Osama is dead, but I'm not particularly happy

Osama is dead but that does not kill terrorism. The US has been trying single-mindedly to pursue Osama and have succeeded finally. This serves to satisfy the ego of the only superpower on the earth, but does not take care of terrorism on the whole.

For the US, terrorism has never been absolutely bad; it could be good if it helps the US in gaining foothold over a region. India too had its good terrorism in Sri Lanka but it seems to have learnt to be more ethical in geo-strategic affairs. Even if it tries to have similar, blinkered, vision, India cannot afford to do so but the US can, and it will always keep doing so. Wikileaks have exposed the duplicity of American foreign policy, but all keen observers already knew that. No wonder, despite championing the cause of world peace, the US is suspected by all nations.

Gandhiji and many pacifist thinkers have talked of the evil power called ‘the state’. If we analyse the everyday actions of governments all over the world, including their secret agencies, corrupt and power-hungry politicians and bureaucracy, and other paraphernalia, they are collectively the biggest terrorists. Rulers of the West Asia and Africa use their absolute power and democracies use the power concentrated in a few hands in the name of people’s will – but all use the powe4r of the state for bad ends. While we be happy that Osama is dead, let’s also remember that there are thousands of Osamas killing people and extorting money, another few thousand mini-Osamas that kill people legitimately, and many thousand that kill people without shedding a drop of blood.

India’s untenable stand on Libya

India has again and again shown inconsistency in dealing with foreign affairs. It never had the guts to stand up to the western powers when they attacked foreign countries on one or the other pretext. Now, India is criticizing them for air strikes on Libyan leader Gaddafi’s establishment. 

India New Today feels that international efforts to uproot a despot who calls his opponents within his own country as ‘rats who need no mercy’, and who does not hesitate in crushing any democratic voice in his kingdom is not comparable to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and even Iraq. It is a weak statement to say that all solutions should be found without violence, when there is an extraordinary situation demanding international intervention. 

What is India – world’s largest democracy - conveying to the world? That it has the guts to oppose the US and its allies? That it is mature enough to deserve a permanent seat in the UN? That the international community, the UN and the Security Council – nobody has a responsibility to act when a despot is killing its citizens who are demanding a democratic – as opposed to autocratic – rule? Does it fear that if it does not take ‘dialogue only’ stand, rebellious voices in Kashmir would get legitimacy? Is it gambling that Gaddafi will stay on and reward Indians and Indian oil companies for this stand?

Quote-unquote

India's statement on March 20, 2011 on air strikes on Libya

"India views with grave concern the continuing violence, strife and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Libya. It regrets the air strikes that are taking place. As stated earlier by India, the measures adopted should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya.

It hopes that this would not lead to greater harm to innocent civilians, foreign nationals and diplomatic missions and their personnel still in Libya.

India calls upon all parties to abjure use of or the threat of use of force and to resolve their differences through peaceful means and dialogue in which the UN and regional organisations should play their roles."

Obama, jai ho!!

Obama finally spoke like Obama.

After two days of addressing his home constituency, Obama addressed issues concerning India and its neighbourhood.

A child of rhetoric and hype, ably supported by Michelle, the big O used correct words and images. He invoked Mahatma Gandhi, 'India has emerged', dhanyavad [=thanks] and jai hind [=hail India], and finally supported India's claim for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. For once, he also said, Pak was slow in acting against terrorists and it was unacceptable that Pakistan had terrorist safe-heavens within its borders.

It was but expected that Manmohan Singh will go out of the way to please Obama. He did and the big brother seems to have been pleased. So, he used it to his advantage by thanking India profusely. He dosn't lose a cent by saying that India is now a world power but earns the goodwill that floors Indians and paves way for US companies getting big business from India. US gains, Obama gains, Manmohan gains, maybe India gains too.

The sense of euphoria from Obama's overtures and statements seems to be a bit too much: look the way MPs were cheering Obama at his every sweet-nothing pronouncement in parliament yesterday; look at the banner haedlines and full front-page coverage in today's papers. Our TV news channels had to overdo Obama, but they over-over did it.

India News needs to shout: Jai ho, Obama!!

sharing headley's terror leads: american duplicity again

Headley's case has once agains proved what the world knows about the US: they will have friendship at their own terms.

When it comes to their country's perceived interests, they will remind you about international norms, long tradition of their friendship, etc etc and when they have to reciprocate, they are most miserly. Take the case of disasters: they do not want India to have harsh provisions for suppliers of nuclear tech but would like to savage a company such as BP for oil spill. They will grudgingly share superficial leads relating to Headley's terror operations, but would like India to support them in 'fight against international terror' even by keeping mum against a sworn enemy - Pakistan's ISI. America's stand on pollution control and climate change or during negotiations in the WTO are but some examples in which America's stand leaves much to be desired in terms of give and take. But, unfortunately, America gives the impression of being unfair, untrust-worthy, too self-centred, too snooty.

In this type of dealing, America only invites suspicion, not cooperation. It is the world that loses the opportunity to get better peace and development, because America has the ability to take everybody in the world along if it shows that it can be trusted.

[This response is based on reports that America did not share Headley leads with India. American authorities have said that they did not infact have specific information and that it was failure of Indian intelligence agencies that made free movement and actitivies of Headly possible. However, this does not wash the impression that it is America who hesitates in cooperating with other countries even on terror matters when it is not targeted against their own country.]

Obama and hate-India, love-India

Obama is visiting India in less than ten days and this has raised many expectations. People are sure, Obama is coming here to show he cares for India in geo-politics [and thus send signals to China and Pakistan], he cares for the interests of his domestic industry and will go to any extent [plead, bargain, arm-twist, whatever] to help them sell their ware, he cares for America's general economic interests [so, he cares for the huge consumption base in India for myriad American products], he cares for ensuring India's support on contentious issues, he cares for Indian resources such as its biological wealth [so that American companies can exploit them to the hilt] and he cares for Indian administrative and legal initiatives that will help America more than India [eg. a favourable seed bill and reduced liabilitiy for nuclear mishaps]. So, there will be many agreements that will be couched by Indian babus to look like suiting India but will benefit America exclusively or predominantly.

Don't be surprised if there are no announcements from Obama in India's interests. With Manmohan at the helm, India will show him the courtesies that it denies to heads of its neighbouring nations, even the Queen of the nation that ruled India once. In his trademark style, Obama will say big words about Indian and American democracies, India's great cultural heritage, influence of Mahatma Gandhi on him, the great leaser that Manmohan Singh is, and so on. He will also preach us on a few matters, especially the nuclear issues.

India at the UN security council

India getting a non-permanent seat in the UNSC and winning it by a big margin, both need introspection more than jubilation. They mean that India has won many friends and many nations want it to take a leadership position in world affairs – but unless India conducts itself responsibly, the support will only go down. Moreover, expectations are raised and India will need to raise the bar for itself to even stay where it is.

One, India must now take a more moderate, constructive, global world-view. On tricky issues, especially where India’s national interests are in conflict with the consensus global view, India will have to wade with utmost diplomatic finesse.

Two, India must resist acting like a bully the way China does. Leave conduct apart, China can afford to do so, India cannot.

Three, India must show more magnanimity while dealing with its smaller neighbours. That is not always reciprocated and even has harmful repercussions, but some cost will have to be paid to grow stronger internationally.

Four, Indian diplomats were seen commenting that they had to work hard and soften the stand of many countries over weeks to get the majority to get into UNSC. If India does this type of intense lobbying to get into world bodies again and again, it would be too selfish and also imprudent as a long-term strategy. Serious effort must be made to make long-term friends. This can be done by proactively building relations with as many countries as possible and having an understanding approach in bilateral relations.

Five, India must engage Pakistan, China and the US in a comprehensive manner, including channel-II diplomacy. The possibilities for people-to-people exchanges are immense but there is very little that is done. Such exchanges should not fall into the hands of favourites and lobbies as India tends to excel in, but result in long-lasting friendship between people of these countries. It will save a lot of money spent on corrupt and totally opaque intelligence operations and lobbying and therefore the corrupt system may not allow this approach to succeed too much. But India must rise over that.

Six, India must not be complacent that its economy is growing fast and it has a huge domestic market to leverage its position in world affairs. We have seen how ephemeral such strengths are, and even if we are strong on these counts, these should be our strengths that that need not be shown but used subtly. In any case, strength is no substitute for long-term international relations built over time.

In all, therefore, the UNSC seat should be taken as a challenge to grow in stature and an opportunity to get the permanent seat. No day should be lost in the machinations of the type the ineffectual foreign bureaucracy indulges in.