Paradise on Earth

.

The Mughal Emperor Jehangir (father of Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal in memory of his beloved wife Mumtaz Mahal), wrote this couplet in Persian about Kashmir: If there is Paradise on Earth; It is this, It is this, It is this.

I visited the Vale (of Kashmir), as it is called, when I was 21. I could not agree with Jehangir more; Srinagar, Gulmarg, Pahalgam and the other places I visited there are still very pleasently memorable. I had promised to myself then that one day I will bring my future wife and our children back to see the splendid panorama. But it was not to be.

The actual history of Kashmir is long, convoluted and controversial. In a nutshell, it the province of Jammu & Kashmir was under the direct rule of a Hindu maharajah, Hari Singh. During the years of the Raj, it existed as an independent entity and paid an annual 'fee' for remaining so to the British. When independence was granted in August 1947, and India was divided into India and Pakistan, Hari Singh chose to remain independent, rather than join either of the successor states, which was his option.

However, a short time after the formation of the two nations, irregulars from Pakistan (next door) raided the Vale in an attempt to annex it to Pakistan. Within a matter of days, Hari Singh had agreed to become a part of India, and Indian troops were landing at Srinagar airport. This was the start of the first Indo-Pakistan war, which had been by now joined by the regular Pakistani Army units.

Ironically, during this first year post-independence, the armies in both countries were still under British command, and the war ended in a stalemate when India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, appealed to the UN. A cease-fire was instituted and a 'Line of Control' established at a point where the Indian Army was able to push the Pakistani forces back.

There were some contradictions . The alleged basis of the partition of India was religious; it was the division on a country into a Muslim Pakistan and a predominantly (82%) Hindu India. Nevertheless, after Partition, India still was the most populous Muslim country in the world (This title has since been taken over by Indonesia, about a decade ago).  Kashmir was (and is) the only state in the Indian Union with a Muslim-majority population. This was the casus belli for Pakistan: why should a Muslim-majority region be a part of a predominantly Hindu (though secular per its Constitution) India? The Pakistanis ignored the fact that Kashmiris wished to stay independent.

Unknown to India, in the region of Askai Chin, adjacent to Tibet, China built the National Highway 219, connecting Tibet and Xinjiang. This was the basis of the Sino-Indian war of 1962, because India considered Askai Chin to be its territory. It has been under overt Chinese  control since. Aksai Chin was historically part of the Himalayan Kingdom of Ladakh until Ladakh was annexed from the rule of the local Namgyal dynasty by the Dogras and the princely state of Kashmir in the 19th century. When Hari Singh (a Dogra) acceded to India, All of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (including Askai Chin) legally became a part of India.

In 1965, Pakistan waged another war against India in an attempt to annex Kashmir. Though India had just lost its first and only war with China over territorial disputes, it defeated Pakistan soundly. India wanted to be a status quo state; Pakistan a revisionist one.

So at present, half of the entire State is administed by India, one-third by Pakistan, and the remainder by China. Surrounded by these three countries, it is rather impossible for it to stay independent, as it originally wished.

In fact, this state comprises of three regions. Jammu is predominantly Hindu (66%, 30% Muslim) and Ladakh about half Buddhist (50%, 46% Muslim). It is only the Vale of Kashmir that has a majority of Muslims (95%, 4% Hindu), and it alone has been the bone of contention between the two countries. However, if you ask a Kashmiri on the street, he will still like to be independent, but his next choice will be joining Pakistan, rather than India. No so in either Jammu or Ladakh; they'd like stay with India than be independent or go over to Pakistan.

When Maharajah Hari Singh acceded to India, he esured that his province enjoy a special status in the Union, unlike the rest of the states. This was promised, and under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the Union Constitution was extended to the State with some exceptions and modifications. For example, a non-Kashmiri cannot own land in that state, though a Kashmiri can hold property in any other part of the country. In addition, the state receives money from the Central government in excess of any other state on a per-capita basis. For instance, it received about eight times in funds as compared to another state, Bihar, in 2007.

Nehru was himself a Kashmiri, and he knew the feelings and aspirations of Kashmiris well. During 50s and early 60s, the whole country of India was coming into being and starting anew, and it was a rather uneventful period in Kashmir's history. It had the first free elections and voted in its own, Sheikh Abdullah (aka the Lion of Kashmir).

With the death of Nehru in 1964 and the rise of his daughter Indira Gandhi (no relation to the Mahatma), things began to change. Indira was not, like her father, a statesman; she believed in realpolitiks, and was sly, calculating and sought vengeance. During the next decade, she put the Sheikh in jail, poisioned the politics of the state and installed a government of her own party (the Congress) after elections that were corrupt and irregular.

This led to the formation of JKLF, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, in 1977. Its members were moderate, often scholars, who wanted to raise the issue of more sovereignty of their State and felt that the promises of the Article 370 were not implemented in full. Their protests were non-violent in the beginning, but soon led to aggression.

Pakistan was happy with this inbred agitation, though it was not particularly happy with JKLF because they did not want Kashmir to be a part of either Pakistan or India and had declared their movement as non-religious. Pakistan wanted to foment trouble on religious lines, and started to widen this existing fault-line by recruiting, training and funding outfits that would act against India. Still, until the end of the 1980s, all the trouble in Kashmir was by disaffected Kashmiris, and the disturbance was moderate in scale.

The year 1989 proved to provide a big bonanza for Pakistan. The Afghan war has just ended with the withdrawal of Soviet forces, and there were hundreds of soldiers-of-fortune suddenly unemployed. The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), the MI-6 of Pakistan, was only too happy to oblige. Suddenly, the home-grown movement was converted into a big-scale operation of terrorism that was supported in mechanics and logistics by the Pakistani Armed Forces. Of course, there were Kashmiris in the ranks, but the whole process now had a definite religious flavor and fervor.

 

It suited Pakistan for several reasons. Firstly, having been defeated in the wars of 1965 and 1971 by India, it provided a sweet revenge. This was especially sweet because in 1971, India had helped East Pakistan secede from the West and become Bangladesh. Secondly, it knew it would not be able to wrest Kashmir out of India's control by regular military means, because India's was a more powerful military. This slow-bleed of the Indian Armed Forces suited it well, and kept Indians occupied and unable to create any other trouble for Pakistan, or so their thinking went. Thirdly, this provided a raison d'etre for its Armed Forces, which were becoming important players in the political landscape of Pakistan.

India had no option but to react militarily. Soon, the Vale of Kashmir was turned into a police state. This further exacerbated the violence, and the viscious circle continues to the present. As is true with any police state, there were human rights violations and other excesses by the Indian Army, which are no excuse its actions being a result of the terrorists trying, and succeeding, to exact a toll on them.

This violence is rather limited to the Vale of Kashmir, though there are occasional episodes in Jammu as well. If truth be told, Pakistanis will be happy to annex just the Vale; they are not interested in Jammu or Ladakh. In fact, there has been increasing sentiment in the Vale to be a part of Pakistan.

The Indian State has several dilemmas about the status of Kashmir. It is, by its Constitution, a secular State, and where everyone stands equal regardless of caste, creed, class or religion. How could it allow Kashmiris to be treated differently, though they have to because of Article 370? How could it let the Vale secede? India has prided itself on being a secular democracy, and this detachment would be a testament to the facts otherwise. It is also a question of pride; how can India let any part of its territory secede? In addition, it will open the door to other regions clamoring for autonomy. This is quite a possibility, as India is as variegated as Europe with regions only a few hundred miles apart having different cultures, languages and cuisines.

On the other hand, Indians are tired of the conflict. The Indo-Pakistani relations that held center-stage in the 20th century are becoming increasingly irrelevant. India is rising to become a world economic power, while Pakistan is slipping into failure. The middle-class is growing in India, and its worries and priorities are changing. India wants to look forward to attaining a place on the world stage and is not interested in looking back at the issues that it feels shackle it to the past. It also has to deal with increasing terrorist threats in the rest of the country.

There has been as growing sentiment in India is to let the Vale of Kashmir go. It doesn't care if it remains independent or becomes a part of Pakistan. As far as Indians are concerned, no one in their right mind would want to be a part of that country in 2008. If Kashmiris want it, Godspeed.

It seems that I may visit Srinagar with a Pakistani visa. I won't mind as long as Pakistan becomes a safe and stable nation. But that may not happen in my lifetime and, alas, I may not be able to keep my promise.

Grow up

.

The Democratic Convention starts tomorrow in Denver. It could end up being  Greek tragedy, thanks to supporters of HRC. The catharsis that Hillary spoke of could very well have the effect of massive puking and crapping all over the place.

And Democrats may do what they do best: Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

As this article in Politico reports, "..some Clinton aides wondered openly if the Obama campaign was mocking Clinton's famous 3 a.m. ad". Such is the paranoia in the HRC camp that they feel that when "Asked why Clinton was never seriously considered, one Clinton aide responded with a single word: "Ego.""

Jenny Doggett, founder of counteveryvotecast.org, was quoted here as saying that "It's a big mistake not to choose her. It's sad and it's a sure way to guarantee the Republicans will win," because Obama didn't pick Hillary. Ms Dogget, who has urged Clinton to take her campaign to the convention floor, added: "Obama can't do this on his own. This ticket [Obama/Biden] isn't going to be able to compete and can't overcome the lack of unity. Only Hillary can bring them that."

This article also says that "Only about half [52%] of former Clinton voters say they'll back the Illinois senator." About a third are undecided and the rest [21%] plan to vote for Senator McCain.

The policies of HRC and BHO are very, very similar, so it is not that these votes will not go to Obama because of different priorities a President Obama will pursue. And it is not just sour grapes, either.

These supporters were themselves egotists, and only less than eight months ago, they didn't consider that anyone had the brain or balls to go past HRC. It takes one to spot one, and since their pride has sustained a fall, they are in no mood to forgive or forget.

They would rather vote for a 72 year old man with fading memory, confusing and contradictory messages, a near-perfect conservative voting record, who agreed with President Bush (proudly) 95% of the time.

This liberal stock is not concerned that the Arizona Senator considers a cut-off of $5 million for being rich, cannot remember how many houses he owns (between 7 - 11, but no one actually knows), and is tied to a $100 million fortune.

This feminist group is untroubled with the fact that he sought this fortune (by dating Cindy) while he was still married to a former swim wear model who did not meet his expectations on his return (she had lost her good looks due to a massive car accident while he was a POW in Vietnam).

This pro-choice crowd seems apathetic to the possibility that a President McCain could turn the balance of the Supreme Court to the right for the entire next generation. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, they will surely moan: "If only Hillary was there".

This anti-war band of sisters seem to have no problem with voting for a man whose knee-jerk response to any international crisis is a military or otherwise belligerent response. With his thinking stuck in the Cold War era, McCain would help us build a bridge to the 20th century, and no the the late 20th, but going far into the 1950s.

Even the Clintons do not seem to have taken the defeat in stride. 

In a recent appearence, the Senator mentioned to Obama as "my opponent". She continued to say how much she has done for her "opponent" after she lost the race. In the end, it was all about her.
 

The former president, who had declared repeatedly that Hillary was ready to be President, could not bring himself to answer the 'readiness' question posed by an ABC reporter a fortnight ago. "You can argue", he said, "that no one is really ready to be the President". So much for a ringing endosement.

I think the supporters are just keying in to what the Clintons are implying; the tone is always set at the top.

Regardless of the result, two things are certain about this election. It will be a referendum on Obama, and will be the most dissected balloting ever. 

For the Clintons and their supporters, this will be the the day of reckoning. Unless they give Obama a full-throttled support, the Senator can kiss her chances of a 2012 run goodbye if Obama loses and the former President's legacy will be severly tarnished.

The State of Pakistan

.
Pakistan is emerging as a big headache for the US, more than Georgia in a sense. A recent article by Robert Tracinski, "What to Do About Pakistan", is rather interesting. I have also expressed similar sentiments in by blog article, "Hurry up to embrace India", a few days ago. Before that, I had given my opinion on the "Failing state of Pakistan".

The McCain Nation

Jerome Corsi, who Swift-boated John Kerry as co-author of "Unfit to Command" in 2004, is trying to do the same to Obama in his newly minted best seller, "The Obama Nation."

Corsi's writings have been repeatedly promoted by Sean Hannity on Fox News; Corsi's publisher, Mary Matalin, has praised her author's "scholarship." 

If Republican warriors like Hannity and Matalin think so highly of Corsi's research into Obama, then perhaps we should take seriously Corsi's scholarship about McCain.
 

In recent articles at worldnetdaily.com, Corsi has claimed (among other charges) that the McCain campaign received "strong" financial support from a "group tied to Al Qaeda" and that "McCain's personal fortune traces back to organized crime in Arizona."
 

His charges against Bush and Cheney go much further; he wants them impeached. Here's a video of his speech:

He has made other interesting comments, such as in a January 29, 2008,  interview with a conspiracy-minded radio host when Corsi said the US government wasn't telling the whole truth about what happened at the World Trade Center during 9/11. Corsi gives much credence to the claim by physicist Steven Jones who claims the towers exploded because of explosives inside the building.


"World Trade Center dust forms the iron sphere that can only be formed at extremely high temperatures," Corsi said, "jet fuel doesn't…The government's explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres – these microscopic spheres – that Steven Jones has proved existed within the WTC dust." …

You can argue that...

After the tête–à–tête between the two candidates and Pastor Rick at the Saddleback megachurch last Saturday, I felt that Senator McCain has given the greatest performance of this electoral season; Obama had been too nuanced  and appeared less spirited in comparison.

Pastor Rick had stressed that even though the two Senators will be interviewed separately, and the latter would not be privy to the questions; he will be in a 'cone of silence'. Fair enough. 

On 'Meet the Press' last Sunday, Andrea Mitchell postulated that it was possible that Senator McCain could have overheard Obama, because he went before the presumptive Republican nominee. 

If this is true, 'my friends', it is we who got Saddlebacked.

Mitchell's statements drew an immediate response from McCain's Campaign. He wasn't even there, they claimed, but was enroute to the Church in a motorcade during the first half of the interview. Later, he was holed up in a greenroom at Saddleback, where there was no live [TV] feed.

Although the Campaign denies it, you can argue that Senator McCain could have:

• heard the interview over the radio or even on TV on the limo he was traveling
  
• been informed by SMS or email on his Blackberry in the car or in the greenroom. The SMS/email is possible because Lindsey  Graham and Cidy McCain were in the audience. Or they could have called McCain's cellphone and just left it on.

I don't know if any of this this happen, but it does cast doubt.

If true, it is intolerable, Agent Pastor Rick.

Who got Saddlebacked?

.

An agent of intolerance (according to McCain 2000), the Evangelical preacher Rev. Rick Warren, got the two senators running for the presidency together, in a civil debate.
.

McCain was more in his element than Obama; this has been McCain's best performance this election cycle. He was among his 'own' and the format was closer to the town-halls he does so well. He was humorous, witty and told stories. He shared almost all the values of the audience, who are the base of the Republican party.
.

However, Obama appeared at ease in the southern California megachurch, a setting that played to his comfort level with openly discussing his faith. He quoted a Biblical proverb and spoke at length about his faith as a "source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis." "I know that I don't walk alone, and I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends," Obama said.
.

Obama, for obvious reasons, held policy positions that were not the the liking of the attendees, though he displayed a connection to these conservative voters. He mentioned God twice during the discussion, and Jesus once; McCain, at no time.
.

Obama carried the discussion more like a professor he was. He would answer directly to Pastor Warren, dissecting the logic. McCain on the other hand, would start to answer the Pastor and then turn to the crowd, pulling them in. His answers were more terse and succint than Obama's.
.

McCain came out as more decisive. Whether you agreed with him or not, he was more direct and you knew where he stands (similar to George Bush). Obama gave more nuanced answers. He appeared more thoughtful and intellectual, agreeing to disagree and willing to give you regard and respect even if you disagreed with him.
.

In a sense, the candidates reiterated their parties' stance; Republicans are more passionate on issues and see things in black and white; Democrats look for logical answers to questions and see the world in shades of gray. In that sense, the whole excercise was predictable, as niether candidate strayed from their basic positions.
.

This was most evident when asked which Justices of the Supreme Court they would not have picked. Obama named Thomas, but also included Scalia and Roberts. McCain named all three of the remaining liberal justices, and also the off-again-on-again liberal, Justice Kennedy.
.

There was some notable moments, though. When asked to define 'rich', Obama said that anyone making over $250,000 should be considered well-off; McCain's number was $5 million, but he quickly added: "I'm sure that comment will be distorted".
.

The comment that will be 'distorted' for Obama will be his answer when Warren asked, "At what point does a baby get human rights?"; "Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade". This will be played over and over again in battleground states in the coming weeks.
.

The audience of several hundred inside the auditorium offered polite and occasionally enthusiastic applause throughout the forum for Obama. It was more spirited for McCain, and at at one point during a commercial break, someone shouted an approval — "We love you, John" — of the sort more often heard at Obama events (and, McCain might add, teenybopper concerts).
.

The stakes were high for both candidates. Obama wanted to show his comfort with speaking the language of these conservatives; McCain wanted to show that he is no longer the person (of 2000) they disdained.
.

A June survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showed 61 percent of evangelical voters supporting the Republican senator, with 25 percent preferring Obama, figures that align roughly with June 2004, when 69 percent backed Bush and 26 percent Kerry. (Bush ultimately took 78 percent of this vote, up 10 percentage points from 2000.)
.

If Obama is more successful in convincing the Evangelicals that he is not such a bad guy after all, he may have them stay home, even if they don't want to vote for him. That would at least prevent the 10% increase Bush had in 2004 between June and November, or better yet, decrease the support from 61% that McCain enjoys now.

In addition, over 10% of Evangelicals are undecided this year; much more than in 2004. If Obama succeeds in either converting them or having them not go to the polls, it will be a big win for him.
.

If there is one issue that drew attention at this forum was the direction of the Supreme Court. With the possibility of the next president nominating two, or maybe three, justices, the balance of this Court will defenitely shift, one way or the other, decisively. That may alone be the reason for the Republican base to show up at the polls in number, and McCain defenitely hopes so.

Hurry up to embrace India

.
The Cold War began almost as soon as the Second World War ended. The super-powers, USSR and USA, went over the map choosing countries to be their allies. Several of them wanted to stay away from this game, and a Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was born; it's founding members were Nehru of India, Nasser of Egypt and Tito of the former Yugoslavia.

The membership was entirely of under-developed (read poor) countries, and they were called the 'third world', because they were, officially, neither with the US or the USSR. Over the course of time, the NAM developed a left-ward tilt, as it found policies of the USSR more accommodating than that of the US.

The USSR formed the 'Warsaw Pact', and the members were countries of Eastern Europe which constituted its sphere of influence; these states had Communist dictatorships. The West constituted the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), comprised of democracies of Western Europe, Canada and the US.

In the latter half of the 2oth century, the world was neatly divided into three blocks, though NAM was a bit left leaning with some of its members more so than others.

In South Asia, the major countries were India, a well-functioning democracy, and Pakistan, which had Army rule either directly or indirectly through a democratically elected government since its inception in 1947. For this reason, it was easier for the US policy makers to dictate to Pakistan and near impossible to do so to India.

And for this reason, India was in America's blind spot.

While India's democracy was not quite Jeffersonian, yet it was maturing, its democratic institutions being built and democratic infrastructure being laid. In addition, it was the least of the left leaning NAM countries.

However, during the late 60s and early 70s, the Nixon Administration was using Pakistan as a proxy to engage China, the foreign policy coup that was Kissinger's brainchild. Just like Pakistan is a front-line state in the 'War on Terror' today, it was a 'gateway' to China then. So when the hostilities between India and Pakistan were imminent in 1971, the US sent the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal and threatened India.

With no other choice in a bipolar world, India fell into Russia's embrace, much to America's chagrin. Worse, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974. This further alienated the West, including the US and India went further into concert with the USSR.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall 1989, the Soviet Empire dissolved. The USSR broke into 15 independent states, its allies in Eastern Europe moved towards free-market capitalism and democracy, and Germany reuinited. Meanwhile, China started to enter the picture as a low-cost manufacturing hub, and in about 15 years, it has become the major creditor nation to the US.

In 1990, India shed its centralized economic model and moved towards free-market reforms. Instead of manufacturing, it became a low-cost center for business processing, around 2001.



So what it is that India offers to the US at this point in time?

Three words: location, location, location.

To its north is China. It is a regional power with a nuclear arsenal, and the only country besides Russia with ICBMs pointed towards USA. Besides it financial clout over us, it is investing heavily in modernizing its armed forces; this is making her neighbors around South China Sea very nervous. By 2025, it is slated to be the 2nd largest global economy, behind USA.

It is only a matter of time when the US and China clash over Taiwan, and shipping lanes in the far east come under China's command. China has, by now, so much enmeshed itself with the world economy that isolating it is not an option. We have to learn to live with it.

To the far north is Russia. With the invasion of Georgia, Russia has sent alarm bells ringing in Western capitals. For over a decade, the Bear has been written off, but now it is flexing its muscles and announcing its presence. A second Cold War is imminent, though it will be a bit more complicated this time around with more than two players on the stage.

To its west is Pakistan. Labeled as a 'failed state' before 9/11, it became a front-line state of the 'War on Terror', because it shared a border with Afghanistan, where the Taliban gave refuge to Osama bin Ladin. It was easier when it was under Army rule, but with the elections in February, and the possible impeachment of its erstwhile military dictator, new worries have emerged.

The Pakistani populace is anti-US, and there is a terrorist around every street corner. The newly elected government is finding it hard to administrate, and the writ of the state doesn't run in over half of the country. While the Bush administration hopes that with a newly elected democratic government, it will be like South Korea when military rulers Chun and Roh Tae-woo gave way to popular demands for democratic elections, and that nation is a successful democracy since then.

However, there are concerns that it could turn out like Iran, where the Shah had incurred the hatred of both Islamic radicals and secular democrats for running a corrupt and brutal regime. The United States was a target of resentment, too - much as it is in Pakistan - because of its unwavering support for the Shah.

In 1979, when massive demonstrations brought on Iran's moment of truth, the army declined to fire on the population. The Carter administration withdrew support from the Shah while offering him asylum, and a revolutionary regime took power.

Unfortunately, that regime still rules - with radical Shiite Islam and hatred for the United States as its guiding principles. It is now developing nuclear weapons and is aiding anti-U.S. and radical Islamic movements all over the Mideast.

Which future Pakistan will follow is up in the air. Nevertheless, it should be of acute concern because of its nuclear arsenal, like Iran; something South Korea did not have.

That's not all. A top CIA counterterrorism expert, Ted Gistaro, told a Washington gathering this week that al-Qaida "now has [in Pakistan] many of the operational and organizational advantages it once enjoyed across the border in Afghanistan" before 1981 and can use them to train terrorists for worldwide attacks.

Another country to India's north is Nepal, which has just elected a former Maoist as its Prime Minister. Nepal, along with Bangladesh and Burma, both to India's east and the latter a military dictatorship as well, are in China's sphere of influence.



In other words, India is the only viable and well-functioning democracy in this geopolitically important region. Its neighborhood is very important to the US, especially China, Russia and Pakistan. While China and Russia are stable nations, Pakistan could implode in the near future.

In addition, by 2025, its population will be almost the same as China (1.5 billion) and it will be the 3rd largest economy in the world.

Further, India has good terms with Iran and is respected in the volatile region of the Middle East. Countries, especially of the NAM, in Asia, Africa, and South America look up to it. India has more in common with most countries of the world than either the US or USSR, or other Western nations.

It has survived over 60 years as a thriving democracy where the elections are free and fair, the election commission is independent and the voter participation is greater than in the US. It has a free press and an independent, effective judiciary. There always has been a smooth transfer of power and the armed forces are under civilian control.

Yes, there is official corruption and the law and order situation can sometimes be sketchy, but as the middle-class is increasing in number and the population in general is getting more prosperous, this weakness of the Indian state is also being corrected. The good thing is that what you see is what you have, like in the US. There is no hiding of issues or sugar coating of problems. With over 300 languages and over 1000 dialects, it is a very diverse nation. Almost every religion is represented, even though it is a secular state by its Constitution.

In fact, it is more like US in many ways than any other country in the world.

This is why the US should embrace India in a hurry. And especially before a resurgent Russia panders to it in an effort to contain China, and the US.

But I do think Indians are crazy though. In a worldwide poll in 2007, the country where Bush was most popular was India; his popularity was in the low 70s. In the US, this was his percentace of unpopularity then. Go figure.

Georgia on my mind

.
Pesident Bush sent Secretary of State Condelezza Rice to Tbilisi as an envoy.

The presumptive nominee of the Republican party, Mr. McCain, is sending a bipartisan contingent to Georgia as envoys for his campaign.

(Wow. Is this presumptuous? If Obama had done it, for sure. And McCain wouldn't have let him forget it for being so insolent.)

There's more. While Obama is vacationing in Hawaii, McCain has the floor all to himself. So he is going townhall to townhall, stressing his foreign policy credentials — and turn the political focus to world affairs.

It seemed like all Georgia all of the time, even if the setting didn't appear quite right.

"As you know, over the past several days we've seen that international aggression is, tragically, not a thing of the past," McCain told the audience. "We thought we put a lot of that behind us at the end of the 20th century. But now it's rearing its ugly head in the 21st … [in] the small of nation of Georgia."

(So why was he for the US invasion of Iraq, and wants us to be in Iraq for another 100 years)

Everywhere he went, McCain stressed his knowledge of Georgia. He's been there, he said — and he knows President Mikhail Saakashvili well. In fact, McCain told the crowd in Pennsylvania that he had just been on the phone with the Georgian leader.

"And he wanted me to say thank you to you," McCain said. "To give you his heartfelt thanks for the support of the American people for this tiny little democracy, far away from the United States of America."

(Funny, because when he signed the 'peace treaty' today at the behest of Ms. Rice, Saakashvili was very dismissive of the the West in general, saying that they told him that he was making a mountain out of a molehill when he told the Western leaders that Russia may do what it has now done.)

As McCain pounded his message home, questions started to pop up. McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, it turns out, was a lobbyist working for the nation of Georgia until this year. He's one reason McCain has had that contact with the Georgians, including Saakashvili, over the past several years.

(For the record: McCain has no lobbyists as paid staff. Former lobbyists and advisors who are lobbyists are OK.)

At a news conference in Michigan Wednesday, McCain was asked about the origins of his interest in Georgia.

"All I can say is I have a long record of experience and background and knowledge vis-a-vis our relations with Russia," McCain said. "Although I was deeply disappointed in Russian behavior, I must say this is one in a long series of actions taken by Prime Minister Putin that have been of deep and abiding concern for me for a long time."

(So the Man from the 'Straight Talk Express' skipped the question about Georgia, and talked about Russia instead. It also seems he too has been looking into Putin's eyes and talking to Putin's soul)

Ledeen Doctrine

.
The Ledeen Doctrine states that: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

Down with Russia

.
What was Russia thinking? That it can get away by waging an illegitimate war on a country so weak by comparison, acting unilaterally without a UN mandate, causing hundreds of civilian causalities, supporting a faction loyal to it and trying to bring about regime change?

And who does Putin think he is - George W. Bush?


I fully agree with John McCain that Russia should be thrown out of the G-8, and the 3 battalions he wanted to send to Afghanistan should be diverted to Georgia.

As our ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, said, "The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone," since we are now in the "21st century".

At an emergency session of the United Nations' Security Council, the U.S. alleged Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "must go." Mr. Khlilzad added: "This is completely unacceptable and crosses a line," since Georgia is a sovereign country, and toppling an existing government is a big no-no (in Europe in the 21st century).

President Bush had this to say: "Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic, and security structures of the 21st century. The United States has supported those efforts. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions."

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush postponed his summer vacation at his Texas ranch because of the crisis in Georgia by a day. It is evident that this is not a very earth-shattering event; Ms. Rice did not feel it was important to interrupt her holidays to fly to Tbilisi in support of the Georgian government.

However, Ms. Rice is now on her way to Tbilisi. She said that "We expect Russia to meet its commitment to cease all military activities in Georgia", failing which, it will "deepen the isolation into which Russia is moving".

The United States is now seeking to win backing for a strongly worded UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.

We have always believed only in actions backed by the UN.

From Russia with Love

.
On hearing that the Russians are ready to bomb the capital of Georgia, Bush responded: "Damn, I go out for a few days, and the Commies are seizing Atlanta."

But seriously, there has been a rather tepid response from the West as Russian tanks rolled into Georgia.

The MSM is busy covering the Olympics, the US presidential race and, most importantly, the Edwards saga (ad nauseum).

So while Russians grab land from a former satellite, the world barely notices, as if it has grown numb to such misadventures. At least there was a large hue and cry about Darfur, though nothing much came of it.

Since we have done something similar by invading Iraq, toppling Saddam and having a regime change, we are tongue-tied to call Russia on it. It will like the pot calling the kettle black, if we do. And Russia knows our handicap.

But our ambassador to the UN still manages to say that in the 21st century there is no place for a regime change by military action, but qualifies his statement: in Europe [emphasis mine].

Say that again, please? Are you implying that regime change is OK by military force in Asian, Middle Eastern and African countries?

But what actually can the US do to Russia, or any other country for that matter, if they invade others. After the unilateral invasion of Iraq, we are left with no moral authority, little powers of diplomatic persuasion, and almost no military regiments left to intervene.

Maybe Bush should look in Putin's eyes and talk to Vlad's soul.

But Sarkozy beat him to it. The President of France, in a meeting with Putin the Terrible, has chalked up a peace plan, that Russia and Georgia have agreed to follow.

So Putin, who had snubbed Bush's call for reversing his course of action, has agreed to listen to Sarkozy!

This is of paramount importance. As the tectonic plates of world power shift, and we are focused on an emerging China, a resurgent Russia and the tumultuous Middle East, France is quietly stepping up to be a power broker. It has always felt that it is a great nation and culture whose status has long been denied in an Anglophilic world.

As the US cedes its standing in the world, thanks to Bush, France is ready to step up to the plate. And France is no Canada, or even Germany. France is seen by the rest of the world as being a responsible, understanding power that is not arrogant like the US.

It's international rating got a boost when it chose to be a part of a coalition of the unwilling, when we were patching up a fig leaf to cover the invasion of Iraq. Yes, there were riots in Paris involving Arabs, but it has more say in the countries of Asia Minor than we do.

Whatever the actual facts are, the international perception is pro-French and anti-American at the moment. If we care about our place in the world-order, we should do something about it, and fast.

But Senator McCain wants to throw Russia out of the G-8, along with China even before the invasion of Georgia. Now, he is saber-rattling as if we have a few battalions to spare.

And that's not all. The Georgian government is supposed to be our ally whom we want to join the NATO. A few years ago in Tblisi, Bush promised that they would not travel alone in the difficult path of democracy they have chosen. Georgians were emboldened to have the only remaining superpower on their side, and stood up to Russia on this premise.

Other than letting the entire contingent of 2000 Georgian troops in Iraq (the 3rd largest in the coalition of the willing) go, there is nothing much we are willing or able to do.

Sorry Georgia, you will have to travel this treacherous road alone. We do wish you the best of luck, though. Our prayers are with you, even if our military backing isn't.

Finally, the most probable reason of why Russia is doing what it is, is because it can. It is also testing our response as that of the international community. While you won't see tanks on the streets of Belgrade quite yet, I won't quite rule them out in the capitals of other countries that form the Commonwealth of Independent States in the near future, if they behave like Georgia.

Russia has flexed its muscle.

It is rattling the cage and wants everyone to notice its presence. But why?

Essentially, Russia feels it has suffered a damage to its reputation after the fall of Communism.

Not only did the great Russian Empire dissolve, but the opening of a society that was tucked away from the outside word for about half a century did not provide a pretty sight. The glories of a classless society that its leaders sung were exposed to be false. In fact, except for their space program and military power, Russia was literally a third world country, or worse. Even developing counties like India were far ahead in non-military, non-space ventures.

In addition, its sphere of influence severely contracted. Countries like Poland and Hungary became decentralized free markets. The Berlin wall fell and East Germany reunited with the West to become the German fatherland once again. There was trouble in the Balkans, and the Yugoslavia of Marshall Tito broke violently into three states. Czechoslovakia also divided itself into two, but in a velvet revolution.

To make matters worse for Russia, the Baltic nations joined NATO, as did countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. This added insult to injury, because the West was now right at Russia's door.

Further, the genie erupted as soon the bottle was opened. There was a rush to move Russia into a capitalistic market system under the guise of democracy. When this happened, Russia had no institutions of democracy or capitalism. It is easier to enforce democracy and prop it up than have the 'invisible hand' play where there was none.

So corruption ensued. A few people made millions and billions, while millions lost their savings and jobs. Inflation grew at a rapid rate, especially affecting the elderly and the retired who lived on a fixed income. The promise of care from cradle to grave was no more; that baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

The success of the very few and the plight of the many was so great that there had to be a change. Most Russians felt bare without the protection of state sponsorship. Many had not known anything else.

So, change ensued. Only after a decade or so of a free-wheeling market experiment, it was brought in check by Putin & Company. We cannot allow a few parasites suck the blood of the many, was their battle-song. The free-market capitalism so desired by the West, suffered.

Russia, with its rich oil and natural gas reserves, had a few tycoons who got rich trading oil at the expense of the rest within a few years. They literally acted like robber-barons of the 18th century West. So the first thing Putin did was to bring this and other newly emerging oligarchies under state control. As energy prices climbed, Russia, once in a huge debt to the West, found itself flush with foreign exchange reserves.

So what the free-market couldn't do for Russia, a central re-control did, or so it seemed. The vox populi rose in support of Putin and did not mind that even though they had a democracy now, they sacrificed certain individual rights. Who cares for the freedom of the press if there is financial and social stability.

(Now this is something we are very familiar with. In the name of security, and thus social stability, the Bush administration has virtually thrown the Constitution out of the window, despite we being the greatest democracy on earth; one of only countries with a Bill of Rights.)

Putin is a neo-communist, and quite a good one. The assimilation of capitalism and communism in China has not escaped his notice. He is no ideologue; the only dogma he subscribes to is control. In a sense, he is not much different that American neo-conservatives who want to extend US influence by forcing values they feel should be emulated at any cost.

That is why Russia is in Georgia.

It wants the world to know that it is once again the 800-pound gorilla that it was, and only better. It wants to avenge its humiliation. It wants to show everyone, especially the US, that it can be perturbed only at peril.

It is sad that under Bush, we proved to be very inept at being a sole superpower unable to handle a unipolar world. So in the near future, we will have a multipolar world, where countries like France and Russia will exert their influence. And don't forget China and India; they will be the second and third largest economies in the world in the next two decades.

I don't know if the blame of the Russian excursion and the French tip-toe to the podium can be put squarely at the feet of the Bush administration, but it certainly is at fault for letting such events happen.

And because of our own misadventure in Iraq, we cannot talk the talk or walk the walk.

The (failing?) State of Pakistan

.
In an Editorial today (Curb this vindictive hype!), the respected Pakistani newspaper (The Daily Times) states that "The state doesn't have the ability to impose its writ on more than half the territory, and areas under normal administration also are fast slipping into the zone of "ungoverned spaces"."

Being from India, I have always felt a remorse about the Partition, and sadness for the violence it entailed.

I have always felt that an undivided India would have been stronger, with little chances of 'nationalistic' parties of either Hindus or Muslims gaining traction, because Muslims would have made up about 30% of the population, diluting the present Hindu majority of over 80%.

In addition, there would have been Muslims of all classes, rather than just the uneducated and impoverished lot that form the majority of Muslims in India today.

I remember visiting and having dinner with the uncle of a classmate in Srinagar, when I was 19, who said this about the war of 1948 : "Nehru (the first Prime Minister of independent India) was no fool. He was from Kashmir and know it well. The land north-west of the LOC (in Pakistani control) was not worth keeping."

I wonder if Nehru's foresight extended to the possibility of Partition in 1947, realizing that western-most areas of a new country would be hard to control.

A failed state before 9/11, Pakistan seems to be on the verge of failing again, if it hasn't already.

Military rule for over half its existence of 60 years, Talibanization of the state, a Kalashnikov culture, lack of democratic institutions, a continual identity crisis, the ability of people like A.Q.Khan to rise and thrive, and the influence of the military intelligence agency (ISI) creating a 'state-within-a-state' are only a few examples of the state of affairs in current day Pakistan.

On reflection, I sometimes feel that Partition may have not been so bad, after all, for India. What it has to worry about now is Pakistan imploding into chaos. I hope that never happens, but then, there's a Murphy's Law.

To Pakistan's founder, Jinnah, all I can say is: If you wish for something very bad, you may actually get it.

To our Administration, I must offer a warning: If you deal with dirt, your hands will get dirty.

Obama denounces Mandela and Tutu

.
You cannot say that Obama is not proactive.

After having gone through the trauma of denouncing Ludacris, the rapper who is on his iPod and a big supporter, for saying indecent things about senators Clinton and McCain, Obama wanted to act the adage that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

In light of his international celibrity status, he disowned another international black celebrity, Nobelist Nelson Mandela. He hopes this would insuniate him for any remarks Mr. Mandela may make in the future that are construed as negative.

Once burnt, twice shy. In view of his relationships with Reverends that prove to be risky (Wright, Jackson), Obama also denounced the Nobelist Desmond Tutu, for similar reasons.

Better safe than sorry, so thinks the Obama campaign.