Blog Update III

As you can see, there have been some cosmetic changes to the blog, namely the links section. Attempts to put up a background picture have been considerably short of success however, despite me being certain that my HTML code insertion is correct.

Anyway, the next few topics will be related to Iran, SE Asia, Europe and that bastion of goodwill, Pakistan.

Next post to be up in 3 days.

- Mrinal Sharma.

Save the Tigers

Alas, not an animal loving post - I'm not into that sort of thing. It is a long one, however, almost as long as my arm (though I wish it were as long as something else)*.

18 years ago, an Indian peacekeeping contingent was sent into Sri Lanka, to help the Sinhalese Government combat LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) terrorism and sectarianism, which had plagued the country since 1976.

Our efforts were found wanting. Not only was Indian military performance poor, the head politicos back in New Delhi had trouble reaching a concensus on a course of action to take. Indeed, in some cases, leading politicians questioned whether India should have sent in a peacekeeping contingent (named the IPKF) in the first place, when the LTTE, a Hindu Tamil group, had roots in India. Some may say this point of view was vindicated when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by Tigers in 1990, after the IPKF withdrew but, in the intial stages of the conflict, this lead to chaos and confusion.

An objective after-action analysis conducted by the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) concluded that unclear political objectives and miscommunication between military and political leaders was the main cause of the IPKF's failure to bring Northern Sri Lanka under control.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Indeed, since Sri Lanka's independence in 1948, Indian governmental policies displayed little realpolitik, substituted with political correctness and a desire to appear non-partisan. An understanding of the geopolitics and history of Southern India and Sri Lanka is essential to understanding the roots of the conflict that plagued India's island neighbour since its inception.

When the British had complete control of Sri Lanka (called Ceylon), they transported thousands of Tamil labourers (since Tamil Nadu is the closest state to Ceylon) to work the tea farms there, mostly in the North. In those days, each tea farm had a British overseer and a Tamil liason to monitor and coordinate activities of the workers. After Sri Lanka's independence, the Tamil liasons took over the management of these tea farms, and swiftly grew wealthy, increasing the prosperity of the Tamil community as a whole.

On the other hand, the Sinhalese majority, many of whom were working as low-paid manual labourers and in general, servicing the British empire, were not as fortunate to receive established industries from the departing British. Those they did receive were grossly mismanaged, and this did not help the prosperity of the community much. As has been the case in many other countries, where a majority ethnic group is upset by the advancement of a educated and hard working minority (1930's Germany being a famous example) the result was a "Sinhala only" policy. This drove the Tamils out of traditional job and opportunities. As the educated class had no land to fall back on, frustration began building up. A methodical Sinhala wedge was driven between Vanni and Trincomalee district. With all major industries being handed to Sinhalas, the only economy to fall back on was smuggling. This eventually lead to the formation of many Tamil terrorist groups, like the LTTE, EROS and the ERPLF.

With the (rather long) history lesson over, we come now to the the crux of the situation - Indian overtures to Sri Lanka and their effectiveness.

The Indian government, in an effort to appear peaceful and un-hegemonistic (sp?), decided to back the Sinhalese-majority Government in its actions, and in an effort to enlist the nation's help as an ally in the region. Spurred by official backing from India, the Sri Lankan Government continued its policy of segregation and sinhalese chauvinism. This continued, with relatively little resistence from the Tamil minority, until 1976.

Up until then, India's support of Sri Lankan actions can be justified, because it was in our best interests to have an ally in the form of another subcontinental nation. After the Tamil insurgencies began, however, the Indian Government should have remained neutral or maintained a slight pro-Tamil stance, for several reasons. Chief amongst which is the fact that the Tamil minority has traditional ties to the Indian mainland, in a major Indian state, and the support of the majority of its people. Apart from this, Sri Lanka had long suspected ulterior motives to Indian support (as voiced by its then Foreign Minister), and decided to foster closer ties with Indian arch-rivals Pakistan and China (the majority of Sri Lanka's military inventory is now composed of weapons from these two nations). As an immediate corrective measure, the Indian Government should have patrtaken in gunboat diplomacy, an action which would have been very effective, seeing as how we had faced down the United States and defeated Pakistan not 5 years before. Unfortunately, no such action occurred, and Indian hopes of gaining an ally in Sri Lanka were dashed.

But hindsight is 20/20, and some may be justified in saying I'm being too harsh 30 years on. Perhaps. I believe it was Theodore Roosevelt who said "In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."

And that was the problem. India did nothing. No formal complaints, no calling in political favours and hell, not even an attempt at bribery to secure us some support in Sri Lankan Government. Remeber those unclear political goals we spoke of earlier? They were the main cause. For once, Indian foreign policy lost all the aura of rancour and action that surrounded it, and remained mute, tolerating a diplmatic insult tantamount to a fist in the face.

The 1970's were the time to establish Indian dominance in the subcontinent. It had dismembered Pakistan, brought Nepal and Bhutan into its sphere of influence, and could have successfully countered China's ambitions in Burma, which is now a permanent thorn in India's side, with its Chinese listening posts and surveillance systems. We failed to capitalise on the oppurtunity, and Sri Lanka is the best example of this.

After Rajiv Gandhi took power in the eighties, the Indo-Lankan accord was signed. This was another major mishandling of relations, a misguided Indian attempt to retain the alliance that never was. 4,176 dead Indian troops was the result. Troops who died fighting another nation's war. Why India attempted to help a nation that had effectively snubbed it is beyond me, but it is clear that someone in the Indian Foreign Office had not had their coffee (or perhaps tea?) that morning.

After the IPKF withdrawal, the LTTE resumed their offensive and took control of a large part of the country. They were in their strongest position ever, and had Rajiv Gandhi's Government decided to, they could have supported the Tigers now, and in a swift move, gained power and influence over Sri Lankan foreign policy. The LTTE had, in fact, sent peace feelers to the Indian Government.

As usual, we did nothing. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated.

Some may criticise me for saying we should support a terrorist group and, make no bones about it, the LTTE is a terrorist organisation. After all, isnt India itself plagued by terrorist insurgencies in its North and Northeastern territories? It is, and we have had to kowtow to our enemies as a result, with Pakistan, China and Burma being the prime beneficiaries. The moral argument is void when it comes to national interests. If India has no qualms supporting Baloch seperatists in Pakistan, Uigher seperatists in China or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, it shouldnt have any qualms doing so in Sri Lanka**. And lets face it, the potential benefits of having a pro-Indian Sri Lankan foreign policy are boundless - power projection and diplomatic leverage just tips of the iceberg.

* With due credit to 'Lock, Stock, and two Smoking Barrels' for this ever-venerable line.

** To be clear, I'm not supporting a Tamil Government (although some Tamil representation in Sri Lankan Parliament wouldn't be such a bad thing). Rather, my intention is to highlight how to use the LTTE to gain influence over Sri Lankan foreign policy and to mould it to India's national interests.

The Cancer Within

EDIT: Upon consideration (and due to feedback I've received from many friends), I decided to post this edit.

This is a rant, and as such, the argument presented here does not have concrete reasoning, and has a much more personal tone than all my previous posts. But is one I believe in. You will see very few rants on my blog, so you may choose to ignore them if you wish.

Jane Fonda.

That name means different things to different people. To some, it is synonymous with a (formerly) attractive woman and to others it may be with the leading lady in various Hollywood projects (most of them failures).

To me, however, the name Jane Fonda is associated with the term bitch. Now, I hesitate to use that word, for it is a harsh, and usually undeserved adjective. In this case, not only is it warranted, but it goes hand in hand with other despicable character traits, such as treachery and duplicity.

Many will have heard of Fonda's overwhelming opposition to the Vietnam War (and now Iraq). And to some, this is acceptable. After all, she was living in a democracy, and was free to voice differing opinions. However, while vocal opposition is one thing, posing on an enemy AA gun is another. That shot alone caused immeasurable damage to the morale of Vietnam War veterans, already under flak back home, and only heightened the abuse they were facing. Veterans returning home were termed baby-killers, butchers and psychopaths. The now-famous Norman Swarzpkof, architect of Desert Storm was snubbed even by his own family. All this against soldiers who were trying to do their duty by their country and by their people.

Undoubtedly, there were psychopathic killers who served in Vietnam. But as Max Hastings, that great institution of British journalism pointed out, each army has its killers. If one rewinds to the days of Xerxes I, you would hear some of his soldiers commenting on the slaughter of civilians at Athens after the victory at Thermopylae. Or the slaughter of Chinese civilians by the Imperial Japanese Army, or any other conflict in recorded history.

Let's get back to Vietnam. As is infamously known, the Americans lost that war. Why?
American forces won almost every military engagement in that campaign. They possessed control of the sea-lanes, total air-superiority and the territorial advantage. So where did they lose?

They lost on the Public Relations (PR) front.

PR? Surely that’s not very important in a war?
But it is. Many associate war with the 'big bang' factor and with comparisons of military strength. But to win a war, a nation must win both against its enemy, and at home. Because the war was so unpopular in the US and South Vietnam, the Americans were forced to pull out of a conflict they very likely would have won. As a result, South Vietnam was overrun in months, and lost a million civilians, who were butchered by the Communist North.

And now it’s happening again. This time in Iraq. This is why current US military leaders are eager to win the cliched 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people, for without that they are nothing more than an occupation force, both to the Iraqi’s and to Americans. Yet, public and vocal opposition in the US threatens to force a withdrawal far sooner than the US would like, and far sooner than is good for Iraq. For say what you want about the American presence in Iraq, they don’t go around butchering civilians for being 'infidels' or 'great Satan’s'. Yes, there have been many unfortunate incidents in Iraq, be they accidental bombings of weddings, shootings at roadblocks (an action I agree with) or one of several others. But these were mistakes. Inquests have been ordered, punishments doled out, and suspensions of military personnel made. When was the last time you saw this done by terrorists? I don’t see terrorist leaders condemning suicide attacks that kill innocent civilians (women, children and unfortunate wedding guests included).

About now, you'll be thinking: 'This is all very interesting (or not, depending on whether you agree), but what does it have to do with India?" After all, I usually discuss matter pertaining to Indian interests. I'm coming to that.

Such activists are becoming more common in India. Recent activities of student organisations in India, led by anti-nuclear and anti-war demonstrators, threaten to compromise India's national security. Outcry's over issues such as whether terrorists are given human rights or how a possibly hostile civilian populace is treated are becoming common.

Recently, there was a protest over the killing of two innocent youths in Kashmir by army men.
This is understandable, and one I agree with. The troops in question were mistaken, and their incorrect judgement had caused them to shoot innocent, unarmed civilians. What bothers me, however, are when Indian citizens further these calls to one advocating India's total withdrawal from Kashmir, or to reduce the military and paramilitary presence there. These same people are queerly mute when Pakistani or local Kashmiri terrorists massacre villagers, or innocent moderate muslim (I highlight this for those who say Kashmir is a religious issue, and you know who you are) civilians, who refuse to back them in their quest for separation from the Indian Union. Calls made by Indian civilians to end our nuclear program, scale back military presence, and cut down on counter-insurgency operations are nothing less than seditious. What is more worrying is when such talk is taken seriously by politicians who wish to further their agendas, or by uninformed youth without direction, looking to take up a cause.

Not only to viewpoints like this damage the morale of the troops (and thus damage national security), they strenghten the hand of India's enemies without them having to fire a shot. They weaken our position both internationally and domestically. How are our troops supposed to fight if they have one hand tied behind their backs? How are we supposed to hold onto a piece of our land when our own people are against it? How are we supposed to generate clean electricity if the people are against nuclear reactors? How are we supposed to raise employment and rid ourselves of poverty if people go against economic reform, claiming it to be a corporate plot?

As long as these viewpoints, put across by the 'intellectual elite' are taken seriously, India will be forever taking one step forward and two steps back, and we will cede supremacy to the rapidly growing Chinese, forever to remain in second place.

- Mrinal Sharma.

The Stars, Stripes and the Indian Tricolour

The Indian social hierarchy is relatively well known. You have the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class. There is another section of society, whose members are derivative from all three categories above. Meet the 'intellectual 'elite'. Right now, you're probably wondering why I emphasized the words intellectual and elite separately. Rightly so, for it is both grammatically inaccurate (which is unlike me) and mentally taxing, but bear with me for just a moment, because such people are neither 'intellectual', nor 'elite'.

Don’t get me wrong, this club comprises some of the most influential members of society and, to be sure, they have enough academic qualifications to use up all the letters in the alphabet twice over. Yet, they are frauds. Why? Because such people advocate policies and agendas that they claim to be in the national interest, yet (unsurprisingly) do no more than further their own agendas while creating chaos and confusion in administrative policy.

Since talk is cheap, now would be a good time to provide an example.

Manmohan Singh hailed his recent US trip as 'ground-breaking' and one that 'heralds a new era of cooperation' with the United States. President Bush agreed, stating “Today, we announce the completion of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership. Completing this partnership will help us further enhance our cooperation in the areas of civil nuclear, civil space and high-technology commerce”

Cooperation with the United States in the Nuclear and technological fields will increase as a direct result, while the Indian economy is said to grow by .7% every year due to increased FDI from American corporations. The Indian space program will also receive a helpful boost, by ferrying American payloads aboard its most prestigious mission, Chandrayaan-I. These bilateral talks also saw the opening of India's Arms market to certain defensive American military hardware, and the possible installation of an Indian Military Attaché in the US Navy’s Pacific Command. Both sides agreed to 'cooperate closely' to combat international terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Hell, they even agreed to help save the Bengal Tiger!

This is good news, right? After all, increased cooperation with the world's most powerful nation is good for India as a whole. It helps us gain access to the world’s largest economy, the most advanced technological industry and the most sophisticated R&D, space, nuclear and military facilities.

Wrong.

Apparently, this is bad news. Apparently, its is a violation of India's sovereignty, a violation of the CMP by the UPA and a mockery of 50 years of Indian foreign policy. These are the major gripes, but the list of apparent violations is endless.

Now would be a good time to examine the composition of the intellectual elite. They include, but are not limited to, communists, leaders of several tribal communities, peace activists, nuclear protestors and religious zealots. Why is this significant? To answer that one must examine what these parties have to lose by increased cooperation between India and the US. This is obvious in the case of the communists, nuclear protestors and peace activists.

What about the other two? Well, for increasing American FDI, India will have to revise certain laws entitling tribal minorities to quotas for jobs, thus reducing their influence as well as their affluence*. The US is hardly popular with many religious figures (yes that involves certain Christians and Hindus too) as they are frequently targets of surveillance and blacklists, accounting for their apprehension.

Now that we know why, let us examine if their claims have any merit.

I for one don’t see how India's sovereignty is violated. True, the Americans are helping us because they need a counter to China. If I know this, so do Indian planners, and in the past they haven’t allowed us to become lackeys of any nation, be it the USSR or the US. I doubt they've become so inept as to allow it now. But we need to counter-balance China. They are competing with us in every way, be it economically, militarily, in space and eventually for global resources. It is in India's self interest to counter China as much as it is in America's. Also, the US is giving us enough technology for us to develop our own indigenous industries. The PM put it best, “We are an independent power, we are not a client state, and we are not a supplicant. As two equal societies, we should explore together where there is convergence of interests and work together”

To delve into the CMP (common minimum programme) will require time and is as such, not suitable for this discussion. If you think I'm avoiding the issue on purpose, then feel free to objectively examine the CMP in light of the new agreements, and ask yourself whether any compromises have been made on that front. In my opinion, this agreement helps further the core principles of the CMP rather than hinder it.

Finally, we should examine 50 years Indian foreign policy, which I find mostly agreeable, barring some inconsistencies. This issue has been raised solely by the CPI and the CPI-M, that is, the communists. At one time, during the good old days of the Cold War, the communists used to toe Moscow's line. When China surpassed the USSR economically after the formers collapse, the communists shifted allegiance to China, and toe the Chinese line to the point of treachery. Would you follow a group who supported China in the 1962 war and who refer to Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim by their Chinese names? If so, perhaps you came across this blog by accident.

In effect, the PM's trip to the US has been a win-win situation for both sides. India gets access to and investment from the US, enhancing our economical, technological and strategic prowess, while the US gets our diplomatic support (or at least abstinence) in the UN and a possible ally in South Asia. If India is to be a world power which, make no mistake, is an imminent development of significance, it can only do so with the help of the United States. The yellow brick road to Beijing** is a poor substitute for the rainbow that leads to Washington, complete with its pot of gold.


* To discuss the (de)merits of Affirmative Action in India, send me an email, preferably one not questioning my parentage or the state of my mental health (though i appreciate your concern).

** Apologies if you think I've misused the Wizard of Oz reference.

*** I’d like to apologise for any errors in spelling and grammar.

- Mrinal Sharma.

Prime Ministers Address To The United States Congress

The Indian Prime Minster Dr. Manmohan Singh recently visited the United States, in what would be the 5th such time that US President Bush has hosted such an event to this magnitude. Indian flags lined Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues and flew atop Capitol Hill. More analysis on the visit later, but for now here is the complete transcript of the PM's address to a joint session of the US Congress.

“I deem it a great privilege to be invited to address this Joint Session of the US Congress. I thank you from the core of my heart for this invitation. I bring you the greetings and good wishes of our Parliament members and indeed of the entire Indian people.

India and the United States have much in common that is very important to both our countries. You are the world's oldest democracy, we are its largest. Our shared commitment to democratic values and processes has been a bond that has helped us transcend differences, if any. We admire the creativity, the spirit of adventure and enterprise of the American people, the excellence of your institutions of learning, the openness of your economy, and of your ready embrace of diversity. These have attracted the brightest young minds from India, creating a bridge of understanding that transcends both distance and differences between us. In addition to the values we share as democracies, there is also a convergence in our perceptions of a rapidly transforming global environment, bringing us much closer together now than at any time in the past.

Globalisation has made the world so inter-dependent that none of us can ignore what happens elsewhere in any part of the world. Peace and prosperity are more indivisible than ever before in human history. As democracies, we must work together to create a world in which democracies can flourish. This is particularly important because we are today faced with new threats such as global terrorism, to which democracies are particularly vulnerable.

Indian democracy has been fashioned around India's civilisational ethos which celebrates diversity. Our society today is the culmination of centuries of assimilation of diverse people and ethnic groups. All the major religions of the world are represented in India. We have a tremendous diversity of languages, customs and traditions. The Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi called for universal adult franchise as early as 1931, long before India became independent. Our political leadership remained true to this commitment and the Constitution we adopted after Independence enshrined democracy based on free elections and the associated principles of tolerance of dissent, freedom for political activity, protection of human rights and commitment to the Rule of Law. Our first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, acknowledged our debt to America on this score. He said that you could hear in the Constitution of India, the echo of the great voices of the Founding Fathers of your own Republic.

The real test of a democracy is not in what is said in the Constitution, but in how it functions on the ground. All Indians can be proud of what we have achieved in this area and I suggest that our experience in this regard is also relevant beyond our own boundaries. Free and fair elections are the foundations of a democracy. Over the past six decades, governments in India, at both the National and State level, have regularly sought the mandate of the people through elections.

Our elections are conducted under the supervision of a statutory independent Election Commission, which has earned respect for its fairness and transparency, both at home and abroad. The independent judiciary has been a zealous defender of our Constitution and a credible guarantor of the Rule of Law. The Press is a key institution in any democracy and our media has well-earned reputation for being both free and fearless. Our minorities, and we have many, participate actively in all walks of our national life - political, commercial and cultural. Civil society organisations are thriving and are vigilant in protecting fundamental human rights. They are also watchful of threats to our environment. Our Army has remained a professional force, subject to total civilian control.

Recently, the Constitution was amended to ensure constitutionally mandated elections to village and municipal councils. This process has produced no less than three million elected representatives in our country, with one million positions reserved for women. This has brought democracy closer to the people and also empowered our women and promoted gender balance.

Our commitment to democratic values and practices means that there are many concerns and perceptions that we share with the people of this great country. The most important concern is the threat of global terrorism. Democracy can only thrive in open and free societies. But open societies like ours are today threatened more than ever before by the rise of global terrorism. The very openness of our societies makes us more vulnerable, and yet we must deal effectively with the threat without losing the openness we so value and cherish. India and the United States have both suffered grievously from terrorism and we must make common cause against it. We know that those who resort to terror often clothe it in the garb of real or imaginary grievances. We must categorically affirm that no grievance can justify resort and recourse to terror.

Democracies provide legitimate means for expressing dissent. They provide the right to engage in political activity, and must continue to do so. However, for this very reason, they cannot afford to be soft on terror. Terrorism exploits the freedom our open societies provide to destroy these very freedoms we cherish. The United States and India must, therefore, work together in all possible forums to counter all forms of terrorism. We cannot be selective in this area. We must fight terrorism wherever it exists, because terrorism anywhere threatens democracy everywhere.

We know from experience that democratic societies which guarantee individual freedom and tolerance of dissent provide an environment most conducive to creative endeavour, and the establishment of socially just societies. We therefore have an obligation to help other countries that aspire for the fruits of democracy. Just as developed industrial countries assist those that are less developed to accelerate the pace of their social and economic development, democratic societies with established institutions must help those that want to strengthen democratic values and institutions. In this spirit, President Bush and I agreed yesterday on a joint global initiative to help build democratic capacities in all societies that seek such assistance.

The capacities we have in mind are those related to the electoral, parliamentary, judicial and human rights processes of emerging democracies. Respect for cultural diversity, minority rights and gender equality is an important goal of this important joint initiative.

Democracy is one part of our national endeavour. Development is the other. Openness will not gain popular support if an open society is not a prosperous society. This is especially so in developing countries, where a large number of people have legitimate material expectations which are to be and which must be met. That is why we must transform India's economy, to raise the standard of living of all our people and in the process eliminate poverty, ignorance and disease.

India's aspirations in this respect are not different from those of other developing countries. But I submit to you that we are unique in one respect. There is no other country of a billion people, with our tremendous cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, that has tried to modernise its society and transform its economy within the framework of a functioning democracy. To attempt this at our modest levels of per capita income is a major challenge. We are determined to succeed in this effort. We shall prevail.

To achieve our developmental goals, our policies and strategies must be in step with changed circumstances and especially the opportunities now available in the evolving global economy. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, standing at this very podium two decades ago, spoke of the challenge of building anew on old foundations. He started a process of reorienting India's economic policies, which has been continued by successive governments.

The economic policy changes that have been made in India have far-reaching implications. They have liberated Indian enterprise from government control and made our economy much more open to global flows of trade, capital and technology. Our entrepreneurial talent has been unleashed, and is encouraged to compete with the best in the world. We will continue this process so that Indian talent and enterprise can realise its full potential, enabling India to participate in the global economy as an equal partner.

We are often criticised for being too slow in making changes in policy, but democracy means having to build a consensus in favour of change. As elected representatives, you are all familiar with this problem in democratic societies. We have to assuage the doubts and calm the fears that often arise when people face the impact of change. There is such a thing as the fear of the unknown. Many of the fears we have to address are probably exaggerated, but they must be addressed nevertheless. This is necessary to ensure sustainability. India's economic reforms, therefore, must be seen in this light: they may appear slow, but I assure you they are durable and irreversible.

I am very happy to say that our efforts at transforming India into an economy more integrated with the world have borne fruit. Our rate of economic growth of GDP has increased steadily, and has averaged around 6.0% per annum over the past two decades. Poverty has declined although more slowly than we would like. We are determined to improve on this performance. We hope to raise our growth rate to 8% or more over the next two years, and we will ensure that this growth is "inclusive" so that its benefits are widely shared. For this we must act on several fronts. We must do much more in health and education, which are crucial for human development. We must continue to open up our economy. We must impart a new impetus to agricultural development. We must expand investment in economic infrastructure which is a critical constraint on our growth prospects.

India's growth and prosperity, I sincerely believe, is in America’s own interest. American investments in India, especially in the new technology areas, will help American companies to reduce costs and become more competitive globally. Equally, India's earnings from these investments will lead to increased purchases from the United States. The information technology revolution in India is built primarily on US computer related technology and hardware. There are many other examples of such two-way benefits, with both sides gaining from this process.

US firms are already leading the foreign investment drive in India. I believe 400 of the Fortune 500 are already in India. They produce for the Indian market and will hopefully also source supplies from India for their global supply chains. We welcome this involvement and I look forward to further expansion in the years ahead. India needs massive foreign direct investment, especially in modernising our infrastructure. I hope American companies will actively participate in the opportunities we are creating.

The 21st Century will be driven by knowledge-based production and India is well placed in this area. We have a large and relatively young population with a social tradition that values higher education. Our educated young people are also English speaking. This makes us potentially a highly attractive location for production of high-end services whether in software,
engineering design or research in pharmaceutical and other areas. Our laws on intellectual property rights have been recently amended to comply fully with our international obligations under the WTO. We look forward to attracting business in these areas from the United States."

Blog Update II: The Return

Fine, so its a dodgy title. Sue me.

Here are updates for the blog following 24th April, 2005.

- For some unexplainable reason, my blog has experienced severe downtime lately. It should now function normally, unless another unexplainable new reason comes along, in which case I shall be unable to do anything.

- I have fixed some malapropisms and grammatical errors in my previous posts. There are probably still some around, but I have neither the time nor inclination to go through all my (several hundred) word posts at the moment.

- As a reminder, please do visit some of the blogs I've mentioned in the links section. They are good for a laugh and certainly warrant a visit.

- Also, anyone interested in discussing some of these topics further (as some have been), please email me.

- My next addition to the blog should occur in the next 3 days or so, so check back then.

Thanks.

- Mrinal Sharma.

India and the Middle East: Strategic Rethink.

I am aware that this is a very controversial topic amongst most people. Yet, it is my hope that people will not reach a conclusion without reading the entire post. Also, I'm sure some of my views expressed here will also stir up debate, especially the gunboat diplomacy idea, but keep in mind that I want nothing except what is good for the nation.

On a purely historical basis, India has always had good relations with the Arab world. Trade was the primary basis of this relationship. After independence, India needed to keep a soft side to the Islamic world, to show that it would take care of its primarily muslim minorities (which it has done admirably, a few unfortunate, yet heinous incidents notwithstanding). The Muslim population, also barring a small fraction, responded favourably to secularism and have become a valuable part of Indian society.

So it would come as no surprise when India decided to oppose the creation of the Jewish homeland: Israel. Many Indian leaders (including Nehru and Gandhi) saw this as another act of British imperialism in the dying days of the empire. Realpolitik of the era played a significant role in this respect. India would need allies in its fight against Pakistan, and it would do well to remove much of Islamic support available to Pakistan. In short, supporting a small Jewish homeland (which, lets be honest, not many thought could survive an Arab assault. Its a testament to Israeli character that they have punched above their weight in over 5 wars against Arab nations.) and in return incur the wrath of the Middle East was not an exciting proposition at the time.

But how the times have changed. Not only did Israel survive, it flourished as the sole democracy and fastest growing economy in the ME and, with US support, provided to strong counter-weight to Soviet influence in the region. It has a flawless combat record ('played five, won five') and has produced some of the finest scientific minds in the world today. Israeli agricultural science is amongst the most admired in the world, paralleling that of much larger agrarian nations, such as India, China and the US. Its military technology is highly prized, and has shown its worth time and again.

So why didnt India develop an adaptive foreign policy with respect to Israel? I can but speculate. However, it seems logical to suggest that it would not have gone down well with the burgeoning Muslim populace, nor would it have made for strong foreign policy - how can you suddenly reverse a foreign policy stance cemented over decades? To do so would not go down well politically, as opposition parties would jump at the chance to screw the current government over. Yet ideally, the good of the nation should come before the good of the party. It was clear after 1967 who the dominant power in the Middle east would be - and it wasnt any of the Arab nations. Had the Congress party seized the oppurtunity to begin relations with Israel then, rather than seek its own politcal ends, we would have reaped significant rewards both militarily and scientifically.

However, hindsight is 20/20. The real question is, why are we not cooperating with Israel now?

The Israeli nation has also showed a certain character throughout its short history.
When faced with a grave threat to national security, it has eliminated it, ruthlessly and without hesitation. Morally reprehensible? Certainly. Could they have acheived the same by other means? Probably not. Israel has many enemies in the west and in the east. France, Germany and the UK all have strong anti-Israeli policies. In fact, the only western nations to provide significant support to Israel are the US and the Netherlands (forgive me if the Belgians feel they should be on this list). Only Japan in the east has supported Israel, albeit half-heartedly. With allies in short supply and a population of 6 million, a country needs to grasp any oppurtunity to survive. Im not an Israeli apologist - some of their actions were and are still wrong, regardless of what they acheived. However, I refuse to sympathise with those who claim dismantling Israel is the only solution to peace in the Middle East. They should probably brush up on history. Has it not been the Arab world that has threatened to "wipe Israel of the face of the Earth" and repeatedly called for death to the "Zionist entity", while Israel has repeatedly asked for peace? Just who is the real aggressor here? Ideally, a dialogue is the best way to solve disputes (as the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel has shown). One cannot expect the Israeli nation to make concessions while calls for its extermination are being made by the highest political figures in the Arab World.

But I digress.

India is not a bastion of morality in the world. Nor should it be. The strength of ones nation isnt developed by morality, but rather by pragmatism. India will not acheive the status it deserves by siding with the moral high ground (and even that is in question). The realpolitk displayed so wonderfully after independence should be shown once again. Who is the stronger party in the Middle East? Israel. Should we not side with the winner, rather than consistent losers?

Fine, so that might be a ruthless train of thought. Lets follow a different one, shall we?

As I mentioned earlier, India sided with the Arabs so as to prevent their intervention on the side of Pakistan in event of a war. That policy failed from 1965, when Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen provided assistance to the Pakistanis. This wasnt a one off - they did it again in 1971, 1984 and to a lesser extent in 1999. Many Pakistani troops get trained in Saudi Arabia (ironic, since they are much better trained than the KSA's own troops.) With the exception of the UAE, Oman and Egypt, the Middle Eastern nations (this includes the Palestinians) have always chosen Pakistan over us. And so we should still suppport them? Forgive me if I dont subscribe to that idea.

Nor should we worried what the Arab nations think. A little gunboat diplomacy isnt such a bad idea. Next time they support Pakistan over us, we should remind them who can send an aircraft carrier to their shores, or whose missiles can go farther. Am I starting to sound like a cowboy whose initials go GWB? Probably (and I resent that). Yet is it good for India? Undoubtedly. The UAE, Egypt and Oman have already seen the benefits of non-interference in the subcontinent - their trade with India has made them rich (as it has done for us). Perhaps the other Arab nations will see this benefit. UAE and Oman have also established relations with Israel, as have Kuwait and Bahrain.

Finally, coming back to Israel. In 1992, India and Israel established diplomatic relations. Since then, ties have improved rapidly. Trade has crossed $2Bn and is expected to cross $5Bn by 2007. Military ties have also strenghened between the two nations to a large extent. Hopefully, this trend will continue.

- Mrinal Sharma.

Blog Update

This is to inform you of the changes to the blog as of 18th April.

I have edited the profile, so anyone who might be interested (and i cant think why) should have a bit of extra material to see.

Secondly, and more importantly, I have edited the links section, to include the blogs of three good friends. Now, rather obviously, they are not as good as my blog, yet are definitely worth checking out should one have the inclination. (Apart from the lambuel thing. Why on earth would anyone even mention that?)

Thats al for now; my next addition to the blog will appear either tomorrow or in 2 days, so check back then.

Thanks.

- Mrinal Sharma