newspaper reported that the top bureaucrats (home, foreign and cabinet secretary), three service chiefs and directors of IB and RAW have decided to meet over lunch every month to informally sort out the inter-departmental issues. This ought to have caused a huge embarrassment and a public furore. It obviously means that the Prime Minister's Office whose job this is; is not functioning.
We have been lucky so far that the terrorists have targeted mainly humans. What if the terrorists were to change their strategy and attack dams, industrial, chemical or nuclear establishments? Do we still sit back and 'investigate' the crime and then go to the superpowers with our complaint. This is something that may well happen in the coming year.
It is well neigh impossible to protect every dam, refinery, chemical plant or other industrial centres, many of them in the private sector. If the terrorists decide to adopt this strategy, they will cause much more damage in terms of lives as well as economic costs.
The year 2011 is likely to see great turmoil in South Asia. The impending American withdrawal from Afghanistan, heightened Taliban activity in Pakistan, uncertainty in Iran, tensions on the Korean peninsula!
The next two years are likely to see China jockeying for power in wake of American withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is already making its ground by claiming Arunachal Pradesh and upping the ante on Kashmir [ Images ]. It should be clear to India by now that what we face from Pakistan is in reality a Chinese proxy threat. Are we ready to counter this?
It must be acknowledged that many of us, including this author have been wrong in predicting the demise of Pakistan. The negativity in Pakistan is so strong that it will continue to survive. It is India that is unprepared that is in danger of major setback. Add to this the efforts of politicians to deepen the fissures (classic divide and rule), a coherent national response to threat is missing.
On 1962 Sino-Indian border clash, there was one very intriguing question -- why did the Chinese attack in October 1962? After all the tensions had been brewing since 1959, but why 1962? Even a detailed study of the (still top secret) Henderson Brooks Report (external link) gave no clue.
Militarily starting a war in October made no sense -- in less than one month the Himalayan passes were to close due to snow -- exposing the troops to grave danger of being cutoff from logistic bases in Tibet [ Images ]. What is it that triggered the war at that moment? This author helped establish a clear link between the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the Chinese attack. Sample this: On September 19, 1962, the first rumblings of Cuban crisis and China attacks Dhola post. October 20, 1962: US orders naval blockade of Cuba and China launches attack on India. November 20, 1962 Cuban missile crisis is over after the Soviet Union agrees to withdraw missiles and the Chinese declare a unilateral ceasefire on November 21 and halt their advance. Are we looking at 1962 like situation again?
The greatest worry is however that larger public and leadership is unaware of the looming danger. You could clean the Games Village at the last minute, but how are we going to rustle up the required military strength when already under attack.
The nightmare scenario when brand new 7.62 self loading rifles in crates were dropped for the soldiers at Dirang Zong (Arunachal Pradesh) on November 14 in 1962 when the Chinese were a few kilometres away comes to mind. Have we learnt nothing from 1962?
Colonel Anil Athale (retd) is co-ordinator of Initiative for Peace, Arms-control & Disarmament, former head of War Studies Division of the Ministry of Defence and Shivaji Fellow of the United Services Institution.
Colonel Anil Athale (retd)
As India [ Images ] approaches the end of the 60th year as a republic, bad news seems to be coming in an avalanche.
The neighbourhood is in turmoil as even the President and prime minister of our western neighbour seek 'foreign' bodyguards. If ever there was a sign that radical forces like the Taliban [ Images ] are about to come to power there, this is it. With Wikileaks threatening to reveal the names of Swiss bank account holders, there is panic in the political class. Thus the external and internal crisis seem to be coming together to create a crisis that may well endanger the existence of our country.
The Indian nation is likely to be in peril in the coming decade. Will India survive this turbulence unscathed? With all my patriotic instincts in tact, the unfortunate answer to this loaded question is may be!
Readers bombarded with the recent endorsement of 'Brand India' by the high and mighty nations of the world, with President Barack Obama [ Images ] declaring that India has already emerged as a superpower, may wonder and even question the author's sanity.
This apparent Indian smugness and inability to see the gathering clouds on the security horizon, is at the heart of the dire prediction about India. But to uncover the looming danger to the nation's security in the coming decade, a brief look at the decade that is about to end is necessary. For the seeds of our possible misfortune lie in the events and policies of the past ten years.
India has long cherished a myth that there is something 'special' in Indian civilisation that has ensured that it has survived. Mohammed Iqbal, the poet, gave expression to this by saying that there is something special in us that guarantees our existence as a nation. Realistically speaking, the 7,000-year-old Indian civilisation owes its continued existence to accidents of history.
A navigational error led Columbus to America and Europeans hordes destroyed Red Indians instead of brown Indians. In the middle ages rulers like Aurangzeb embarked on a sincere mission to destroy Indian civilisation but the limitations of technology of killing (no machine guns and no nuclear weapons thwarted his ambition and Chhatrapati Shivaji led the Marathas in a un-Indian like resistance). Today the 'intent' of our adversaries remains the same and modern technology has given them the tools to achieve it.
The closing decade can well be called a dismal decade as far security is concerned. The attack on Parliament in 2001, co-ordinated bomb blasts in Delhi [ Images ]/Jaipur [ Images ]/Ahmedabad [ Images ]/Varanasi and two horrific attacks on Mumbai [ Images ] (the 2006 train blasts and 2008 armed attack on the metropolis), all had direct or indirect connection to Pakistan.
In 2001 in response to the attack on Parliament, India mobilised its armed forces and threatened all out war, but retreated. In case of the Mumbai attack of 2008, again we took no action. The lack of action in 2008 was all the more surprising as since 2001 India has been working on an appropriate response for precisely such an event.
The obvious conclusion is that we lack the necessary military superiority to carry out our threats. Even more worrying, leaks emerged that Pakistan is engaged in furiously increasing its nuclear arsenal -- at a pace fastest ever in world history.
To counter this we seem to be at a loss. The closing year saw multiple failures of the Agni missile tests. Even our space programme (of dual use) also had a string of failures. With loss of satellites to monitor our adversaries we will be at a distinct disadvantage. The sum of it all is that Pakistan has a distinct impression that it has overtaken us in nuclear and missile fields. There is an ever present danger that this would encourage adventurism.
Indian emphasis right from independence has been on economic development and minimal expenditure on security. But in the last six years of the United Progressive Alliance [ Images ] rule the obsession with GDP growth has been marked with neglect of defence.
Defence and development are like two legs, if one remains too far back the person/nation falls. But even more worrisome is the directionless-ness that one witnessed in the near fiasco of the Commonwealth Games [ Images ]! Here was an international event in which the nation had invested its prestige, yet the government only woke up when the foreign media highlighted the shoddy preparations.
In a typical knee-jerk reaction, last minute efforts were made to rectify the situation with the prime minister, no less, inspecting the Games Village! Is this also trend in our defence preparedness? The memories of how a bunch of ten desperados held Mumbai to ransom for 60 hours are still fresh.
Some months ago a leading national newspaper reported that the top bureaucrats (home, foreign and cabinet secretary), three service chiefs and directors of IB and RAW have decided to meet over lunch every month to informally sort out the inter-departmental issues. This ought to have caused a huge embarrassment and a public furore. It obviously means that the Prime Minister's Office whose job this is; is not functioning.
We have been lucky so far that the terrorists have targeted mainly humans. What if the terrorists were to change their strategy and attack dams, industrial, chemical or nuclear establishments? Do we still sit back and 'investigate' the crime and then go to the superpowers with our complaint. This is something that may well happen in the coming year.
It is well neigh impossible to protect every dam, refinery, chemical plant or other industrial centres, many of them in the private sector. If the terrorists decide to adopt this strategy, they will cause much more damage in terms of lives as well as economic costs.
The year 2011 is likely to see great turmoil in South Asia. The impending American withdrawal from Afghanistan, heightened Taliban activity in Pakistan, uncertainty in Iran, tensions on the Korean peninsula!
The next two years are likely to see China jockeying for power in wake of American withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is already making its ground by claiming Arunachal Pradesh and upping the ante on Kashmir [ Images ]. It should be clear to India by now that what we face from Pakistan is in reality a Chinese proxy threat. Are we ready to counter this?
It must be acknowledged that many of us, including this author have been wrong in predicting the demise of Pakistan. The negativity in Pakistan is so strong that it will continue to survive. It is India that is unprepared that is in danger of major setback. Add to this the efforts of politicians to deepen the fissures (classic divide and rule), a coherent national response to threat is missing.
On 1962 Sino-Indian border clash, there was one very intriguing question -- why did the Chinese attack in October 1962? After all the tensions had been brewing since 1959, but why 1962? Even a detailed study of the (still top secret) Henderson Brooks Report (external link) gave no clue.
Militarily starting a war in October made no sense -- in less than one month the Himalayan passes were to close due to snow -- exposing the troops to grave danger of being cutoff from logistic bases in Tibet [ Images ]. What is it that triggered the war at that moment? This author helped establish a clear link between the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the Chinese attack. Sample this: On September 19, 1962, the first rumblings of Cuban crisis and China attacks Dhola post. October 20, 1962: US orders naval blockade of Cuba and China launches attack on India. November 20, 1962 Cuban missile crisis is over after the Soviet Union agrees to withdraw missiles and the Chinese declare a unilateral ceasefire on November 21 and halt their advance. Are we looking at 1962 like situation again?
The greatest worry is however that larger public and leadership is unaware of the looming danger. You could clean the Games Village at the last minute, but how are we going to rustle up the required military strength when already under attack.
The nightmare scenario when brand new 7.62 self loading rifles in crates were dropped for the soldiers at Dirang Zong (Arunachal Pradesh) on November 14 in 1962 when the Chinese were a few kilometres away comes to mind. Have we learnt nothing from 1962?
Colonel Anil Athale (retd) is co-ordinator of Initiative for Peace, Arms-control & Disarmament, former head of War Studies Division of the Ministry of Defence and Shivaji Fellow of the United Services Institution.
Colonel Anil Athale (retd)
The New G5
by Dr. Adityanjee
http://cms.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=10512
The G5 nations are sometimes referred to as the P5, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council or the N5 , the members of the five Nuclear Weapons States under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Since the end of the World War II, these five victor nations of the WW-II (US, UK, France, Russia and China) have held sway over the global geo-political issues and the balance of power. The Peoples' Republic of China was excluded from this august club till 1971 when Peoples' Republic of China was allowed to join the P5 in lieu of the Republic of China (Taiwan). To be part of the G5/P5/N5 club is the ultimate honor for a nation-state; to the extent that both UK and France are refusing to vacate their national positions in favor of a common European seat on these bodies despite tremendous decrease in their respective comprehensive national powers.
However, the new G5, in contrast to the above club is nothing to gloat about. Let us introduce the potential members of this new G5. We can start with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Haiti. These PASSH countries constitute the new G5 or the Group of Failed Nations (the GFN) or the Group of Failed States (the GFS). These failed nations are perpetually in crisis, always conducting diplomacy with a begging bowl in one hand and a gun pointed to their head in the other hand. Combined together these nations have received billions of dollars in international aid and yet their voracious appetite for more fiscal aid from the international community is never satisfied. The international aid money goes into a perpetual black hole that sucks everything into it without any shred of evidence of either accountability or progress. Their leaders are corrupt to the core and have stashed billions of dollars of international aid money into foreign accounts. None of them have an effective and functioning government despite several and usually competing pretenders to the throne. The PASSH countries are not able to provide even civic relief services to their citizens in face of natural disasters. The writ of their respective national governments does not last beyond few hundred square miles of the national capitals. Yet they continue to blame other countries for their national sickness.
Except for Haiti, all of them have dallied with Al Qaeda and its mushrooming derivatives in one form or the other in the last three decades. Somalia has Al Shabab, Afghanistan has the Al Qaeda and Taliban, Pakistan has Al Qaeda, Quetta Shura, Paki Taliban, LeT and numerous hydra-headed terrorist outfits that change their names by every one minute. Three of them namely Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan have the unique distinction and honor of playing warm and gracious host to the greatest Houdini of the 21st century whose elusive dis-appearance trick can only be explained by the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of the quantum mechanics. He is somewhere there but no one can find him in the border lands of Jihadistan, the great Osama bin Laden. Some of the PASSH countries have effectively used ethnic cleansing over decades (Pakistan and Afghanistan), while others have participated in genocide or fratricidal tribal warfare (Sudan, Pakistan and Somalia). The PASSH countries are not just the fountainheads of global terrorism; they are the fountainheads of illegal international drug trade, human trafficking and other crimes as well.
Some of these failed states are de facto under continuous secessionist movements or slow partition. Somalia is already de facto partitioned into Somaliland and Somalia; Sudan into southern Sudan and the Arab dominated northern Sudan. Sudan just had the African Union sponsored referendum that will endorse the partition officially. Northern Sudan will still have problems in Darfur region. Pakistan has already divided into Bangladesh and Pakistan in 1971 and is in the middle of another ensuing partition. One would not be surprised as and when Balochistan seceeds from Pakistan. Afghanistan for sake of stability needs to be partitioned into Northern Afghanistan and a new badland of Pashtoonistan if we agree with the thesis propounded by Robert Blackwell. The PASSH countries are decidedly and literally a pain in the rear end of the international community. You just can not ignore them but you do not like them either. The international community is forced to intervene for one reason or the other in these countries on humanitarian grounds or for sake of global security, although they are very touchy about their national sovereignty.
If history is any guide, the geo-political situation in the PASSH countries will not improve and there will be no change in their ways of governance or lack of it. The international community needs to take a long-term view of various intervention strategies to ensure security and safety for the rest of the world. Since the PASSH nations can not eradicate their problems on their own, external intervention is a grim reality, whether their respective governments acknowledge this fact or not. Perhaps, time has come for the UN to recreate the now defunct Trusteeship Council and declare these failed nations as UN protectorates to be governed directly by the UN Trusteeship Council. Perhaps, India, now back in UNSC should float proposals for recreation of the UN Trusteeship Council. No single nation should bear the cost of sustaining these failed nations in this cash-strapped era. The sole remaining superpower is ageing and declining. It is now frugal and fiscally fragile and should not be asked to bear the burden of nation building for these failed states. It is already planning to withdraw from Afghanistan. US intervention in Somalia in the nineties was disastrous. Fiscal burden needs to be redistributed uniformly across the membership of the UN. Let China, Russia, Japan and Saudi Arabia also contribute to the national building costs through the UN Trusteeship Council. Perhaps, under UN supervision, these failed states and their respective NGOs, non-state actors and general populations must be demilitarized and completely de-weaponized. Their nuclear weapons and nuclear programs must be dismantled under the UN and IAEA supervision. Their WMD capabilities need to be capped, rolled back and eventually eliminated to ensure a global community free of terrorism and perpetual threats of nuclear blackmail. That is the most daring challenge for the UN in the second decade of the 21st century. It takes a global village to raise a nation!
5-Feb-2011
http://cms.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=10512
The G5 nations are sometimes referred to as the P5, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council or the N5 , the members of the five Nuclear Weapons States under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Since the end of the World War II, these five victor nations of the WW-II (US, UK, France, Russia and China) have held sway over the global geo-political issues and the balance of power. The Peoples' Republic of China was excluded from this august club till 1971 when Peoples' Republic of China was allowed to join the P5 in lieu of the Republic of China (Taiwan). To be part of the G5/P5/N5 club is the ultimate honor for a nation-state; to the extent that both UK and France are refusing to vacate their national positions in favor of a common European seat on these bodies despite tremendous decrease in their respective comprehensive national powers.
However, the new G5, in contrast to the above club is nothing to gloat about. Let us introduce the potential members of this new G5. We can start with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Haiti. These PASSH countries constitute the new G5 or the Group of Failed Nations (the GFN) or the Group of Failed States (the GFS). These failed nations are perpetually in crisis, always conducting diplomacy with a begging bowl in one hand and a gun pointed to their head in the other hand. Combined together these nations have received billions of dollars in international aid and yet their voracious appetite for more fiscal aid from the international community is never satisfied. The international aid money goes into a perpetual black hole that sucks everything into it without any shred of evidence of either accountability or progress. Their leaders are corrupt to the core and have stashed billions of dollars of international aid money into foreign accounts. None of them have an effective and functioning government despite several and usually competing pretenders to the throne. The PASSH countries are not able to provide even civic relief services to their citizens in face of natural disasters. The writ of their respective national governments does not last beyond few hundred square miles of the national capitals. Yet they continue to blame other countries for their national sickness.
Except for Haiti, all of them have dallied with Al Qaeda and its mushrooming derivatives in one form or the other in the last three decades. Somalia has Al Shabab, Afghanistan has the Al Qaeda and Taliban, Pakistan has Al Qaeda, Quetta Shura, Paki Taliban, LeT and numerous hydra-headed terrorist outfits that change their names by every one minute. Three of them namely Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan have the unique distinction and honor of playing warm and gracious host to the greatest Houdini of the 21st century whose elusive dis-appearance trick can only be explained by the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of the quantum mechanics. He is somewhere there but no one can find him in the border lands of Jihadistan, the great Osama bin Laden. Some of the PASSH countries have effectively used ethnic cleansing over decades (Pakistan and Afghanistan), while others have participated in genocide or fratricidal tribal warfare (Sudan, Pakistan and Somalia). The PASSH countries are not just the fountainheads of global terrorism; they are the fountainheads of illegal international drug trade, human trafficking and other crimes as well.
Some of these failed states are de facto under continuous secessionist movements or slow partition. Somalia is already de facto partitioned into Somaliland and Somalia; Sudan into southern Sudan and the Arab dominated northern Sudan. Sudan just had the African Union sponsored referendum that will endorse the partition officially. Northern Sudan will still have problems in Darfur region. Pakistan has already divided into Bangladesh and Pakistan in 1971 and is in the middle of another ensuing partition. One would not be surprised as and when Balochistan seceeds from Pakistan. Afghanistan for sake of stability needs to be partitioned into Northern Afghanistan and a new badland of Pashtoonistan if we agree with the thesis propounded by Robert Blackwell. The PASSH countries are decidedly and literally a pain in the rear end of the international community. You just can not ignore them but you do not like them either. The international community is forced to intervene for one reason or the other in these countries on humanitarian grounds or for sake of global security, although they are very touchy about their national sovereignty.
If history is any guide, the geo-political situation in the PASSH countries will not improve and there will be no change in their ways of governance or lack of it. The international community needs to take a long-term view of various intervention strategies to ensure security and safety for the rest of the world. Since the PASSH nations can not eradicate their problems on their own, external intervention is a grim reality, whether their respective governments acknowledge this fact or not. Perhaps, time has come for the UN to recreate the now defunct Trusteeship Council and declare these failed nations as UN protectorates to be governed directly by the UN Trusteeship Council. Perhaps, India, now back in UNSC should float proposals for recreation of the UN Trusteeship Council. No single nation should bear the cost of sustaining these failed nations in this cash-strapped era. The sole remaining superpower is ageing and declining. It is now frugal and fiscally fragile and should not be asked to bear the burden of nation building for these failed states. It is already planning to withdraw from Afghanistan. US intervention in Somalia in the nineties was disastrous. Fiscal burden needs to be redistributed uniformly across the membership of the UN. Let China, Russia, Japan and Saudi Arabia also contribute to the national building costs through the UN Trusteeship Council. Perhaps, under UN supervision, these failed states and their respective NGOs, non-state actors and general populations must be demilitarized and completely de-weaponized. Their nuclear weapons and nuclear programs must be dismantled under the UN and IAEA supervision. Their WMD capabilities need to be capped, rolled back and eventually eliminated to ensure a global community free of terrorism and perpetual threats of nuclear blackmail. That is the most daring challenge for the UN in the second decade of the 21st century. It takes a global village to raise a nation!
5-Feb-2011
February 06, 2011
EGYPTIANS WANT RULE OF LAW IN AN ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY, NOT RULE BY CLERICS IN A THEOCRACY : MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
B.RAMAN
The following extracts from two statements issued by Dr.Mohamed Badie, Chairman of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB), on the protest demonstrations since January 25,2011 and from some commentaries on the developments carried by the web site of the MB give an indication of how it views the mass protests and what would be its role in a post-Hosni Mubarak era. The MB projects the mass uprising as a people’s revolution and not an Islamic revolution. It describes the objective of the people’s revolution as a rule of law in an Islamic democracy and not a rule by clerics in a theocracy. It seeks to assure the American people that they have nothing to fear from the success of the revolution. While expressing its readiness to participate in talks to bring about the end of the Mubarak regime, it says it has no desire for political power for itself. It does not want to contest in the elections for a new President. Nor is it interested in joining any interim political set-up. The only demand of a religious nature it makes is that the clerics should have a role in vetting all laws to be passed by the Parliament. It says that what Egypt needs is democracy moulded by historic and sacred values. It points out that the religious faith of the people always plays a role in popular movements even in the US and says one should not worry about any role of the religious faith of the people in the Egyptian revolution.
EXTRACTS
Mubarak should resign immediately if there is to be any constructive dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood. The state of emergency should be abolished and the Shura council and the parliament should be dissolved. They are both illegitimate institutions. The people no longer trust the regime or the ruling party and have had enough of hollow promises and lame speeches. Despite promises that there would be freedom of speech, thugs have taken to the streets attacking peaceful protestors and raiding press and media headquarters in an effort to intimidate the press to prevent coverage. The regime imposes only violence and does not understand the concept of mature and civilised dialogue. Its only solution to the people’s uprising is violence. The MB welcomes dialogue with all political opposition. In fact all groups have agreed on uniting in a call for peaceful political reform that would serve the Egyptians as a whole. The current uprising is not an Islamic Revolution but an Egyptian People’s revolution that included all Egyptians from all sects, religions and political trends. The MB does not seek power and has no intention of nominating any of its members for the presidency or for being part of any interim government.
------- From a statement issued on February 4,2011, by Dr.Mohamed Badie, Chairman of the MB.
2. The January 25 Day of Rage protests have instilled an incredible sense of pride among Egyptians as the world witnesses Egyptians rise from their apathy and fearlessly voice their dissent against a 30-year dictatorial regime. The turnout of over seven million people nationwide on Friday’s Day of Departure will be recorded in history. People continued their call for their most basic rights of living in freedom and dignity, The people have the right to call for the ousting of Mubarak and his corrupt regime. The MB does not seek power and authority nor does it intend to field any of its members for presidency. It welcomes constructive and equal dialogue with all Egypt’s political opposition and respects all sects, demanding that all be treated equally and that the people’s will be unconditionally respected and their demands met. Since the group’s establishment, the MB has worked to achieve comprehensive reform in all fields of political, economic and social development and seeks to restore the people's sovereignty and rights through peaceful strategies. Hence, it is on this note that the MB welcomes open dialogue on the condition that it is genuinely in the best interests of the country and is in accordance with the will of the masses. There should be an outlined agenda and it should be implemented. The people’s and nation’s interests must remain the first and foremost priority. The people are the legitimate decision-makers of their future.
--- Statement of the MB President after the massive demonstrations of February 4.
3.Western analysts and media outlets are deciding whether Egypt 's uprising is a secular demand for democracy, which they would support, or a religious revolution that they believe should be feared and stopped. However, the uprising is complex and if the US is to support the Egyptian people, as it promised, policymakers must first increase their understanding of Egyptian aspirations. The protests are fueled by the Egyptians’ greater sense of self worth and it is based on the people's belief that they should no longer have to endure the daily humiliation of economic and political stagnation. The protesters come from a wide cross section of Egyptian society and they are all demanding justice, calling for Muslim-Christian solidarity. Religiosity is also playing a role in the development and continuance of the demonstrations, just as other uprisings throughout history. Egyptians say that moving toward greater democracy would help Muslims progress, and that attachment to spiritual and moral values would similarly lead to a brighter future. Surveys show that Egyptians prefer democracy over all other forms of government. They also say that religion plays a positive role in politics. The majority of Egyptians wants democracy and sees no contradiction between the change they seek and the timeless values to which they adhere. More than 90 percent of Egyptians say they would guarantee freedom of the press if it were up to them to write a constitution for a new country. Moreover, most Egyptians say they favor nothing more than an advisory role for religious leaders in the crafting of legislation. Egyptians choose democracy informed by sacred values, not theocracy with a democratic veneer. Similarly, from abolitionists to the civil rights movement, American leaders have been inspired by their faith as they pursue justice. Nowadays in the US, many of those who are calling for environmental preservation, an end to torture and eradicating global poverty, are faith leaders as they draw on their ethical traditions and beliefs for the common good. The US is a natural partner to the Egyptian people in their struggle to attain a brighter future because of America 's unique history and struggle for social justice. Surveys have revealed that the majority of Americans and Egyptians believe it is a benefit, not a threat, for Muslims and the West to interact. Although they seek the rule of law, most Egyptians do not support the rule of clerics. US policy makers should not make the mistake of alienating the Egyptian movement by failing to understand its complexities.
---From the MB web site
4.The MB does not and will not accept any efforts at intimidation against any Egyptians. The MB will continue to call for the constitutional rights of men, women, Muslims and Christians alike and for a civil state based on Islamic democracy which respects the freedom of the judiciary, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the media.
—From the MB’s web site
5.A cable of 2007 from the US Embassy in Cairo to the State Department in Washington DC leaked by WikiLeaks said: The US could expect a difficult transition after Mubarak. "Whoever Egypt's next president is, he will inevitably be politically weaker than Mubarak. Among his first priorities will be to cement his position and build popular support. We can thus anticipate that the new President may sound an initial anti-American tone in his public rhetoric in an effort to prove his nationalist bona fides to the Egyptian street." The cable said that any new President will have to bolster his support by reconciling with the banned MB. This is true now that the Egyptians have demanded a say in the matter. The protest is not being fueled by anti-Americanism or radical Islamist sentiments; it's a protest driven by the economic and political needs of Egyptians. Protestors have only showed hostility toward the US because of its longtime support for a tyrannical regime.
Egypt's democracy movement doesn't see the MB as a radical party. "The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places," El Baradei said over the weekend. He called the Brotherhood a conservative group that favors secular democracy and human rights and said that as an integral part of Egyptian society, it would have a place in any inclusive political process. Israel remains a living example of how a people live in fear when they take what is not theirs and it is looking on aghast as its most important friend in the region tumbles while the US does little to save him. Israel cannot count on Egypt's continued cooperation in imposing an economic siege on Gaza, aiming at unseating the territory's Hamas rulers.
The demonstrations show an Arab public looking to take charge of its own affairs, rather than have them determined by international power struggles. Even that, however, suggests turbulent times ahead for American Middle East policies that have little support on Egypt's streets.
----From the MB’s Web site.
6.For the past ten days Egypt has experienced fear of autocracy, euphoria and fear of chaos. Starting off relatively small, the protests started with a few thousand people on January 25, then escalated to a thrilling climax on February 1, when millions of people assembled in Tahrir Square demanding the removal of Hosni Mubarak. After this the demonstrations deteriorated into violence as pro-Mubarak supporters attacked demonstrators. Despite the violent scenes during the week, the developments in Egypt are welcome. A nation that has been downtrodden for too long is now tasting freedom. The Arab world is buzzing with expectation, as ageing autocrats are suddenly looking shaky. The West is juggling stability and democracy and as they struggle to attain balance, the Arab pro-democratic movement appears disturbing. Fearing a vacuum due to a deterioration of Mubarak's regime, the West fears the Muslim Brothers, the anti-Western, anti-Israeli opposition. The US feels it must redouble its efforts to secure a prolonged managed transition by retaining Mubarak or getting someone else like him at the helm. Despite the fears of the US and Israel, the popular call for Mubarak to step down offers the Middle East the best chance for reform in decades. The West has been calling for democracy for years and if they fail to support Egyptians in their quest for democratic rule, the arguments of the US for democracy and human rights elsewhere in the world will fall on deaf ears. Egypt is also juggling; it is choosing between risk and stagnation. The Egyptian protests are not an 'Islamic' uprising, but a mass protest of Muslims against an unjust, autocratic regime. The only 'Islam' shown throughout the scenes of demonstrators was the peaceful behavior, prayer, determination and resolution of a nation. The result of these protests will certainly not be a perfectly formed democracy as it is likely that there will be disorder for some time. But on the plus side, Egypt, though poor, has a sophisticated elite, a well-educated middle class and a strong sense of national pride and these are indicators that Egyptians can pull order out of this chaos. Fear of the Muslim Brotherhood is grossly overdone as they are respected for their piety, discipline and resilience. The Brotherhood grows with history and is constantly evolving. The movement at the present time cannot be equated with its past. Calling for democracy, the voice of the people, free and fair elections, while not nominating any candidate, and having no desire for leadership or even a place in the interim government, the Brotherhood is the level-headed voice in Egypt. The past few weeks have proved that the Brotherhood is an integral part of Egyptian society and if democracy is to flourish in Egypt, the Brotherhood must be given a voice. The alternative to democracy is a dead end. Egypt under Mubarak has been becoming increasingly repressive, leaving 85m people to live under dictatorship, burdened by a corrupt and brutal police force, the suppression of the opposition, and the torture of political prisoners. This was sufficient fuse to light the uprising. Despite the obvious difficulties, even a disorderly democracy could eventually be a rich prize—and not just for Egyptians. If Egypt becomes democratic it could once again be a beacon to the region, answering the conundrum of how to incorporate Islam in Arab democracies. An Egyptian government that speaks for its people might contribute to a settlement with the Palestinians more than authoritarianism ever could. The US has lost much of its credibility in pursuing stability above democracy and it could turn this negative image around by making amends now. As America still has influence with Egypt’s political, business and military elite, it could help speed the transition from autocracy through chaos to a new order and improve its standing in the region.
----From the MB’s web site. (6-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The following extracts from two statements issued by Dr.Mohamed Badie, Chairman of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB), on the protest demonstrations since January 25,2011 and from some commentaries on the developments carried by the web site of the MB give an indication of how it views the mass protests and what would be its role in a post-Hosni Mubarak era. The MB projects the mass uprising as a people’s revolution and not an Islamic revolution. It describes the objective of the people’s revolution as a rule of law in an Islamic democracy and not a rule by clerics in a theocracy. It seeks to assure the American people that they have nothing to fear from the success of the revolution. While expressing its readiness to participate in talks to bring about the end of the Mubarak regime, it says it has no desire for political power for itself. It does not want to contest in the elections for a new President. Nor is it interested in joining any interim political set-up. The only demand of a religious nature it makes is that the clerics should have a role in vetting all laws to be passed by the Parliament. It says that what Egypt needs is democracy moulded by historic and sacred values. It points out that the religious faith of the people always plays a role in popular movements even in the US and says one should not worry about any role of the religious faith of the people in the Egyptian revolution.
EXTRACTS
Mubarak should resign immediately if there is to be any constructive dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood. The state of emergency should be abolished and the Shura council and the parliament should be dissolved. They are both illegitimate institutions. The people no longer trust the regime or the ruling party and have had enough of hollow promises and lame speeches. Despite promises that there would be freedom of speech, thugs have taken to the streets attacking peaceful protestors and raiding press and media headquarters in an effort to intimidate the press to prevent coverage. The regime imposes only violence and does not understand the concept of mature and civilised dialogue. Its only solution to the people’s uprising is violence. The MB welcomes dialogue with all political opposition. In fact all groups have agreed on uniting in a call for peaceful political reform that would serve the Egyptians as a whole. The current uprising is not an Islamic Revolution but an Egyptian People’s revolution that included all Egyptians from all sects, religions and political trends. The MB does not seek power and has no intention of nominating any of its members for the presidency or for being part of any interim government.
------- From a statement issued on February 4,2011, by Dr.Mohamed Badie, Chairman of the MB.
2. The January 25 Day of Rage protests have instilled an incredible sense of pride among Egyptians as the world witnesses Egyptians rise from their apathy and fearlessly voice their dissent against a 30-year dictatorial regime. The turnout of over seven million people nationwide on Friday’s Day of Departure will be recorded in history. People continued their call for their most basic rights of living in freedom and dignity, The people have the right to call for the ousting of Mubarak and his corrupt regime. The MB does not seek power and authority nor does it intend to field any of its members for presidency. It welcomes constructive and equal dialogue with all Egypt’s political opposition and respects all sects, demanding that all be treated equally and that the people’s will be unconditionally respected and their demands met. Since the group’s establishment, the MB has worked to achieve comprehensive reform in all fields of political, economic and social development and seeks to restore the people's sovereignty and rights through peaceful strategies. Hence, it is on this note that the MB welcomes open dialogue on the condition that it is genuinely in the best interests of the country and is in accordance with the will of the masses. There should be an outlined agenda and it should be implemented. The people’s and nation’s interests must remain the first and foremost priority. The people are the legitimate decision-makers of their future.
--- Statement of the MB President after the massive demonstrations of February 4.
3.Western analysts and media outlets are deciding whether Egypt 's uprising is a secular demand for democracy, which they would support, or a religious revolution that they believe should be feared and stopped. However, the uprising is complex and if the US is to support the Egyptian people, as it promised, policymakers must first increase their understanding of Egyptian aspirations. The protests are fueled by the Egyptians’ greater sense of self worth and it is based on the people's belief that they should no longer have to endure the daily humiliation of economic and political stagnation. The protesters come from a wide cross section of Egyptian society and they are all demanding justice, calling for Muslim-Christian solidarity. Religiosity is also playing a role in the development and continuance of the demonstrations, just as other uprisings throughout history. Egyptians say that moving toward greater democracy would help Muslims progress, and that attachment to spiritual and moral values would similarly lead to a brighter future. Surveys show that Egyptians prefer democracy over all other forms of government. They also say that religion plays a positive role in politics. The majority of Egyptians wants democracy and sees no contradiction between the change they seek and the timeless values to which they adhere. More than 90 percent of Egyptians say they would guarantee freedom of the press if it were up to them to write a constitution for a new country. Moreover, most Egyptians say they favor nothing more than an advisory role for religious leaders in the crafting of legislation. Egyptians choose democracy informed by sacred values, not theocracy with a democratic veneer. Similarly, from abolitionists to the civil rights movement, American leaders have been inspired by their faith as they pursue justice. Nowadays in the US, many of those who are calling for environmental preservation, an end to torture and eradicating global poverty, are faith leaders as they draw on their ethical traditions and beliefs for the common good. The US is a natural partner to the Egyptian people in their struggle to attain a brighter future because of America 's unique history and struggle for social justice. Surveys have revealed that the majority of Americans and Egyptians believe it is a benefit, not a threat, for Muslims and the West to interact. Although they seek the rule of law, most Egyptians do not support the rule of clerics. US policy makers should not make the mistake of alienating the Egyptian movement by failing to understand its complexities.
---From the MB web site
4.The MB does not and will not accept any efforts at intimidation against any Egyptians. The MB will continue to call for the constitutional rights of men, women, Muslims and Christians alike and for a civil state based on Islamic democracy which respects the freedom of the judiciary, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the media.
—From the MB’s web site
5.A cable of 2007 from the US Embassy in Cairo to the State Department in Washington DC leaked by WikiLeaks said: The US could expect a difficult transition after Mubarak. "Whoever Egypt's next president is, he will inevitably be politically weaker than Mubarak. Among his first priorities will be to cement his position and build popular support. We can thus anticipate that the new President may sound an initial anti-American tone in his public rhetoric in an effort to prove his nationalist bona fides to the Egyptian street." The cable said that any new President will have to bolster his support by reconciling with the banned MB. This is true now that the Egyptians have demanded a say in the matter. The protest is not being fueled by anti-Americanism or radical Islamist sentiments; it's a protest driven by the economic and political needs of Egyptians. Protestors have only showed hostility toward the US because of its longtime support for a tyrannical regime.
Egypt's democracy movement doesn't see the MB as a radical party. "The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places," El Baradei said over the weekend. He called the Brotherhood a conservative group that favors secular democracy and human rights and said that as an integral part of Egyptian society, it would have a place in any inclusive political process. Israel remains a living example of how a people live in fear when they take what is not theirs and it is looking on aghast as its most important friend in the region tumbles while the US does little to save him. Israel cannot count on Egypt's continued cooperation in imposing an economic siege on Gaza, aiming at unseating the territory's Hamas rulers.
The demonstrations show an Arab public looking to take charge of its own affairs, rather than have them determined by international power struggles. Even that, however, suggests turbulent times ahead for American Middle East policies that have little support on Egypt's streets.
----From the MB’s Web site.
6.For the past ten days Egypt has experienced fear of autocracy, euphoria and fear of chaos. Starting off relatively small, the protests started with a few thousand people on January 25, then escalated to a thrilling climax on February 1, when millions of people assembled in Tahrir Square demanding the removal of Hosni Mubarak. After this the demonstrations deteriorated into violence as pro-Mubarak supporters attacked demonstrators. Despite the violent scenes during the week, the developments in Egypt are welcome. A nation that has been downtrodden for too long is now tasting freedom. The Arab world is buzzing with expectation, as ageing autocrats are suddenly looking shaky. The West is juggling stability and democracy and as they struggle to attain balance, the Arab pro-democratic movement appears disturbing. Fearing a vacuum due to a deterioration of Mubarak's regime, the West fears the Muslim Brothers, the anti-Western, anti-Israeli opposition. The US feels it must redouble its efforts to secure a prolonged managed transition by retaining Mubarak or getting someone else like him at the helm. Despite the fears of the US and Israel, the popular call for Mubarak to step down offers the Middle East the best chance for reform in decades. The West has been calling for democracy for years and if they fail to support Egyptians in their quest for democratic rule, the arguments of the US for democracy and human rights elsewhere in the world will fall on deaf ears. Egypt is also juggling; it is choosing between risk and stagnation. The Egyptian protests are not an 'Islamic' uprising, but a mass protest of Muslims against an unjust, autocratic regime. The only 'Islam' shown throughout the scenes of demonstrators was the peaceful behavior, prayer, determination and resolution of a nation. The result of these protests will certainly not be a perfectly formed democracy as it is likely that there will be disorder for some time. But on the plus side, Egypt, though poor, has a sophisticated elite, a well-educated middle class and a strong sense of national pride and these are indicators that Egyptians can pull order out of this chaos. Fear of the Muslim Brotherhood is grossly overdone as they are respected for their piety, discipline and resilience. The Brotherhood grows with history and is constantly evolving. The movement at the present time cannot be equated with its past. Calling for democracy, the voice of the people, free and fair elections, while not nominating any candidate, and having no desire for leadership or even a place in the interim government, the Brotherhood is the level-headed voice in Egypt. The past few weeks have proved that the Brotherhood is an integral part of Egyptian society and if democracy is to flourish in Egypt, the Brotherhood must be given a voice. The alternative to democracy is a dead end. Egypt under Mubarak has been becoming increasingly repressive, leaving 85m people to live under dictatorship, burdened by a corrupt and brutal police force, the suppression of the opposition, and the torture of political prisoners. This was sufficient fuse to light the uprising. Despite the obvious difficulties, even a disorderly democracy could eventually be a rich prize—and not just for Egyptians. If Egypt becomes democratic it could once again be a beacon to the region, answering the conundrum of how to incorporate Islam in Arab democracies. An Egyptian government that speaks for its people might contribute to a settlement with the Palestinians more than authoritarianism ever could. The US has lost much of its credibility in pursuing stability above democracy and it could turn this negative image around by making amends now. As America still has influence with Egypt’s political, business and military elite, it could help speed the transition from autocracy through chaos to a new order and improve its standing in the region.
----From the MB’s web site. (6-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
