Does Johnson With His Vulnerabilities Make Corbyn More Acceptable?

Does Johnson With His Vulnerabilities Make Corbyn More Acceptable?

                                                                                   Saeed Naqvi

“Ek na shud, do shud”

(We were not done with one, and now we have two.)

There is a quantum leap in derisive mirth that stand-up comedians on both sides of the Atlantic are generating ever since a Donald Trump look-alike entered the black door at 10, Downing Street. In fact if Boris Johnson disciplined the outside of his head with a touch of Brylcream that would confirm a twin-like Boris-Donald duet.

There are other dubious comparisons: racism, for instance. It was a common story at Trump towers that “When Donald and Ivana came to the Casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor.” Johnson measures up quite well. His description in one of his columns of blacks as “piccaninnies with watermelon smiles”, remains a classic in racial insensitivity.

Little wonder Britain’s 77^th Prime Minister has been greeted dismally by major newspapers. A “New Nadir” in British public life, screamed the Independent. “A shameless clown” it went on.

The Guardian thought Johnson and Trump made for a pair: “two loud mouthed man-children”, singularly lacking in character. Scheming, devious, lying, unreliable are some of the common adjectives being employed.

In a sense, Trump’s election was clearly more democratic than Johnson’s. Even though he trailed Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, he won atleast 46 percent of that vote. Johnson has been elected by the Conservative party members, which works out to 0.2 percent of the population.

After three years of a non-descript Theresa May, is Great Britain only capable of producing a Prime Minister who the British intelligentsia dismisses as a man of doubtful ability and character. Similar things are happening elsewhere, but let me confine myself to the trans-Atlantic cousins.

To make my point, let me in a few sentences, describe the scene on November 2016, election night at my friend’s Dumbo Loft in Brooklyn, New York, where we had collected, say, 20 friends from all sorts of disciplines: State Department Veterans, World Bankers, Columbia University faculty, artists, writers and a Fox News journalist . Everybody was eager to pop Champaign bottles as soon as Hillary Clinton’s victory became imminent. But when Trump won Florida the party was suddenly in the grip of something between hysteria and melancholia. The woman from the World Bank was shrieking like she had seen an apparition. A woman from the neighbouring loft was banging at the door. “Please let me in; I can’t bear being alone.”

It fell to my lot to commiserate with the crestfallen. They, each one of them, had difficulty digesting my diagnosis. “If you make Bernie Sanders impossible, you make Trump inevitable.”

How does this maxim apply to the elevation of Boris Johnson?

Well, “if you make Jeremy Corbyn impossible, you make Boris inevitable.” I am aware that these formulations would be anathema to friends who are sworn to “liberalism” according their lights.

Liberalism, which defined one’s life in the 60s and 70s, is an open minded accommodation of diversity in faith, tastes, manners and customs. Economists, committed to capitalism, ignore the warts it has developed. Crony capitalism, for instance, which renders the people redundant except for casting their votes during elections. The control this system has on the media helps perpetuate the Corporate-Government nexus. It is then a simple barter deal: you promote my interest, I promote yours. Come next elections, scramble to devise some new strategy to market yourself. Turn to terrorism if other issues do not work.

The perpetuation of this arrangement in democracies worldwide has caused a fatigue factor. In an earlier age, people revolted against the feudal system; they are now trying to bring about radical change through the ballot box. There are known and unknown eruptions in parts of the world where people are “struggling” outside the system altogether because, in their perception, the ruling class controls all the instruments of the modern democratic state.

The unending post 9/11 wars, the continuing ascendancy of the Deep State, disparities leading to Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party in retaliation, generated an anti-Establishment wave. This is what Bernie Sanders sought to ride. But the Establishment in its Democratic Party Avatar, had set its heart on Hillary Clinton who was upto her neck in Deep State plots in Syria, Libya and, ofcourse, Putin’s Russia.

In an anti-Establishment atmosphere, projecting Clinton as the candidate was clearly a risky hand. Clintons, after all, were The Establishment in Washington. Hence the consequent gnashing of teeth at the Brooklyn Loft party.

Reverting to Britain, once Prime Minister David Cameron’s referendum on Brexit in June 2016 had gone wrong, the Conservatives have been on a weak leg. Theresa May, limping from London to Brussels with a hundred stops en route, always empty handed did the Tories no good. In direct proportion to the Conservatives vulnerability is the right wing media’s tendency to paint Jeremy Corbyn in lurid colours as a raving anti-Semitic, a friend of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. The Economist has made him up as Che Guevara.

The spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist witch hunt of 50s permeates American public life to this day. But its resurgence in the UK is all part of the Establishment digging its heels in to keep the centre of gravity of global discourse so far to the right that leaders like Corbyn and Sanders look like communists.

There must be deep consternation in Conservative power structure at the BBC’s prestigious Panoroma programme which, with rigorous research, knocked the bottom out of the anti Corbyn campaign. It will now be impossible to pin the anti-Semite label on him.

Meanwhile, the media spotlight is on Boris and his cabinet choice like Priti Patel, the new Home Secretary. According to The Guardian she was sacked from Theresa May’s cabinet two years ago for failing to disclose secret meetings with Israeli Ministers on “India related matters”. With Patel by his side, Boris Johnson has connections which can help win the elections which, by some calculations, can be soon, given that half the Conservative party has its knives out for him.

#          #          #          #

Colombo Easter Massacre: Can Islamic Terror Be A Diplomatic Asset?

Colombo Easter Massacre: Can Islamic Terror Be A Diplomatic Asset?

                                                                                 Saeed Naqvi

Dated: 19.07.2019

Prolific punditry on the Easter Sunday massacre in Colombo has taken a pause because investigations have reached a stage where all sides have to take a political call. Different interests would like investigators to be nosy in different directions.

A calamity on a scale where nearly 300 people were killed and 500 injured immediately causes Intelligence agencies to descend with angelic intent, armed with all the technologies. A mystery which Hercule Poirot would leisurely solve over delectable wines and gourmet food is, with the arrival of the agencies, not solved in one go but incrementally, leaving space for stings and hisses, hints and guesses.

The agencies from the US, UK, Israel, Australia and India have been in a scrum according to sources. Even though Intelligence and Security are the responsibility of President Maithripala Sirisena’s office, the direction of the inquiry by the group is more to the liking of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has taken Sri Lanka in its embrace. This is not what the agencies listed above are interested in promoting.

It remains a puzzle why Sri Lanka did not take action when Indian Intelligence (RAW) alerted them as early as April 4, weeks before the massacre. Have the differences between the President and the Prime Minister percolated down to Sri Lankan agencies too?

Clearly, Ranil is keen to sign the Status of Forces Agreement with the US before the elections next year. This would be anathema to the Chinese who share their confidences only with the President.

Opinion in Colombo is divided on India’s role. One view is that New Delhi and Washington would join hands to impede the Chinese. Others believe it is not in New Delhi’s interest to have the strategically located island transformed into a US base. New Delhi would prefer a drastically toned down, cooperative foreign presence.

How strategically important Sri Lanka is became clear to me during a visit to Mauritius some years. My TV team did a feature on the tragic, homeless people from Chagos Island. The story is not easy to digest. An entire island was emptied of its population by the British along with the Americans to set up a base in Diego Garcia. The International Court of Justice ruled in February 2019 to return the island to its citizens. Has the Judgement been thrown in the waste paper basket?

New Delhi has exerted its influence to keep Mauritius and Bhutan out of the Belt and Road project. Everything else in SAARC has gone the other way. Credit must go to the nimble, creatively ambiguous management of Foreign Policy. Modi-Xi Jinping summit in Varanasi in October may be the culmination of important developments.

The events of Easter Sunday have inspired important research. For instance, “Weaponization of Religion as New Cold War Looms”. The paper has been written by Darini Rajasingham Senanayake, a Sri Lankan scholar and writer.

She wastes no time in coming to the point: China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative “may well have been the prime target of the bombings that rocked the Indian Ocean Island caught in the cross hairs of super power rivalry”.

According to her, there is a clear effort to mislead Sri Lankans. She points to a video tape of Islamic State leader, Al Baghdadi purportedly speaking about the attacks on Sri Lanka. Arabic and French intelligence experts had no doubt that the tape had been doctored.

Hotels that were targeted were Cinnamon Grand and Kingsbury. And there, says Darini, hangs a tale. These hotels were owned by Sri Lankan, conglomerates who are into property development with the China construction company.

Four oceanic scientists who were staying at Kingsbury hotel were among the six Chinese who lost their lives. This has been confirmed by the Chinese embassy in Colombo. The deceased were from the South China Sea Institute of Oceanography. Chinese state run Global Times reported that two other scientists from the First Institute of Oceanography, were scheduled to board the Chinese research vessel Shiyan 3. This was to be the start of an important China-Sri Lanka joint exploration mission in the East-Indian Ocean.

Darini sees a design in the venues that were attacked: Churches located among coastal communities with congregations whose livelihood depends on fisheries and other Indian Ocean resources in Colombo, Negombo and Batticaloa. As continuation of the pattern, even luxury sea front hotels also became targets. No town in the interior was targeted.

She concludes: “Marine affairs and the ocean is the red threat that runs through the design and detail of the selected targets.

It is puzzling that instead of following the leads Darini Senanayake has focused on, the foreign intelligence agencies have dwelt more on the clash of civilizations and “religious strife” as their preferred theme of inquiry.

All sorts of conspiracy theories begin to claim attention. A single column story from Nepal where also Chinese are influential, on inside page begins to look significant as part of a larger design. Near Lumbini in South West Nepal, the birthplace of Buddha, five statues of Buddha are vandalized. Is someone trying to create Buddhism-Hindu strife in the Himalayan state? It is difficult to see what political spin can be given to this vandalism.

Likewise what earthly purpose would be served by promoting strife between two Sri Lankan minorities – Muslim and Christian.

There is another way of looking at Sri Lankan developments, exactly as Darini’s headline suggests. Since 2012 I have written consistently on Islamic terror being controlled by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia as “assets” to unsettle societies with sizeable Muslim minorities – Xinxiang in China, Caucasus in Russia. Since this is Salafi Islam, it may have its uses against Shia Iran too. There is that whole turf of Central Asia. And, why forget India? For an elaboration of “Terrorism as an asset” see here.

#          #          #          #

How Battle Of Karbala Conditions Iranian Mind On Palestinian Issue

How Battle Of Karbala Conditions Iranian Mind On Palestinian Issue

                                                                                        Saeed Naqvi

When the application of normal yardsticks on Iran lead to results which analysts find unexpected, a sort of irritation sets in. This is because of a distinct inability to understand that, with the exception of the Vatican, Iran is the only state where the leadership mindset is conditioned by theological concerns.

The epic battle between good and evil is common to many traditions including the one which brings us good cheer during Dussehra, when Ravana is killed. But these traditions are part of mythology.

Iranians, indeed Shias anywhere, contemplate the epic battle between Right and Wrong in historical terms. The battle of Karbala, fought on the bank of the Euphrates River in Iraq is, after all, an event that took place in 680 AD. The first military probe into India by Mohammad bin Qasim took place in 711 AD. By an amazing coincidence, 711 AD also happens to be the year when Tariq Ibn Ziyad crossed the stretch of water from Tangiers in Morocco and conquered the rock which he called Jabal al Tariq. Jabal means a rock. The British renamed it Gibraltar.

The point is that the Shias latched on to Karbala, a relatively recent event in history, as the ideal for morality and sacrifice. Let me explain. The great achievement of Prophet Mohammad was to settle the differences between quarrelling Arab tribes. In fact, Islam taking advantage of the vacuum in global power, soon expanded into an Empire. Fissures reappeared after the Prophet’s death in 632 AD. By 680 AD, a usurper, Yazid, entrenched as the Governor of Damascus, turned to the prophet’s younger grandson, Imam Hussain, to endorse his rule. Legitimacy would always elude him without Hussain’s endorsement. Relentless pressure caused Hussain to leave his ailing daughter in Medina and travel to Iraq. On the second of Moharram (September this year) he entered Karbala along with 72 of his closest relatives and friends.

When Hussain would not submit to Yazid’s dictat, sanctions (note the word) were imposed. In the torrid heat of the desert, water supply from the Euphrates was cut off. Children as young as six months, crying for three days without water would, Yazid had hoped, force a compromise. But on the question of principle, Hussain refused. On the 10^th day of Moharram all male members, one by one went into battle against an overwhelmingly larger army, resulting in martyrdom – inspiring some of the greatest epic poetry of all time. Women of the prophet’s household were taken prisoners. And all because he would not compromise his core principles.

Karbala is the balance in which the clerical elements in the Iranian leadership measure rights-and-wrongs. Much to the discomfiture of Israel, Iran’s consistency on the Palestinian issue derives from these uncompromising belief systems. In other words, the principle of Palestinian rights is non-negotiable. Well, in which case Iran exposes itself to the most comprehensive sanctions Washington has imposed anywhere. But Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif told the Asia Society in New York recently: “You must remember we have a PhD in coping with sanctions.”

Zarif could not have meant that it is life as usual in Tehran despite the sanctions. By all accounts, sanctions are hurting. Prices have risen sky high. But is this hurt causing the population to congregate in city squares to curse the regime for having invited US sanctions? Or is the opposite happening? Are people closing ranks behind the regime for standing upto what mural size graffiti in Tehran describes as the “great Satan”?

For a week, shortages of baby diapers caused immense inconvenience. Soon the women in the countryside rediscovered commonsense solutions: cut cloth dipped in Dettol into triangular pieces, then pin the three points below the navel.

Why sanctions are not pinching is that there is sufficient food on the table. For example, meat consumption may have been pruned from four times a week to twice or even once. But there is nourishment aplenty.

Is it possible to apply comprehensive sanctions in a situation where, say, Qatar depends totally on Iranian supplies because of Saudi sanctions? There are loopholes.

The Iranian drama is being played out with a subtle give and take behind the scenes between the hardliner Ayatullah Ali Khamenei and the moderate Hassan Rouhani. Khamenei was always wary of negotiations with the US but it was his good political sense because of which he went along with the public mood for engagement which Rouhani had rightly gauged. But the President exceeded his brief when he called up President Obama during the 2013 General Assembly session. The touch of over eagerness was not Khamenei’s style. But he protected Rouhani, convinced that “Zionist arrogance” will sooner or later hamper the Nuclear Deal coming to fruition. In that sense Khamenei has proved right.

Simmering differences manifested themselves at other levels too. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, very much the face of the nuclear deal, was slighted by hardliners like Gen. Qasim Suleiman of the Al Quds Brigade causing Zarif to resign. What was the slight? During Syrian President Bashar al Asad visit to Tehran, Zarif, was apparently kept out of some meetings.

The unending chant from Washington and Jerusalem that Iran should become a “normal state” is, in the ultimate analysis, a demand for it to “soften” its stance on Palestine. While all the focus has been on Iran, the Bahrain Conference has with a sleight of hands worked towards formulations for virtually annexing the West Bank.

Not unrelated are developments in Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu must win the September elections if he is to escape prison term for corruption. But such a victory can only be sustained with extreme far right orthodox Jews who quite openly support an apartheid state. And who stands by the side of the Palestinians? Iran, ofcourse. Always the spoilsport.

#          #          #          #

Post Rahul, Party May Splinter But Something New Is Needed

Post Rahul, Party May Splinter But Something New Is Needed

                                                                                       Saeed Naqvi

When Trinamool’s Mahua Moitra took Parliament by storm in her debut speech last month, a thought crossed my mind. In over two decades as Congress President could not Sonia Gandhi have sent a handful of young people to both the Houses who would have been noticed: politically savvy, feet on the ground, conversant with issues, articulate?

She protected the pen and her progeny from running the risk of being upstaged. There were talented youngsters around in the party, but the Gandhi family tied one Jyotiraditya Scinda in a four-legged race in Madhya Pradesh and then took him off Madhya Pradesh altogether. They played him as Priyanka Gandhi’s sidekick in UP. When the “all-fall-down” happened post elections, Priyanka turned up in Amethi to scold the workers for her brother’s debacle – “a bad workman blames his tools.” Poor Sachin Pilot, a political talent by all counts was deliberately dwarfed so that Ashok Gehlot could look tall.

Rahul Gandhi’s resignation was overdue. Yes, the party may splinter but something new is needed. Everyone who has known him talks of his innate decency. He probably knew he was out of his depth, but without him many would not know which way to look. Some have grown so accustomed to a life of sycophancy at number 10 Janpath or wherever else the family is dispersed that they cannot contemplate another existence.

Supposing, by some miracle, the Congress under Rahul Gandhi had come up trumps then all the senior retainers ran the risk of being shown the door. How enthusiastic would they have been in the campaign trapped in a dilemma: victory might lead to unemployment?

I cannot forget Rahul Gandhi’s press conference at the Radisson Blue hotel, Ahmedabad in the course of the 2017 assembly election. He was flanked by Ashok Gehlot and spokesman Randeep Surjewala. One noticed an unmistakable gap: the Congress powerhouse from Gujarat, Ahmed Patel was missing. Word had been sent that his presence would enable the BJP to revive the canard that Congress was a party of Muslims.

A few days later Ghulam Nabi Azad was publicly wailing that he was not being invited by party men to address election meetings, presumably for the same reason: the BJP will polarize.

In any war it is important to know what your enemy is upto. The Congress under Rahul’s leadership had no clue what plots were being hatched. The party President fell back on the tepid, ineffective chant “Chowkidar chor hai”. It was a hopelessly ill-advised incantation. Every shop, business, housing colony, industry has a watchman. This watchman you end up mocking without even realizing the slight. Also, we are a traditional and a feudal people. The Prime Minister may not be the world’s favourite man, but no Indian would like that station to be demeaned as a watchman who is also being called a thief.

Your opponent, Dear Rahul, was not fighting an election; he was marketing himself – a whole team spread across the seas was handing him a daily script. He was not to touch on issues; that was taboo. He had to just peg away at a nagging length on a theme loaded with emotional resonance. It must resonate in an echo chamber keyed to a mood - loathe Pakistan, hate the terrorists keeping Kashmir in their thrall, and portray love jihadis and beef eaters as highly lynchable. The saffron mood will be stepped up at intervals – Pulwama, Balakot and so on. What was your response? Chowkidar chor hai?

Remember Modi had to be on every channel 24X7. This will deify him. “Jidhar dekhta hoon, udhar tu hi tu hai” (wherever I look, I see you). On every page of newspapers there was either a news photograph or an advertisement.

Even a kirtan palls. So by way of relief Modi’s choreographers focused on Rahul as a counter point in a musical score. Focusing on Rahul provides relief, ofcourse, but it also keeps up the illusion favoured by captains of industry that India is willy nilly moving towards a two party system. Among the cleverer things Mamata Banerjee said was exactly this: Rahul is a Modi USP. Rahul, according to Mamata, provides the contrast against which Modi shines.

Rahul, ofcourse, would have been inclined to consider the notice being given to him in self serving terms: he is being noticed because he was the most important opposition leader. From this profound misreading issued a desire to erect an architecture to make a bid for power by the Congress on its own. The cocky assertion by Priyanka the moment she landed in UP was that she was not in the game for 2019; she would first revive the Congress to win the 2022 state elections. She probably had no clue that in May 2018 her mother, Rahul and every possible opposition party had stood on one platform in Bengaluru to fight Modi.

The Congress probably thought that it would lose its stature as more equal than others in the vast galaxy assembled by a dynamic though lesser known politician, Danish Ali who, incidentally won the 2019 election from Amroha in UP.

In this self delusion, Rahul played the worst possible game. Instead of holding hands of all those on the stage in Bengaluru, he opened all cylinders on Akhilesh Yadav and Mayawati in UP, Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi and Mamata in West Bengal. In the last melee, the great party of ideological purity, the CPM, allowed its cadres to fight Mamata shoulder to shoulder with the RSS.

As witnesses to this spectacle, who can blame the Modi-Shah duet laughing their heads off . “With such enemies, who needs friends.”

#          #          #          #

High-tech US Drone Shot Down By Iranian Technology Causes Concern

High-tech US Drone Shot Down By Iranian Technology Causes Concern

                                                                                     Saeed Naqvi

If folks in rural UP knew anything about Donald Trump, they would describe him as “chatur Bawraha” or “cunning crackpot”. Extreme caution would be in order dealing with such a form of life.

If one has nerves of steel like the Iranian leadership, it is a different matter altogether.

The depth of CIA involvement with Iran, cooperative and adversarial, is not matched by the US equation with any country except Israel and, perhaps, Pakistan during the beginning of the Cold War. Close cooperation between the Savak, Mossad and the CIA is well known during the Shah’s rule. Relations plummeted when the Islamic Revolution captured power in 1979. Never in history had such a comprehensive siege been laid to a thriving US embassy. The siege lasted 444 days.

Unbelievable though it may seem, but within five years Iran, US and Israel were in an intricate cloak and dagger operation called the Iran-Contra affair. US-Israeli arms would be sold to Iran. The proceeds from the deal would finance the Contras being helped by the US to oust the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. For the record, the Communist Daniel Ortega is still in harness.

It is interesting to study the contrasting attitudes of the US establishment then and now when the Deep State is pushing comparable clandestine operations in different theatres. During the Nicaragua operations, CIA Director William Casey, ordered the mining of Central American ports without informing Congress. Senator Barry Goldwater, as chairman of the select committee on Intelligence, rapped Casey hard on the knuckles. He wrote: “All this past week I have been trying to figure out how I can most easily tell you my feelings about the discovery of the President having approved mining of some of the harbours of Central America. It gets down to one, little, simple phrase: I am pissed off!”

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as Deputy Chairman of the committee, took an even more dim view. He called it the CIA’s assault on constitutional government. What would he say about the Deep State’s unprecedented preeminence today?

Compare the Nicaragua operation to the mess in the Strait of Hormuz these past weeks. Foreign Minister of Iran, Javad Zarif piles accusations on the Trump administration for trying to trigger a war by false flag operations. These operations targeted Japanese tankers. This happened so soon after Japanese Prime Minister Shinto Abe’s visit to Teheran as to be almost laughable. In his tweet Zarif communicated to the White House that the Iranians had accumulated all intercepts about the Deep State’s frenetic efforts to purchase speed boats to attack tankers in order to pin the blame on Iran. In one instance “Trump’s B team was moments away from trapping Donald Trump into war”, reveals Zarif.

What the Iranians have done to the US’s most advanced surveillance drone, Global Hawk, when it crossed into their air space on June 20, is the stuff that legends are made of. The high tech equipment, worth about $223 million was actually brought down by an indigenously assembled Iranian drone which cost Tehran barely $2,600 per piece.

The lazy assumption that the technologies in the Iranian arsenal must trace their origins to allies Russia and China is wrong. The truth is that Beijing and Moscow are as surprised at Tehran’s technological advance as the rest of the world is.

Indeed, Trump could not resist thanking Tehran for having spared a US aircraft ferrying 39 “terrorists” to heaven knows where. The “terrorists” in question are actually soldiers. The term “terrorists” is Iranian tit for tat, a reciprocal insult because Trump had designated Iranian National Guard as “terrorist”.

The story of the manned US plane which flew in close proximity to the fateful drone is interesting for another reason. After the drone was shot down, Iranian Air Force connected with the second aircraft carrying 39 US soldiers. It issued a simple instruction: “turn back immediately or meet the same fate as the drone.” This gesture, as mentioned earlier was appreciated by Trump.

Given these exchanges, is war with Iran on the horizon? Trump’s almost daily threats echo King Lear in the final stages of his madness. “I will do such things – what they are, yet I know not but they shall be the terrors of the earth.”

Let us, for the sake of amusement list a few. Remember when Trump was stoking the fires to soften Kim Jong-un? He announced a “flotilla was on its way to the sea of Japan to teach the “rocketman”, a lesson. It transpired that the Flotilla in question was sailing towards Australia. “with Mr. Trump himself playing up the show of force” said a Pentagon official “rolling back the story became difficult”.

Remember how Trump had plucked out from the skies Juan Guaido as a replacement for President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela? This totally arbitrary decision had the support of a dozen European countries. Today, Mister Guaido is something of a laughing stock presumably plotting coups on some secure beach.

Was Trump’s first policy decision not to pull back all troops from Afghanistan? Even the frenetic movements of special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad between Doha, Kabul, Islamabad appear to have slowed down.

A theory of terrorism as an asset, inaugurated in Afghanistan to oust the Soviet’s, employed in Syria for a failed effort at regime change, is being polished. Russians and Iranians have already accused the US of ferrying groups like Jabhat al Nusra, under new labels, to destinations like northern Afghanistan.

The alacrity with which Tehran has provided evidence that the drone which was shot down took off from a base in the UAE, surprised the Americans. Indeed, the UAE ambassador to Tehran was given an earful by the Foreign office.

Meanwhile, Iran’s arch regional rival, Saudi Arabia, is fighting the Houthis of Yemen now on its own territory. The Saudi air base of Najran in the South is in Houthi control. In these circumstances, show me the macho leader feeling muscular enough to plunge headlong into war? Note Zarif’s terse warning: he who starts the war shall not finish it.

#          #          #          #

India – Pakistan ODI: Notes From Days When Cricket Wasn’t War

India – Pakistan ODI: Notes From Days When Cricket Wasn’t War

                                                                                     Saeed Naqvi

This Sunday, 16 June, I look forward to being seated with friends in an arc around the TV set, ready to exult at the outcome of the Indo-Pak ODI at the Old Trafford in Manchester. But two friends who have surprised me with their adoption of saffron, will not just rejoice but clench their fists and grind their teeth in an expression which is a little more visceral. Their’s will not be the slow hand clap. In victory I am with them, sometimes ahead of them, it is when I see triumphalism that I feel weak in the pit of my stomach.

Much water has flown down the Irwell, in Manchester and the Gomti, in Lucknow where as an eager schoolboy, armed with an autograph book, I found myself in the player’s pavilion, thanks to a cousin who introduced me to Habul Mukherjee, the famous hockey coach, who supervised the construction of the cricket stadium. I was rewarded with “access” to the players’ pavilion for having accomplished the most challenging of tasks. I had to produce a wooden plank, painted white, with a legend in thick black: “Ladies Urinal”. Really, to what lengths an autograph hungry schoolboy will not go?

Difficult to believe, in today’s atmosphere, but the Pakistan team were a bigger draw, among Hindus and Muslims alike, largely because of a 16 year old batting prodigy, Hanif Mohammad. Students from Islamia College, not far from the Royal hotel where the team stayed, invaded the hotel’s lobby. They found to their horror that the Pakistanis they saw, were very different from the ones they expected. There, on the bar stool, was “Maxi” abbreviation for Maqsood Ahmad, holding a mug frothing over with beer.

On the cricket ground, I shall never forget the two bearded Maulanas, wearing caps of the same cloth as their respective Sherwanis, monitoring every ball through their antiquated army binoculars. Polly Umrigar missed a ball from Fazal Mahmood and wicket keeper Imtiaz Ahmad snapped it. The slip cordon appealed. “No” said the umpire emphatically. One agitated Maulana, turned to the other looking distinctly unhappy.

“Kilick to hua tha.” (I heard the click), he said to his friend. Safdar, one of the wits who were part of Lucknow’s elegant decadence, leaned over, touched the Maulana’s binoculars and asked loudly enough to send all those in the vicinity into peals of laughter.

“Maulana, ismein sunayii bhi deta hai?” (Maulana you can also hear through that binocular?)

Beer drinking Pakistanis registered with Islamia College students as something of a disappointment. The college catered to the lower end of the Muslim middle class. It dawned on me much later that defining the Muslim middle class in the twilight of the feudal order was not easy: elegant speech and manners went hand in hand with abject penury. With penury came religiosity.

As centres of culture, most people use a faulty balance to compare Lucknow and Lahore. Lucknow had begun to die as early as 1857 for their affront to the British. The great centre of culture paid a heavy price. The state’s High Court was set up in Allahabad as was UP’s premier university. Industry was dispatched to what the British called Cawnpore. Lucknow was left with Taluqdars who had made peace with the British. The population was gifted with the art of conversation which seemed quaint and out of place, given their impecunious living. The declining aristocracy held their libraries to their bosom but refrained from polo, tennis or cricket, almost in cultural defiance of the Raj.

Lahore derived its vigour upto 1947 from its “Punjabiat” (though a great centre of Urdu) and its high comfort level with the British. There was even a sartorial difference between the Sherwani clad Urdu poets of Awadh (Lucknow) and those of Lahore. Faiz Ahmad Faiz was the only prominent Urdu poet on the subcontinent who wore a jacket and tie. Unlike Lucknow, where poets and scribes drank furtively in the cubicles of China Bar and Restaurant, Lahore was more open with its bars which cricketers like “Maxi” frequented. That is why “Maxi” and one or two of his team mates were comfortable walking around Lucknow’s Royal hotel bar lounge with their beer mugs full to the brim.

Saffron spread in India very slowly; Islamization of Pakistan was more rapid. By the time the team with Imran Khan turned up in the 80s, the players were drinking whiskey with their glasses draped in white napkins to avoid detection. These days, ofcourse, they would probably be treated as alleged beef eaters are in the Indian cow belt.

Maqsood’s cameo knock in Lucknow, in October 1952 was one of three great ones etched on my mind, all played between Lucknow and Kanpur, circumscribed itinerary for a cricket crazy schoolboy in the 50s. Two batsmen were out when Maqsood walked to the middle and stroked the very first ball for four, bisecting point and cover, next between cover and extra cover. In his cameo of 40 odd runs he made a precise arc, bisecting fielders from point to square leg. The next knock was Rohan Kanhai’s in Kanpur in 1958. India and the West Indies had scored 222 each in the first inning. In the second innings, Polly Umrigar, in his unlikely avatar as opening bowler, caused an eerie silence to descend on Green Park. He removed Hunte and Holt for a duck. This is when Kanhai strode in: first ball driven for four, second cut past gully. In about 30 minutes he scored a pretty 44 and left, bringing Gary Sobers in, who proceeded to score 198. But it is Kanhai’s knock that I have kept as a gem.

The last brief knock on my nostalgia for cricket was a masterly 51 because of the circumstances. Off spinner Jasu Patel had taken 9 wickets on a pitch which Australian captain Richie Benaud described as a “mud heap” much to the annoyance of “vizzy”, Maharaj Kumar of Vizianagram, commentator and patron of cricket. The great left handed batsman, Neil Harvey, provided an object lesson on how to jump out and hit at half volley before the ball turns.

#          #          #          #

Media Crawled During Emergency. Today Is Its Spine Straight?

Media Crawled During Emergency. Today Is Its Spine Straight?

                                                                                         Saeed Naqvi

It is not a complaint but rather a reflection on the general state of play: in my 50 years of journalism, Narendra Modi happens to be the only Prime Minister I have never met. Whenever I tried meeting him years ago I was directed to Vinay Sahasbudhe of the RSS. In his very polite way he was able to transmit the message: meetings with Modi were not going to be the order.

New Delhi, once the world’s favourite haunts for journalistic banter, could now be among the world’s least informed capitals. Newswise, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Lucknow became livelier. In the absence of information, anchors and journalists fell back on the tedium of speculating on the outcome of this by-election, that state election, gathbandhan or Mahagathbandhan, caste or communal and so on.

For the unending war, now in its 18^th year in Afghanistan, show me one discussion on the electronic media. Or, for that matter, in print. Wait patiently until the Indian Express reproduces the main editorial of The Economist explaining the state of play in what is our backyard.

Afghanistan is not an exception. The once Hindu Kingdom of Nepal has been explained to us by BBC, CNN, New York Times, Reuters. The vibrant arenas for cockfights which pass for our news channels have no bureaus in Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, China, Russia, the UK, US, nowhere. Just one formula:

Udhar raqeeb idhar hum bulay jaatey hain

Ki daana daal ke murghe laraye jaatey hain

(Me from this side, rival from the other

Toss some corn, and there begins the cockfight)

The Prime Minister in his very first speech in the Lok Sabha in May, 2014, had talked of ridding the country of “ghulami” or intellectual servitude. If the Prime Minister is as good as his word, he should immediately take note of this monopoly of the foreign media. Gandhiji was all for windows to be kept open so that influences from all sides can enter – and depart. The Prime Minister swears by nationalism; I call it self-esteem. Both are bruised if India’s ruling elite is captive to Anglo-American media only, in the coverage of International Affairs.

Despite the fact that Russia, China and Iran are not liberal democracies, all three have a large number of bureaus across the globe. They make effective interventions whenever the Western media slants the story against them. In the 2019 elections the world media went to town against “the Divider in Chief”. Did Modi’s cohorts ever think of challenging the affront? If they tried to they would discover that the world’s largest democracy does not have the means to reach audiences beyond its shores.

Modi’s experience with the media is limited. In his earliest stages his exposure was to a hostile media which implicated him in the Gujarat pogrom of 2002. Later his core team with inputs from such groups as APCO, an international consultant, helped build brand Modi which did not need the media in its normal newsgathering and column writing avatar. The process of branding did not require him to dwell on the economy, which he knew was in a shambles. He was advised by his marketers to dwell on an “intangible” theme, which had emotive power. Pakistan was amplified as a hate object and publicly flogged at Balakot; Modi’s rhetoric served as the accompanying sound effect. “Ghar mein ghus ke mara” or “bash him in his house” is the language of gangsters but then even Robin Hood was an adorable outlaw.

Does Modi need the media at all? Ofcourse he does. The Modi project would be stillborn without the media, but he needs a “captive” media, not a “critical”, independent one.

This entails a two tier media policy. Modi will be exempt from media interrogation. He will make appearances calculated by his core team only to enhance his charisma and serve some critical purpose.

Where interaction with the media will be essential is, say, the Ministry of External Affairs. Otherwise unfiltered material will saturate the alternative space. Moreover being on talking terms with the media enhances a general sense of ventilation. Let me give an example of a seemingly innocuous story which served the national purpose in an unexpected way.

A Joint Secretary from the MEA, my Deep Throat, working with Prime Minister Morarji Desai’s team, accosted me outside his office and invited me to his room for coffee. His princely friends from Jaisalmer and Barmer had sent him photographs (which he showed me) of private jets from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE landing at air force runways. These luxury aircraft were lined with scores of hooded falcons and equipment for palatial tents to be erected in the desert.

The Shaikhs of Araby had identified the desert around Jaisalmer and Barmer as the world’s finest hunting ground for the Great Indian Bustard, the most handsome of birds. Environmentalists had seen a sharp drop in the bustard population. If falconry was not discontinued the bird would be extinct. Deep throat managed to obtain written orders to the district authorities in Rajasthan. The story appeared on page one. A senior MEA official travelled all the way to the Shaikh’s luxurious hunting ground. They were requested to pack up their tents. I had not realized the story would spread like forest fire. It gathered momentum as a national campaign. The Great Indian bustard was saved and all because of one conscientious objector. All nature lovers owe him a word of thanks. Just as the Deep Throat of Watergate was eventually revealed, I think there is no harm in revealing the savior of the Great Indian Bustard. He is an ailing man today. Infact, quite ironically, Deep Throat has lost his voice. His name is Vinod Grover, once our ambassador to Ankara, The Hague and Nairobi.

#          #          #          #