"Hitler's Strange Afterlife in India": A Rebuttal

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/30/hitler-s-strange-afterlife-in-india.html

Subhas Chandra Bose meeting Adolf Hitler
Image courtesy: assassinationadolfhitler.blogspot.com

This article is a rebuttal of the article referenced above. I found the premise of the article, especially given its audience, highly disturbing.

The article begins thus:

"Hated and mocked in much of the world, the Nazi leader has developed a strange following among schoolchildren and readers of Mein Kampf in India. Dilip D’Souza on how political leader Bal Thackeray influenced Indians to admire Hitler and despise Gandhi."

Does any Indian see what's wrong with this statement? Yes, this is not something any upper middle class child (or for that matter any Indian child) is going to be familiar with. Further down in his article, the author Dilip D'Souza tells us that his French teacher wife stumbled upon this popularity/following among schoolchildren of Hitler when she asked the class who they admired. Given that there is no systematic brainwashing of children in Indian schools anywhere (that I know of), there could be any number of reasons this might have been the majority answer from her class - perhaps Hitler was fresh in memory from a recent History class?

My first objection to D'Souza's article is the generalization he has made from his wife's single observation. The second is that, after assuming that these children are developing Nazi tendencies (or at least that they are admiring the evil Hitler through some external influence brainwashing them), he goes on to infer that the external influence was Bal Thackeray, a Marathi/Hindu nationalist party leader based in Mumbai.

The Bal Thackeray quotation used in his article is from an interview to Time magazine during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots:

“There is nothing wrong,” he said then, “if [Indian] Muslims are treated as Jews were in Nazi Germany.”

My third objection to D'Souza's article is that while a adult Indian audience might be aware of the context surrounding the 1993 riots in Mumbai, which has been well documented as having started by Muslim criminal elements, a foreign audience is unlikely to know that Bal thackeray's statement was a reaction to this unrest. While I have no interest in defending Bal Thackeray's incitement of violence (especially comparison to Jews), singling him out for a statement made in the heat of the matter was unnecessary and irresponsible. D'Souza also appears to be selecting particular episodes from the Mumbai riots of 1992-93, to provide incorrect statistics of Muslims being the majority of those killed in the violence.

Bal Thackeray, his Shiv Sena party, and its offshoots such as the MNS are all nationalistic parties with an additional sensitivity towards "immigration", as it were, to Mumbai from other parts of India. Their opposition to this phenomenon (movement and taking residence anywhere within India, except Jammu and Kashmir, is unrestricted) and the methods they employ do not have any support from outside their own loyalist circles. If any, it is the upper middle class and mostly liberal urban elite in India is most repulsed by parties such as the Shiv Sena, at least based on media reporting of their activities and policies, whether completely true or not. So, I don't know where D'Souza's is able to draw his conclusions regarding upper middle class children's Nazi-leaning tendencies from.

Lastly, it important to understand why or how (teenage) children come to admire things. In high school, from my own experience and what I can remember of my thought process, children look up to power and influence and such as important things to look up to. They end up becoming fans of the top-ranked cricketer, the top-ranked tennis player, the most popular film star, the most notable politician, etc. - long before they even understand that a more elegant batsman is what they will go on to like during their adulthood, or that they like an off-beat film star more than the matinee idol, or that their favourite politician turned out to be a scoundrel and that their political leanings lay elsewhere.

In high school, so much is taught in History lessons, about Muslims invasions of India, about Muslims and Hindus fighting together to drive out the British, the partition of India, and so on, that what remains in childrens' heads is the violence, not necessarily the significant of the events. To illustrate this, two years ago, a bunch of my friends and I got together to celebrate Independence Day. The topic of the Khilafat Movement came up, the entire group insisted that this was just like the other freedom movements such as the Quit India Movement or Dandi March. No one realized that this was actually in protest of the Khilafa (Ottoman empire) being dethroned at the end of WWI. It takes adulthood to clarify the stories read to actually make sense of what happened, and where one's sympathies might lie.

D'Souza might be able to better serve readers if he was able to focus not just on the perceived oppression of the minorities in India by the Hindu majority. It is important to note that there are language, regional, caste, religion, and class differences that are all equally critical in a country such as India. No one factor utterly dominates any other.

Good journalism starts with taking no sides, and trying to see the story impartially, Mr. D'Souza.

And by the way, it is high time our History text books taught our children about other freedom fighters, without merely picking Gandhi as the lone saviour. Gandhi's blunders as a politician are to be seen without reverence, such as his initial support of the religious-driven Khilafat Movement. Subhas Chandra Bose did something similar, by trying to draft an alliance with the Nazis to drive out the colonial British from India. Bose and VD Savarkar are but two examples of brave heroes from a vast constellation of freedom fighters who endured much more than Gandhi might have. If your wife's survey threw up too many 'J'admire Gandhi's, I'd be concerned. We might be teaching our children to not think critically, and that one man won us independence, and that non-violence was the only reason the mighty British left in 1947. I bet none of your wife's students had any clue what economical state the British were in post-WWII. So, let's start with looking at history objectively, and stop indoctrinating our children on who they should see as heroes. Tell them the stories as they were, and get off the majority-minority horse you rode in on.

Indian railway booking: An example of how middlemen are drawn into a bad system

IRCTC homepage, image courtesy: irctcloginpage.in

I dread today's project of booking a tatkal (quota that opens 1 day prior to journey date) railway ticket. I must go through the only site available, www.irctc.co.in.

Firstly, registering oneself on IRCTC, is fairly easy, as long as you have an Indian cell phone, to which an activation code will be sent. If you are a foreign tourist (or even an NRI) looking to make reservations, you are going to start hating India.

 Once you are in, the flow is linear, up until the reservation confirmation screen. You begin with a search for relevant trains, and then availability. Then, you pick the train and type out the traveler names on yet another page. You then choose a payment option. Only Indian credit/debit cards are accepted. A major problem with this page is that once you have chosen a payment option, you have no way of going back to select another for any reason. You are required to start over. And the serial flow itself works this way, no chance of going back at any point. And of course, at each stage, you can be forced to start over ("Service Unavailable"). This doesn't always happen, but will happen several times to you during tatkal booking when the traffic is very high. A very frustrating user experience that the global IT superpower that is India seems unable to make better in any way.

Because this process is so frustrating even for a fairly sophisticated computer user, middlemen inevitably crop up. And crop up they have in huge numbers, making an entire industry out of booking electronic tickets. To qualify 'sophisticated computer user' further, I've found that you have better chance of making a reservation (especially tatkal) if you have more than one browser open and attempting log in using separate IRCTC accounts (mine and another family member's usually). My average turn around time for a solitary tatkal ticket is about 1 hour.

Cases of rogue IRCTC agents (and sometimes Railway employees) abusing the site and the system have already come and gone. Either way, the system being what it is, is definitely prone to middlemen thriving and attempting to game the system.

Just making the site user friendly (can't the government hire a user experience firm?) and decently fail-safe at high traffic times, will take a lot of the need for middlemen out of the picture. It is not the wait time that frustrates most, although that is not an insurmountable problem either. Each time I go through a tatkal booking process, I end up thinking I should start getting these done through an agent. I'm sure others think that way too..

Until a few months ago (or has it been over a year?), sites such as makemytrip.com and cleartrip.com used to allow railways bookings (even tatkal) through their site. Now, these sites are practically useless for railway bookings. The entire IRCTC registration process is required, and a Cleartrip account, for example, will only link your account to the IRCTC account. The Railways has now made IRCTC the only stop for tatkal tickets, and the IRCTC site is fairly stable during non-tatkal (peak) hours. So, why would anyone go to the trouble of doing the entire linking process within Cleartrip? This is a nice example of how IRCTC could not build a fool-proof booking platform that would allow the likes of Cleartrip to take advantage of. IRCTC, instead, has chosen to be the monopoly booking site, all driven by an anti-fraud team and not a user experience team.

Another major middleman-creator is the lack of regional language interfaces on the IRCTC site. Does the government expect all ticket bookers to know English? Can a good Tamil-language or Hindi-language interface not be built? 

It is good that there are many private service centres (like STD booths) that allow/assist people to book railway tickets via the IRCTC site. These don't qualify as middlemen, for, where will people without a computer or easy access to a railway booking office go? It is making the system and the site/platform user friendly, while not compromising on security, that is a no-brainer, but the ministry will not do anything about it.

What irks is that IRCTC electronic booking is supposed to be a fairly simple system. More complicated systems involve people-to-people interactions and several stages, for example, the RTOs that handle driver licenses.

Unmukt Chand: the concessions that India grants its success stories

Unmukt Chand, image courtesy: ibtimes.co.in

A few months ago, the Unmukt Chand story played out in the national media. The gist of the story is that Unmukt led the Indian U-19 cricket team to victory, but due to poor attendance (less than 33% required for sports quota at Delhi University colleges) was prevented from attending the university's exams for progression to next year. Eventually, media debates, celebrity pressure, and the government pressurized the university to make an exception for this new hero.

I find several things troubling with this episode.

1. A university, the specific college concerned, and the student's particular professors must be allowed to decide whether a student complies with the laid down policies. In this case, the sports quota attendance requirement of the university appears to have been 33%, which the student didn't meet. Let's not forget that the college itself is normally allowed to set a higher bar on university requirements, and further the professor for any particular course/paper can set an even higher bar. All this depends on the program the student is taking, etc. An outsider is not going to be able to adjudicate matters of violations of these policies, nor should they. The media forgot all about his, but instead created an image for the university and the college of being cruel to the heroic student.
2. What if the Indian team had not won, but lost badly in the world cup. Would the same exception (and pressures leading up to it) have been applied? In a matter such as this, the outcome of the student's participation itself should have no bearing on the policy. I'm sure there are so many other students who represent their colleges, states, or countries, in sports that aren't as glamorized as cricket. 
3. The government's response was most pathetic. See this report in CNN-IBN, quoting union minister of education Kapil Sibal. The exact quote was:

"...there should be a provision under university regulations where such emergency powers can be used in special cases in national interest."

This, I find most troubling. Again, something that the government itself should have no business interfering in. The academic policies of any college of university should be its own. Taking a straightjacketed approach of setting one-size-fits all policies across a state or country is exactly what has led to mediocrity being the standard. And Kapil Sibal has be useless in reversing or arresting this approach.

What, pray, is the "national interest" here, I ask, Mr. Sibal? Would you have played savior for a student that was not as successful? What do you see as a possible policy of the education ministry regarding these "special cases"?
I see this as being roughly "If there is potential for good PR for the government, go ahead and break the college's established rules."

Lastly, about the college and university policies in effect..
Now, beyond the 33% attendance rule for sports quota students (which by the way appears very reasonable), I don't know much about the way Delhi University or St. Stephen's College deals with these kinds of situations. It seems like more proactive mentoring of students, especially ones that are expected to be absent from lectures for the most part of the semester, is in order.

At least in the US, universities have a more continual assessment approach that does not necessarily put an entire academic year on the line for a student because of attendance across-the-board. Here are suggestions (these being already tried and tested in the developed world, not revolutionary) for our colleges to follow:

1. Allow students to meet each particular course/paper's requirements set by the professor of that course, including attendance. At the discretion of the professor, the student may be allowed to do, say, a term paper, instead of writing the exam, for which the professor can set a high standard.
2. Get rid of the year-by-year approach. If a student does not meet the requirements for a particular course/paper, allow him to take the course again next year. Why stop a student, summarily, from adjusting his course load according to his other activities? This, by the way, can give a student the ability to graduate ahead of time or a semester later, which should not have a "graduated to 2nd year" implication, just overall progression towards the required credit hours required for the program the student is in.

I understand that giving too much freedom to professors in India (where we have a lot of substandard professors) isn't a great idea, and we have a good reason for having standardized subjective exams at the university level. Still, a phased approach of qualifying colleges based on integrity levels and audits, should be used to move to a more flexible college education model. This is the kind of policy decision Mr. Sibal's ministry should be making..

I hope Unmukt Chand or his supporters don't get peeved by this article. Nothing against his accomplishment, but he sure has received special treatment.

A Carefully Cultivated Image for a Hollow Personality

Image courtesy: IBN Live

If there's one personality in India that the media falls head over heals to glorify, working in uncanny sync with the Congress,  it is Rahul Gandhi.

The Congress has dynasty politics issues beyond the Nehru-Gandhi family. Two examples - Jyotiraditya Scindia, son of Madhvrao Scindia is presently Minister of Power; Sachin Pilot, son of Rajesh Pilot is Minister of Corporate Affairs.

While these two others young ministers might not be where they are in politics without their fathers, they are at least being put to a test. At the end of their ministerial stints, they can be evaluated. See this interview of Scindia where Karan Thapar grills him on dynasty politics. Scindia comes across as naive and apologetic, nothing more.

With Rahul Gandhi, there is no test. With each passing month, with nothing worthy of addition to his resume's empty accomplishments section, the Congress party and its top functionaries push the young Gandhi up the party's ladder in the hopes that they are considered more loyal than the others to the Nehru-Gandhi family.

• In his latest kissing-up, Salman Khurshid has declared that Rahul Gandhi is their commander for the next poll. Rahul Gandhi's prior impressive performance in Uttar Pradesh is probably why he is being made the 'commander' for the national elections (#sarcasm.) Most other major parties must be laughing at the way a completely accomplishment-less person is being handed more and more responsibility, while more seasoned politicians are being kept away from providing any meaningful direction to the party.
• Digvijaya Singh, for reasons best known only to himself, keeps singing Rahul Gandhi's praise. Perhaps because he is credited with being a key mentor of the Gandhi. If with the money muscle of the Congress it were to come to power again, Digvijaya Singh might be nursing hopes of becoming a shadow power of some kind behind the prime minister-in-waiting. 

While on the topic of Rahul Gandhi's 'accomplishments with the youth Congress' that the party keeps advertising (his only 'accomplishment', mind you), the statistic being bandied about is a significant increase in membership numbers. While the numbers may have been correct, this does not necessarily count as an accomplishment of any significance in politics. Any marketing drive is bound to add some numbers. Do we know if there was any ground-level improvement in the functioning of the party in any rural or urban centres? Do we know of any non-dynasty youth that are being groomed to become future leaders of the party? This report includes several quotes from Congress functionaries that talks about Rahul Gandhi's unverifiable accomplishments, like that of bringing in performance-based accountability, etc. These might be believable about someone who has risen through the ranks, not about someone who has no accomplishments to his name whatsoever.

Where's the Media's Good Judgement?
While everything the Congress might do to boost the image of their prime-minister-in-waiting, the media should show better judgement and not merely publish the Congress' press releases.

• Has there been one interview of Rahul Gandhi on any national issue? Does no media house have that kind of reach within the Congress party? Every leader in every other major party is available for interviews and quotes, why not this one?
• Each time Rahul Gandhi makes a 'visit' to some place for photo opportunities, the media laps it all up. They do not bother to check if anything meaningful came of any of his visits. If he really wielded that much power in the party (and cared for issues), the state of affairs in the country and the ministries' incompetence in even each-to-change problem areas like sanitation would not continue. In many cases, the problems he 'reviewed in person' could have been solved by simply not wasting lakhs of rupees on his chartered flight and security, but instead applying it to, say, bring water to the village. I have not seen one scathing Op-Ed or editorial on these blatant photo ops.

Public Intelligence Failures...

David Petraeus and his alleged extramarital lover
Image courtesy: therightscoop.com

Yesterday's news of David Petraeus's resignation as director of the CIA was surprising. Mostly because of Petraeus's seeming 'can do no wrong' image that I had built in my mind, from his tenure in the US Army.

TV news reports discussed the FBI (counterintelligence division's) investigation that exposed this affair after analysis of his personal email accounts. The woman in question, or her close aides, was suspected of having had access to them.

The unravelling of this episode set me thinking about (counter)intelligence failures for India. The one episode I vividly remember is that of Rabinder Singh of the Research and Analysis Wing, India's external spy agency, because this was all over the papers a decade ago. 

Rabinder Singh's disappearance from India, evading counterintelligence who were in pursuit, was far more high profile than any other that I can remember. This Wikipedia article Singh describes the Rabinder Singh affair very briefly, and this one by B Raman, former IB chief, goes into much more detail on this affair and some others. 

What surprised me was that Rabinder Singh was not a mole for Pakistan's ISI, but that of a 'friendly nation', the USA. Friendly or not, a lot of risk is taken to cultivate an asset with access to sensitive information. It was my impression earlier that the USA, with its liberal immigration policy, was a haven inside its borders for spies of other countries (it is; remember the exchange with Russia of long-term stationed spies recently?) who might make an entry through study visas, for example. The Rabinder Singh affair, where his sister, a US citizen, played a role in helping the CIA cultivate him, tells me that immigration is probably a useful thing for the US, giving it good reach into pretty much any country in the world through relatives and cultural links.

 

Hamid Gul, the director general of the ISI during wind-down of the US covert operation in Afghanistan in the late eighties, said in a TV interview, that when he was the DG, a copy of any paper that was signed in the PM's office in Delhi was on his desk before the ink dried. While Gul is a lot of empty bravado, I hope that level of ISI reach into India is not the case today. Especially since Pakistan is a lot weaker now than it was in the 80s and 90s.

A low-level Urdu translator in the Islamabad Indian high commission was compromised by a male ISI agent two years ago. An Indian army office on a training trip to Dhaka was compromised a year ago by an ISI woman agent, but admirably, this officer admitted to the compromise and alerted his superiors.

With all the technology in place today for national security and espionage, the importance of human intelligence has never been higher. How come one never hears of a mole that the RAW cultivated inside Pakistan or other countries in the world? Is the RAW really that good at having its moles evade counterintelligence? I highly doubt it.

Stop this animal rights nonsense

Courtesy: fanpop.com
(nothing against this site or this image if it was their work,
just tried to pick up an image of the kind that television ads
use)

I've seen some ads on television lately, with sorry-looking dogs and cats, sad music that should induce pity, all focused on prevention of cruelty towards animals.

A worthy cause? Perhaps. But what riles me up is that these ads (and the organizations that run them?) are all focused on animals that are pet-worthy. What about animals that only provide service to humanity? What about cows, goats, or horses?

I suspect a large number of these animal rights activists are meat-eaters, enjoying a good hamburger or steak. A dog receiving a kick drives these sensitive men and women to tears, but the cow being separated from its calf and taken to the slaughterhouse, or the calf being starved to make its bones chewy only makes them salivate?

By all means, let's stop people from being cruel to pets, but there is such a thing as having extremely lopsided and hypocritical priorities, which appears to me to be the case with people running and supporting these organizations. If there was any real pity for animals, these people would stop animal slaughter and turn vegetarian. At the least, inhuman religion-approved practices such as bleeding animals to death would be what these people should take cudgels to fight.

Next time you come to me with the video of a sad-looking dog and want my money, have the paperwork on your eating habits and acknowledgement of equality of animals ready. Otherwise, you and your "let's save dogs but look the other way when putting cows on buns" organization can go to animal hell. 

Old fashioned suggestions to young women...

Image courtesy: facenfacts.com

After politics, the topic that Delhi is most associated with these days is rape. I don't want to refer to the topic using euphemisms such as 'safety issues for women', 'sexual assault' (this is a good one). Plainly and simply, it is rape.

The typical news item goes like this. 2-3 goons get hold of a large enough car or SUV, give some woman a lift (or force her in) and drive her around town all day while taking turns raping her. No laughing matter, but we are all mostly helpless at the end of the day. (Maybe Rahul bhaiyya can help us out by 'urging' that the police do their job better and things will change magically).

I'm not going to offer solutions to the menace, but wanted to review some of the retorts each time an old fashioned suggestion is given to young women for their safety.

Some typical old fashioned suggestions are:

1. Don't wear revealing (read western) clothes.
2. Don't go out after dark.
3. Don't be alone with boys (at odd hours), even if you know them well.
4. Don't be in a place where people are drinking (alcohol)/ Don't drink, ever!  

If I had a daughter or sister (or someone else I was responsible for) I would give all of the above pieces of advice and enforce to the extent possible. However, what's the reaction you get when these are suggested in public? Typically not positive. These are the typical retorts I've heard...

Don't wear 'fancy' (read western or revealing) clothes.

1. "Women should have the freedom to wear what they want."
2. "If men can't control themselves when they see a woman in modern clothes, then they must be taken to task."
3. "Stop advising my daughter and go talk to your son."
4. "The rapist's attitude comes from within. The clothes don't do anything to stimulate him."

I agree with all the retorts above being at least partly valid, but the last one is clearly not. Sure, when the rapist has decided to pick his prey, not much is going to change his actions. However, isn't a scantily clad woman not going to add more fuel to the fire? I think we can all agree that that's the case. So, while pepper spray is an acceptable suggestion, why is more conservative dressing not, when it comes to safety? Both are having to do something that one doesn't want to do. The goal ultimately is to keep our women safe, and if anything can help them be even a tad safer, isn't that a good thing?

Don't go out after dark.

I don't know if there are any major retorts to this suggestion, except perhaps "Don't infringe on someone's freedom. Improve law and order if you want." This was good advice that our women stuck to until two decades or so ago. Statistically, dark places and places without crowds are unsafe, and so this advice seems to me like a no-brainer to follow. All the BPO worker situations that we hear about, such as the driver who's supposed to drop off a young girl at 2AM veering off the road on purpose, are not necessarily 'just past sunset', but still, sunset is a good threshold to be home by. No?

Don't be alone with boys (especially at odd hours), even if you know them well.

This is a tough one. I can't think of too many retorts, except perhaps these teenage ones: "If you can't trust friends, who can you trust?". "I know my friends well. Maybe you did not have good friends."

Familiarity always breeds trust, especially if it's fun to hang around a person or a group. Friendship is good if it is backed by the families involved (whether boy-boy or boy-girl or girl-girl). If your parents don't approve of you being friends with someone, they perhaps saw something that you were not mature enough to see. If you know the family of the boy and your family knows him well, then the trust has some solid foundation. Even then, a mature parent knows that boys will be boys (in groups) and it's never a good idea to be in situations where you can be taken advantage of. Date rapes (and similar "i knew the guy before" rapes) are a large percentage of rapes these days, and this advice too seems fair to me, although I'd consider it a tad paranoid if I was the one receiving advice. 

Don't be in a place where people are drinking (alcohol)/ Don't drink, ever!

"Social drinking is fine, no different from drinking juice."

"There were a lot of other girls there."

"Not every boy was drinking."

"I never get high, I always know when to stop."

I don't need to sell the absurdity of these retorts hard. Alcohol loosens people, both men and women. A drunk woman (partially or not, high or not) is always putting herself at risk. Being around a drunk man (nice guy normally or not) is also not a good idea. Being in control of oneself (100%, not the illusory "i am not high" kind) at all times and not being around others who may not be in control of themselves is a great idea. There's probably a lot of statistics to prove that alcohol is a strong factor in women's safety.

I am all for ensuring law and order, keeping our sons on leashes, allowing women all the freedom they want, etc. Still, these old fashioned suggestions, while being paranoid in some cases, are definitely good to try to adhere to. 

Angry retorts result when people make these old fashioned suggestions in response to a rape incident, perhaps inadvertently (or on purpose in some cases) suggesting that the victim was dressed scantily or was drunk, etc. And of course the media will end up with a field day with the ultra conservative old fashioned buffoon who isn't in tune with the times and who is seen as 'blaming the victim'. 

"Do we want our women to wear the burkha to avoid rape? The nation responds to our survey.", you can hear your favourite news anchor bellowing. As soon as the Twitterati and opinion peddlers respond, the news anchor will claim that they now know the pulse of the common man, with a pie chart to prove the case. The common man will continue to give his daughter old fashioned advise to help keep her safe.

BIG differences between religious nationalism and cultural nationalism

Image courtesy: Wikipedia

There are big differences between religious nationalism and cultural nationalism, and the sooner we, the civilized world, realize it the better. This is especially critical for a country like the US, which has the resources to aid insert groups (freedom movements?) in places of conflicts, and some times even make or break nations.

Cultural nationalism is pride in one's land, its traditions, an acknowledgement of its weaknesses, and a common aspiration for all of its people to move forward. All this, usually, with little or no hint of religious or ideological intolerance towards one another.

Religious nationalism, on the other hand, tends to include only one aspect of cultural nationalism. Pride in one's land, sure. Its traditions, more often not. A common aspiration for all of its people to move forward, no. Religious or ideological tolerance and acknowledgement of weaknesses are probably the worst casualties.

1. Take the example of Persia/Iran. Iranian nationalism today is largely driven by (Shia) Islam. Its traditions are important, sure, but not its pre-Islamic tradition. The Zoroastrianism, its indigenous religion and culture, was displaced rather quickly by oppressive economic sanctions (the Islamic Jizya) against the Dhimmi, any non-Muslim. Clearly, one cannot expect tolerance of any other religion like Christianity or Hinduism. The Shah's times were different; the popular revolution took the country back to its Islamic grafted roots.
• Most other countries that are today majority Islam have similar stories, of cultures past more or less buried in the sand, suppressed, with Islam either claiming all the glories for itself or the like.
• If this sounds like Islam bashing, show me other examples of a religion supplanting whole cultures in the way Islam has (and its influential adherents attempting to do so even today), and I hope you see my point.
2. What about Bangladesh and Pakistan? Religious nationalism has always held sway, although cultural aspirations of the Bengalis do bubble up once a while, with many Muslim women in Bangladesh continuing to wear the bindi, for one. Still, its large minority Hindu population is blatantly targeted while the world watches. When a Bangladeshi announces that its country's Islamic aspirations on a British TV show, none dares (or knows to) ask what its 10% Hindu population wants. The Pakistan/Bangladesh cases are well documented, so there isn't much for me to go into here.
3. In the Middle East, while some sections of the populations may be desirous of tolerant, progressive, secular societies, the Arab Spring has only brought right wing Islamic groups into power. Case in point, Egypt. 
• And, here is one major 'degrees of comparison' error most (even intelligent) people make. This is due to the 'right wing' label applied without regard to 'how far right and deep' a group is at. An American party being right wing and an Egyptian party being right wing are not the same thing! The American right winger isn't going to hold a sword to his neighbour to threaten that he convert, he's probably going to be vociferous about his economic theories. It's much easier to imagine the Egyptian right winger putting a sword to his Coptic Christian neighbour's neck.
4. I hate to see Kashmir having become one of those hotbeds of Islam-driven religious nationalism where cultural nationalism has no place, unless it is consistent with Islam. And what should worry Indians and the world alike is the lack of understanding of cultural nationalism among the majority of its political class, and most importantly the right way to deal with religious nationalism, which is not to be tolerated in any form, whether for the short term or the long term.

Overall, I don't see many examples of cultural nationalism in today's world. India, for sure. See this short video of a Canadian TV show with a Pakistani Canadian talking about India's secularism. [The title of the video might indicate this is some fringe video I pulled out of the depths of Youtube to prove a point about India being superior to India, but no. Tariq Fatah makes a wonderful point about Pakistanis not acknowledging their cultural oneness with India...] 

Most Western (Christian?) countries today appear to be very tolerant. I can certainly speak for the US and Canada, which are models for the rest of the world. However, their naivete in understanding the differences between cultural nationalism and religious nationalism, may well turn out to be extremely short-sighted for the future. 

The hypocrisy of demographics...

Lahore of today - courtesy Wikipedia

Demographics undid India once. And my theory is that demographics, because of the role it plays in modern democracy, could repeat the undoing once again if left unchecked.

It was perhaps when the first elections were held in a semi-independent India (1937 Provincial Elections) that demographics emerged in India as an important element in her politics.

The Indian National Congress pretty much swept the elections, including in Muslim dominated regions like the Northwest Frontier Province(NWFP). Some, not all, Muslims started considering modern democracy an unfair system given that the Muslims were in a minority. The Hindus were about 2/3rds of the population in undivided India, though the Muslims were local majorities in a few provinces like Sindh, Bengal, and Punjab.

Leading up to 1947, demographics became the focal point for a call for Pakistan, and the partition of India. The Muslim-majority provinces would become Pakistan (originally including all of Punjab, Assam, etc. which eventually did not happen). The unfortunate fact during this time is that none of the politicians of that time, including Gandhi and Nehru, appear to have acknowledged the existence of other minorites (communities more deserving of the 'minority' tag such as Parsis, Jains, Jews, or Christians, and Sikhs). This was a major failure of the political class of that time. The Muslims were a large minority, and the success of some elements in making a successful (violent) case for victimhood (largely unjustified, victimhood really was underdevelopment) will forever haunt the patriotic Indian psyche.

After the Kashmir debacle post-partition, the demographics of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (the Indian side) has been kept unchanged. Or shall we say, barring the forced exodus of Hindu Pandits from the Kashmir valley, no other entry of non-Kashmiris has been allowed on the Indian side. All this with a view to keeping Jammu and Kashmir 'intact' until resolved (see the Omar Abdullah interview on Dawn News where he talks about this). On the other hand, while Pakistan professes self-determination of Kashmiris and such, the 'Kashmiri' character of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is long gone. There is no equivalent in Pakistan to India's Article 356.

Forced demographic change is outlawed in principle in all countries, and by law in some states in India. These are directed in particular against funded conversions by Christian evangelical groups that prey on the underprivileged folk and tribals of India. The execution of the rule of law, of course, leaves much to be desired in India.

The Uniform Civil Code remains a pipe dream in India, one that should have been straightforward to legislate if not for all the 'demographic' politics. Sure, a 15% strong group of people can have their own civil laws, marry at any age their community 'leaders' determine is appropriate, and govern their own lives within a federal India. If there seems nothing wrong with this (in particular to the Congress party), why did the Congress and Nehru have to reject the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946? In principle, the Plan largely appears to me to be the same as an India with separate civil laws for particular religious groups.

I used a photo of a street from Lahore in this article to highlight the fall from grace of one of India's most multicultural cities up until Independence. Lahore was about 60% Muslim and the rest were mostly Sikhs and Hindus. A cosmopolitan city that rivaled Bombay and Delhi, it perhaps had more character than any other city in India, especially as a microcosm of India. A city that I have not ever visited enchants me so much just based on accounts of its beauty and its people of the days past.

Finally, I am unsure to what extent the governments of India and (especially) Pakistan have implemented the Nehru-Liaquat pact of 1950 for the protection of minorities across the subcontinent. This held (in hindsight) the promise of a strong Indian union where borders would become meaningless and religious freedom would be honoured in true Indian spirit. If some diplomat is reading this, I urge them to consider reviving the 1950 pact in some form, to include Bangladesh of course. What better confidence building measure (CBM) could there be. And, while at it, work a solution for Kashmir in. It appears to me more and more these days that a solution to the Kashmir issue is not going to be possible without making demographics irrelevant, by taking India to the pre-1937 demography-agnostic days. And, no, if we cannot maintain law and order (which incidentally Jinnah considered key to a nation), all of this would be moot.

Credible mainstream Indo-Pak experts

There are a bunch of mainstream public figures (as well as journalists or diplomats) who I think all have mainstream credibility (I mean the common man) on either side of border. These are also what you would consider relatively less hawkish on Indo-Pak relations.

Pervez Hoodbhoy

My first pick is Pervez Hoodbhoy, a PhD from MIT and professor of Physics at Quaid i Azam University in Islamabad, and a voice against nuclear arms race, generally speaks out against Pakistan's support of terrorism.

Professor Hoodbhoy writes a lot, is an invited speaker at fora in the US and India, is a very respected researcher, and in my opinion holds a lot of credibility primarily due to his honesty in criticizing Pakistan (which of course the hawks in Pakistan don't like) as well as sincere push for Pakistan toeing the path of progress. YouTube carries a lot of videos, mostly talkshows in Pakistani television. There is a recent talkshow that he participated in with Mani Shankar Aiyar, hosted by Barkha Dutt.

G Parthasarathy

Parthasarathy is an IFS officer, has been a consul general at Karachi, and is considered somewhat of a 'hawk'.

Other than that, I know very little about G Parthasarathy and his views, mostly gained from his appearances on Indian television shows.

Parthasarathy is now a fellow at at least two think tanks.

Hassan Nisar

Hassan Nisar is a personal favourite.

Nisar is a long-time journalist, doesn't appear to mince his words in taking on the establishment in Pakistan, and is a frequent participant on television talk shows in Pakistan. He even appears on his own weekly show in Urdu called 'Meray Mutabiq'. 

Nisar's views are largely well known to the public, and he has fans from both countries. His father migrated to Lahore (or was it Lyallpur?) from Jalandhar, and Nisar's fondness for east Punjab is very apparent. When he breaks into Punjabi, it's really sounds wonderful..

I consider Nisar a 'dove' given his push for normalization of ties between the two countries, and prodding the Pakistani establishment to look inward to solve its problems instead of blaming outside 'forces'. Nisar is also for 'letting go' Kashmir so Pakistan can focus on bettering its existing citizenry.

You will find a lot of Hassan Nisar videos on YouTube, and they are usually very entertaining.

Mani Shankar Aiyar


Mani Shankar Aiyar is well known, a former IFS officer, consul general at Karachi, was on the East Pakistan desk (later the Bangladesh desk), and has been a cabinet minister in Congress governments.

It's tough to find someone with experience being both a diplomat and a politician. Although he was close to Rajiv Gandhi (who brought him into politics), he seems to have lost favour with the present Gandhi family.

Mani Shankar is a 'dove' and has good credibility in Pakistan. I'm not sure I agree with his views, but he's definitely an honest and experienced voice.

KC Singh


KC Singh is an experienced diplomat, most recently the secretary of the ministry of external affairs at retirement. KC Singh has never served in Pakistan, but has been ambassador to Iran, so definitely understands the regional dynamics well.

I've seen him appear on television talk shows recently, and like his observations and views.

I think he's neither a 'hawk' nor a 'dove' but lies somewhere inbetween which is wonderful from a 'credibility on both sides' perspective.

Najam Sethi


Najam Sethi is another of my favourites in Pakistan. He's a Punjabi, educated at Cambridge, has a lot of contacts in, and ground-level experience in India, and enjoys a lot of patronage from think tanks and organizations in the West, especially the US.

He appears in a weekly (?) television talk show on Geo TV in Pakistan, and his views and observations are usually well researched. Except when the discussion is on regional politics in Pakistan, his shows are very interesting to the average Indian audience.

Sethi appears occasionally on Indian talk shows and is very comfortable in Urdu as well as English.

He has run into rough weather with politicians in Pakistan in the past, adding to his credibility, but appears to be well connected ('najam sethi ki chidiya').

Siddharth Varadarajan


Siddharth Varadarajan has been a journalist for a long time, including during the Taliban era and the NATO war in Yugoslavia. He has taught at LSE (?) and Columbia University.

Most recently, Varadarajan became the editor of The Hindu (certainly better than N Ram). I've seen him in talk shows that included participants from both countries, and he did seem to come across as well informed.

Not sure how much of an expert he is on Pakistan..
Certainly has a good command over Urdu (and by that I mean, knows when to say 'dehshadgardi' instead of 'aatankvad').

Karan Thapar


This choice may be somewhat unusual. Karan Thapar is well known as tough interviewer. He has a PhD in international relations and has interviewed a host of biggies in international politics, from Kissinger to Benazir Bhutto.

Many know Thapar's early connection to Pakistan. Thapar was a friend of Benazir Bhutto since their Oxford days (or was it Cambridge?). Thapar wrote a famous obituary for Benazir when she was assassinated, in 2007.

Karan Thapar has focused on Pakistan a lot in his journalism career, and at one point even was a 'clandestine' intermediary between the Pakistan high commissioner Ashraf Qazi and LK Advani (then home minister in the NDA government). See Thapar's account of him being a facilitator of meetings between the two.

Karan Thapar is well connected in Pakistan and makes frequent trips there.

Mushahid Hussain

The last on my list is Mushahid Hussain, a school of foreign service graduate from Georgetown University, and cabinet minister in both Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf governments.

Mushahid was most recently the Pakistan Muslim League (N) candidate for president but he lost of Asif Ali Zardari.

Mushahid has been involved deeply in Indo-Pak relations at the government level, and I consider him to be somewhere between a 'dove' and a 'hawk'.  A well educated man who enjoys good credibility in India, he has appeared on television in India.

So, that was my list. These people aren't necessarily 'power centres', but hold credibility among the public in either country, most likely in both countries.

Why status quo with Pakistan on core issues is good

Image courtesy: pon.harvard.edu

I am a firm believer in normalizing India's ties with our neighbour across the northwest border. However, in the last 1-2 decades, the strategic positions of the two countries have changed so drastically that India has the opportunity of a lifetime to set right the diplomacy follies of the Nehru era.

Pakistan has successfully made Kashmir a core issue in diplomacy with India, amply aided by Nehru shooting himself in the foot over what the world would have considered a case of aggression by Pakistan. By taking the matter to the United Nations, some of India's position on Kashmir has been diluted. Still, the United Nations resolution on Kashmir is impractical, not only from India's perspective, but firstly from Pakistan's perspective since the resolution calls for Pakistan withdrawing troops from the state of Jammu and Kashmir (including Gilgit, Baltistan (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir)). Aksai Chin is of course a related, more tricky, matter to deal with.

During India's first Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Ministry of External Affairs is said to have had successfully negotiated a 'borderless Kashmir' with General Musharraf of Pakistan. While this may not appear to be a bad thing at face value, the unfolding of the war on terror in Af-Pak and Pakistan's increasingly solidifying pariah status in the world lead me to believe that this softening of the LoC border may have turned out to be a diplomatic blunder (partly in hindsight of course).
 
Now, for some context - the high voltage bilateral issues between India and Pakistan appear to be:

1. Kashmir. Enough said.
2. Water. Pakistan accuses India of building dams on the Indian side to stop water from reaching Pakistan. Some of the accusations (probably just the media talking heads) go to the extent of blaming India of engineering the recent floods in Pakistan. Many in Pakistan also believe that the water issue has a strong diplomatic framework in the form of the Indus Water Treaty (1970s) that has worked well for both countries.
3. Terrorism. This has been India's concern, and thankfully the world has woken up to the danger that Pakistan presents to the region and beyond.

Maintenance of status quo has normally been to India's benefit. Whatever Kashmir resolution is arrived at would likely mean India giving up more than it can get. Hence, Pakistan has more incentive to bring India to the table, which I think India has successfully avoided in the recent past. Given that Pakistan's standing in the world has been on a downward spiral, and better support for India's position in general, it is in India's best interests to maintain the status quo while Pakistan weakens further (which is inevitable, in my opinion, over the next decade or two). A weaker Pakistan will have much less negotiation power at the table.

India is also doing the right thing by insisting on tangible action on terrorism as a pre-requisite for any negotiation on other outstanding issues. Here, Pakistan can make it a win-win situation, by rooting out terrorism emanating from its land, but this is easier said than done even if the Pakistan government wanted to do something about it.

The water issues, I think, is a non-issue with the diplomats raising the issue, if at all, only as a populist measure. 

India's 'involvement' in Balochistan flared up as an accusation by Pakistan at Sharm al Sheikh, but that seems to have died down despite Prime Minister Singh 'acknowledging' the issue in the joint press release.  

Trade may actually be an important conduit for India to help Pakistan while making its own negotiation power higher. Pakistan's agriculture, small scale, and other industries stand to benefit significantly by expansion of trade with India. India, on the other, will benefit no doubt, but being deprived of this trade will not cause any massive impact. Once Pakistan reciprocates and accords India the Most Favoured Nation status, I would expect Pakistan's economy's dependence on India to increase significantly. If this were to happen, the threat of suspension of trade ties by India would be an important tool in India's diplomatic arsenal.

Bottom line, India stands to gain by maintaining diplomatic status quo on the issues that Pakistan stands to gain by any sort of resolution being reached (while Pakistan is on its downward spiral). Enhancement of trade with Pakistan can make India's diplomatic position stronger, with the added benefit of a new market and cheaper agricultural products for northwest India. 

Understanding the mind of the South Asian Jihadi - part 1

Zaid Hamid - image courtesy pakteahouse.net

2008 was the year my interest in learning more about extremist and Jihadi ideologies was kindled...

I was watching CNN and saw that they were covering the infamous Mumbai attacks live. The next day I was searching for other media coverage on the attacks on Youtube, and chanced upon on a Pakistani 'news show', what really seemed at best like irresponsible journalism.  One of the participants on the show was the gentleman on the left, Zaid Hamid, with statements and conspiracy theories that seemed so outrageous I was appalled. I decided to watch more of Pakistani television, and have since tried to piece together what I think is in the mind of the South Asian (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) Jihadi. Here's part 1, for I'm sure there's more to come.

You will see a lot of Pakistani television talk shows that discuss/debate topics like 'What is wrong with Pakistan?', 'Kerry-Lugar ke paise lene ke liye hum beygairat qaum nahin hain', 'Pakistan mein jamhuriyat ya kisi aur ki hukumat honi chahiye', etc. A lot of existential questions, a lot of questions that may only appear on an Indian television channel on Independence Day, for example. However, these are weekly affairs on Pakistani television channels, with many hosts and participants just rambling on and on, sometimes using expletives. It definitely is fun to watch, and I have caught a lot of Urdu words along the way too..

Zaid Hamid is a good example to stick to in understanding the Jihadi because he spent a lot of time on TV (many of these archived on Youtube) doing his 'security and geopolitical' shows where he spewed his conspiracy theories against all and sundry. He is seen lesser these days..

In summary, there are a few beliefs that I think the extremist South Asian holds. I say South Asian, because there may be people in India, and most definitely Bangladesh too, that hold some of these beliefs, not necessarily just in Pakistan.

1. India is a Hindu country.
• This is not a good assumption. True, India is predominantly Hindu, 80+%, but most states have healthy minority percentages and religion as such is less a problem in India than are class and other such issues. There is no religious persecution in India, has never been, beyond occasional minor skirmishes. So, when the ignorant Pakistan tries to equate Pakistan's 98% Muslim majority and its air-sucked-out-of-the-atmosphere environment to India's Hindu, but secular peoples and environment, they are quite off the mark. However, you do need to imagine things a certain way to feed the frenzy.
2. The Hindu was 'our slave' for a thousand years.
• Indira Gandhi is rumoured to have said that India's role in liberating Bangladesh was a reply to the Hindus having been slaves of the Muslims for a 1000 years (or words to that effect). I don't know if there is documented evidence of her having said this, but even if there is, I don't think the statement itself is accurate. True, the Delhi sultanate kings ruled large parts of north India, even down to south central India for a long time, and later the Mughals. And during this time, a lot of conversions took place (forced or otherwise, a different topic). It is not as if the downtrodden Muslim was 'ruling' over the Hindu. Other than the ruling classes, the ordinary Muslim was nowhere close to slave owner status. 
• One need only pick out other Pakistani public figures like Nasir Naji or Hassan Nisar who agree with this straightforward fact, something apparently so difficult for the average Pakistani to understand?
3. We suffer from terrorism too.
• True, Pakistan suffers the most from terrorism. It is for this reason one of the most dangerous places on earth now. The problem with this statement though is that this terrorism is the Pakistan state's (and non state actors') own doing. There is a lot of documented evidence of public and overt fund raising for jihad in Kashmir. Pakistan's role during the Soviet-Afghan war in the late eighties, and subsequent Taliban support, diversion of terrorists into India as a central tool of their state policy, etc. is all too well known. That their state's agencies have now lost control of these groups, and see them attacking their own people, is their own doing. As you sow, so shall you reap. The rest of the world is unwilling to listen to Pakistan when it says it suffers from terrorism too. You can hold all the talk shows you want and repeat the victimhood claim, but nobody is going to listen, sorry.
4. Spain hamare haath se chalaa gaya.
• A lot of commentators agree with what I have to say on this matter, so this isn't new from me.
• Much of the Jihadi's ideology comes from a glorification of the 'Muslim' past. A glorification that makes many Pakistanis see Mahmud of Ghazni as their ancestor, rather than as an aggressor. In the same vein, a glorification of the khilafa (the Islamic khalifates, of which the Ottoman empire was the last) is still an ongoing spur for terrorism in many parts.
• Spain was conquered by the Arabs sometimes during the 9th century (or thereabouts) and they held it for about 200 years. The capital of the Arabs in Spain was Cordoba. They were ultimately driven out, and Spain is probably the only Western country that they ever held, even if for a short period. While the Arabs may feel pride in having held Spain (though they were aggressor anyway, much like the British were imperialists later on), the Pakistani has no business in imaging this glory as being their own, merely on the basis of sharing the same religion. 
• India is the only other country (Spain is the other) that ever 'went out of the hands' of Muslim aggressors, and it is for this reason that I think that the Jihadi ideologies views these two countries as prime targets.
• Interestingly, the mosque ('Islamic center') being built near the September 2011 crash site in New York is called Cordoba House, which name hasn't attracted much attention.

There's more to come. Add comments if you think you agree/disagree with me.

PTSD and TBI in the Indian armed forces...

Image courtesy: vorsprungdurchtheologie.blogspot.com

I am writing this as I watch Rambo: First Blood. This is the first Rambo movie, my favourite of the Rambo series, and one that's related to the topic of this post.

Within about 15 minutes into the movie, one can conclude that Rambo, a US military Vietnam war veteran, has Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).

While I initially thought the Rambo movie was a bit extreme, I don't think that any longer. We've seen many instances reported of combat veterans indulging in violence, going on a murder spree, etc., at least in the US.

In the US, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Veterans Administration (VA) and probably some other government agencies work on or sponsor research efforts aimed at detecting, preventing, or helping cure PTSD. Run a search for PTSD on the Fedbizopps website (US government RFPs and RFIs for procurement of products and services) and see how many you are able to find, and the kinds of research topics listed.

I have begun wondering whether the Indian Ministry of Defence does anything at all to see whether their serving/retired officers and soldiers are in sound mental health. For one, we don't hear of any PTSD-related violence in India. Still, what I'm getting at is not necessarily a law and order problem (which there is the risk of, of course should a PTSD soldier try to spray bullets at civilians). I am getting at what the MoD is doing to detect, prevent, and help cure PTSD. At least some of our soldiers, for sure, have PTSD. We should be thankful India isn't in too many wars, but one doesn't have to be wounded in combat to get PTSD.

After some research, I found only two articles on PTSD relating to the Indian military, one by an Armed Forced Medical College (AFMC, Pune) professor, and another by an MoD person. Both papers seemed to be surveys of work done in other countries, with references to the US military, etc. I didn't find any relevant information relating to the Indian military.

The Indian MoD and the defence minister seem to be forever embroiled in controversies surrounding housing and kickbacks to arms dealers. Hope the day comes about when we start providing the care our men in arms need to lead healthy, successful lives.

Can't get one guy, and we have an entire secret service

Indian media coverage of the US state department 'bounty' for information leading to Laskhar-e-Taiba/Jamat-ud-Dawa chief Hafeez Saeed on April 4, 2012 riled me up.

Firstly, I was left wondering why NDTV had to have at least 5 different articles on the same event, all published the same day. It looks like some of these are syndicated articles, from Agence France-Presse, etc. but can't a top media house in the country come up with its own article as the main piece on one of the biggest terrorists in the neighbourhood?

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/us-should-give-me-the-10-million-bounty-hafiz-saeed-193986
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/bounty-on-hafiz-saeed-why-now-193849
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/us-contradicts-pakistan-says-it-was-notified-about-bounty-for-hafiz-saeed-193886
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/lashkar-e-taiba-founder-says-us-bounty-at-indias-behest-193690
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-bounty-is-an-act-of-terrorism-hafiz-saeed-193668

Foreign minister SM Krishna and the Congress-led Indian government have 'welcomed' the news of the US state department's 'bounty'. I think part of the nation's psyche now is that of playing it very safe to gain international acceptance for anything and everything, at the cost of being sitting ducks and unrealistically trigger unhappy. Why does India have so less self-confidence?

• "Let's not go after Hafeez Saeed ourselves, let's just keep sending demarches to the Pakistani high commissioner. What if the international community thinks we are Israel-like? Oh, that would be a disaster for Gandhian principled India. What if we jeopardise our chances for the UN security council?"

These, I think, are the biggest concerns the government has, even after the international community has all sympathy for India after the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai, and acknowledges the LeT as being an international terror organization with Hafeez at its helm, at least behind the scenes. What more does the government of the day need to go after the fellow with a covert strike? Sure, a surgical military strike is inviting war, but situations like these are precisely why we have a secret service. Not one, but several (R&AW, the newly formed NIA, IB).

Israel deals with terrorists that attack it ruthlessly, no holds barred. The recent assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh of Hamas, allegedly by a Mossad team of operatives, did create international uproar, and if actually an Israeli hit it got the work done for Israel's national security. Hasn't Hafeez Saeed convinced the international community that he deserves being taken out by any means? Sure, it would be wonderful if he were to be convicted, but what is the chance of that happening? Does the foreign ministry ever weight the implications of another Hafeez Saeed public rally or fund-raising campaign?

I'm sure the Research & Analysis Wing's assets have a lot of information on the fellow's whereabouts. They might even be trailing him, but probably don't have sanction for a hit from the foreign ministry. With all the chaos in Pakistan now, isn't this the right time to sanction all the covert hits that we need to rid the region of as many terror camps and as much of that dark ecosystem as possible?

The R&AW does not, as far as I know, even need any sanction from the foreign ministry. The head of the service reports directly to the prime minister, and all it takes is a 'yes' from Dr. Manmohan Singh to bring justice to the victims of 26/11. The people will regain a lot of confidence in the nation's security apparatus. Oh, but the government doesn't get to take credit for covert strikes, what a missed PR opportunity that would be?!

Who should the NDA's Prime Ministerial candidate be?

This is a big question in the minds of people who are not likely to vote for the Congress Party. Alternatively, the question in the minds of the Congress is "who will the NDA's PM candidate be?" The BJP, the major party in the NDA alliance, is playing its cards close to its chest. Maybe they don't have any consensus yet, or maybe there are too many competing candidates...

2014 election issues

• The big issue in the 2014 election is undoubtedly going to be corruption. The 3G scam, and lesser scams before it (the Commonwealth games, etc.) are making daily news, and the press and opposition aren't going to let the issue rest easily.
• While national security and global positioning are really important to a country like India, this is not something that directly affects the common man. Unless, of course, terrorist strikes occur. But, we Indians tend to forget too soon, and move right on. I am unsure how the NDA is going to be able to bring back national security into focus.
• The economy and 'resources' are going to be a big focus. While India is certainly booming in general, Pranab Mukherjee's budgets haven't really helped. Rural India needs to catch up, and NREGA isn't the answer, whatever Congress might claim. There are big gaps in power and infrastructure, and not much has happened on this front in the last few years.  

Do you see any other issues as potentially becoming 2014 election issues? 

I have a few potential candidates in mind - ranked in order of my preferences for each.

Narendra Modi

Pros: Impeccable track record of governance as Gujarat's chief minister, all-round development, tangible metrics to prove the impact, feedback from all walks of society and several organizations national and international. The corporates love him (which by itself should not be a 'con'). 

Modi has charisma, something India wants to see in its prime ministers. His oratory skills come close to those of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He is also no-nonsense, with the ability to hold audiences of different varieties engaged (IIT/IIM students, India Today conclave, etc.) with the right messages and details. 

Cons: Just one, and mostly undeserved, if you ask me. A lot has been said, and written, about the Gujarat riots and Narendra Modi's alleged involvement. The law is taking its course (with the Congress at the centre holding the reigns of the CBI and other state machinery), and we haven't seen any convictions yet. Still, the common man's perceptions cannot be easily shaken. 

One can be sure that if Modi were to be the BJP's candidate, there might be dissent even with the NDA, and the Congress and the media will have a field day during the campaigning.

Sushma Swaraj

Pros: Has been Delhi's chief minister, and former cabinet minister and minister in Haryana. Has held several portfolios. Swaraj is currently the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and does have charisma and oratory skills. Swaraj famously contested against Sonia Gandhi for the Lok Sabha in 2004 (?) and lost. 

Cons: She is not that well known in many states, and does not have a governance track record the way Modi or some others do. 

Swaraj does have it in her to become India's 2nd woman prime minister, but her pan-India appeal could be the stumbling block.

Arun Jaitley

I have grown to admire Arun Jaitley over the last few years. The more I learn about him, the more I like him. Jaitley was a student politics leader (ABVP), went to jail during the Emergency, became an A-list lawyer (he loves IP but has done other areas of law too), was additional solicitor general during VP Singh's government, and is now a biggie in the BJP. He led the BJP campaign in 2009, and failed despite anti-incumbency working against the Congress.

Jaitley is an excellent speaker, presents points of view very coherently in a range of settings (Karan Thapar can vouch for this), is a darling of the "right of centre" educated crowd..

Cons: He probably does not have the charisma of a Modi or Vajpayee. Some if the RSS and the BJP do not consider him a 'son of the soil' despite his ABVP beginnings, and he probably does not have the grassroots support of the party cadre.

Another major negative is that, while he is leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, and has held cabiner ministerial portfolios, he does not have a governance track record.

Manohar Parrikar

This is another politician I've grown to admire over the years. Very down to earth, well educated (he went to an IIT), and understands the common man's needs. Has a track record of good governance, and is back in the driver's seat in Goa after last month's elections.

It is unlikely that Parrikar will be BJP's candidate, but I'd love to see the day he is actively considered.

  

My last candidate is not from the BJP (!).

Jayalalitha

The AIADMK and the BJP have had a love-hate relationship, but by and large they seem to have mutually acceptable ideologies. The AIADMK isn't anti-any community or fanatic in any way (unlike DMK), and Jayalalitha is known to be a good administrator.

Jayalalitha has charisma, can speak English and Hindi, as well as Tamil and probably Kannada too. The nation knows her for what she has accomplished, and sees her as a no-nonsense politician.

Cons: Unsure what her appeal will be in the Hindi heartland, or on the grassroot BJP cadre. Still, quite a strong candidate if you ask me.

The BJP is actually unlikely to pick her, but I have some hopes since Cho Ramaswamy indicated in his speech during the 2012 Tughlaq annual function that the BJP should give this thought. Had Cho not made this suggestion, I would not be able to come up with this thought as a possibility myself!

For now, the BJP seems to be secretive about its 2014 election plans. I think this is a good strategy, but they should come out with a candidate when the campaigns start. In India, while the party counts, the prime ministerial candidate is key too. Maybe the BJP is waiting for Congress to announce its candidate first, and it most certainly will not be Manmohan Singh!