From Modi, Reliance, Adani Presence at Motera to Possible SAARC Tournament.

 

From Modi,Reliance, Adani Presence at  Motera to Possible SAARC Tournament.

                                                                                                                             Saeed Naqvi

Mun tora haji begoyam

Tu mara haji begoh

The subtlety in the Persian couplet, which roughly means “ I scratch your back, you scratch mine”, would be misplaced if applied to the affairs surrounding the world’s biggest cricket stadium in Ahmedabad. What was once billed as the Sardar Patel Stadium has, in contemporary fashion, been renamed after Narendra Modi. Just as some deities are depicted with their Guardian Angels, the Modi stadium is flanked by Adani and Reliance enclosures.

The brazennes of the trio in one Motera package is more aptly expressed in the song:

            “Khullam Khulla pyar karenge hum dono.

            Is duniya se naheen darenge hum dono”.

(The politician and the industrialist will make Love openly. We do not give a damn to this peering, learing world).

Stand up comedian Kunal Kamra is even more irreverent “Why is Modi standing between me and Ambani / Adani”. Kamra sees the business duet as the principal drivers of crony capitalism.

The triumvirate has been in play since atleast 2014. It gathered momentum during the 2019 elections when Modi, draped in saffron, sank into the deepest layers of meditation at the Kedarnath cave. This spiritual exertion of the Supremo became 24 X 7 diet for the voters in the throes of an election. Saturation media coverage was per courtesy the duet which controls the electronic and print media. Now, ofcourse, the supremo has acquired the looks of a sage : silver locks and beard of pious length. Just imagine peacocks eating out of his hands. Unbelievable, the televised image of a peacock, the shyest of birds, unfurling its plumes in a divine mujra for Modi.

The triumvirate must have  beamed suitable vibrations on the pitch. The test match ended in two days and in India’s favour. For the local crowds, a hero was born, Axar Patel, who had a tally of two fifers. Heaven knows what else is in store for him in the next Test and fiveT20s on the same hallowed ground. 

With his 11 wicket haul in the match Axar Patel still remains way behind another Gujarati, Jasubhai Motibhai Patel. His 14 wicket haul, at Kanpur in the 1959-60 series against Ritchie Benand’s star studded Australian team is worth remembering. That the wicket would turn became clear in India’s first inning when Benand took four wickets with his leg spinners. But Patel was quite unplayable, virtually turning at right angles.

The most vivid memory is not of Patel’s haul. Patel took advantage of the devil in the wicket as did Joe Root at the Motera. What left an indelible mark on me was how a great batsman copes with impossible playing conditions. This was the cameo of a knock by Neil Harvey, the elegant, left handed batsman. The adjective “great” would in my reckoning apply to a player who was part of Bradman’s celebrated eleven. He used his feet, jumped out to smother the spin or drive on the half-volley in a brief but dazzling display of stroke making.

The description of the Kanpur pitch as a “mud Leap” by some Australian cricket writers was cause of deep consternation for Vizzy, the well known Commentator who was all lyrical about Patel. The lyric was frequently punctuated by a mocking chant of “Mud Leap Indeed”.

The relevance of the Harvey story in the context of the English team’s debacle at Motera is exactly what Sunil Gavaskar in his comments emphasized: in such conditions, “use your feet”.

My preference for the miniature in comparison to a mural probably reflects in my admiration for scintillating, purposive, brief knocks. During the 1958 West Indies tour, the high point of the Kanpur test was Gary Sobers 198, ending sadly in a run out. But Rohan Kanhal’s 41 remains memorable because it turned the tide with effortless stroke play, bisecting the field with compass-like precision.

West Indies were all out at 222. India scored just that –222. In the second innings India’s laughable opening attack of G.Ramchand and Polly Umrigar removed the celebrated opening pair of Hunte and Holt for a duck each. A hush fell on the ground. The short, slight frame of Kanhai walked to the pitch. First ball driven for a four between point and cover; second ball, another four, off his toes. Within two overs, Hunte and Holt had receded as memories. Only after the West Indies had been steadied did Sobers come out with his full majesty.

An equally pretty knock etched on my mind is Maqsood Ahmad’s breezy 41, clean shots leaving fielders flat footed, caressing the grass at Lucknow’s Gomti ground, all the way to the fence. At the other end was opener Nazar Mohammad carrying his bat with a dull, dour, possibly relevant hundred.

From the open consolidation of the Modi, Ambani, Adani triumvirate at Motera, I have deviated vastly into the caverns of my experiences with cricket. I am finding it difficult to resist the temptation to recall a defining moment in Indian cricket at Sabina Park, Jamaica during the Bishen Singh Bedi led tour in 1975 – 76. Bedi’s lament in the West Indies sums up the equation between the teams. “Their effort was to subdue us”.

The test was memorable for debutante Michael Holding’s Lethal bombardment of the Indian batsmen . They ducked, got badly hurt, or hung their bats out to save their skins – with the solitary exception of Sunil Gavaskar with his innate genius for facing pace attack. Bedi called the team off the field.

This was also one of Vivian Richards earlier tests. His innings of 61 revealed his singular talent – yards of time to design his strokes.

I was reading reports of the briefest test in history when my eyes fell on the Page 1 headline: Thaw In Deep India-Pak Chill. Like Walter Mitty, I sank into my reverie : SAARC Cricket tournament headquartered at Motera .

 

      #                     #                     #                              #                 #                    #

Did External Influences Increase in Indian Politics After Congress Split, 1969

Did External Influences Increase in Indian Politics After Congress Split, 1969

                                                                                         Saeed Naqvi

I had no business to forget Badshah Khan’s 130^th birthday this February, having been his press secretary when he came on a year’s “healing mission” as guest of both the political camps led by Indira Gandhi and Jayaprakash Narayan.

The international system is trying to compose itself today. It was dividing itself sharply during the Pashtun leader’s visit. Just as India became salient to regional play then, it will by force of circumstances, become part of the new regional pirouette.

The Indian Independence Act, 18 July 1947, was part of the world order being shaped as part of the Cold War which began in 1945.

Pakistan was incorporated into the Baghdad Pact, CENTO, and such like military alliance as bulwark against the Soviet Union. Also, Industrial production of oil had to be protected in the Persian Gulf. On India was conferred the elaborate task to secure a liberal democratic polity which would keep nefarious ideas like Communism and Marxism at bay. That was the responsibility given to India by the imperial order. And how dutifully New Delhi has fulfilled that role. Demonization of “Urban Naxals” is a crude variant on the theme pursued by the Congress party since its earliest days in power. Remember how Indira Gandhi as Congress President (Nehru was the Prime Minister) had President’s rule imposed to dismiss the world’s first communist government elected by the ballot box in Kerala. The E.M.S. Namboodripad government had been voted in 1957. Mrs. Gandhi sought US Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker’s help to discredit this government by helping organize street protests. This would give the centre an excuse to dismiss the government and impose President’s rule. This operation was revealed by Bunker in a Podcast at Columbia University.

This brings me to Badshah Khan’s visit in 1969 when Indira Gandhi, as Prime Minister, played a hand ideologically quite the opposite of what she did in Kerala a decade earlier. She split the Congress Party, weaning away the party bosses close to capitalists and proceeded to nationalize banks. The correspondent of the Times London, Peter Hazelhurst, summed up Indira Gandhi succinctly: she is a little Left of self interest.

As a matter of fact she had at this stage moved more than a “little” to the Left. Not only did she have in her cabinet a once card carrying member of the Communist Party, Mohan Kumaramanglam educated at Eton and Cambridge where his education coincided more or less with Kim Philby’s innings at Cambridge but he became an influence on her.

He enunciated what came to be known as the Kumaramangalam thesis. President S.A. Dange of CPI joined hands with Indira to make up for the shortfall in numbers in the Lok Sabha. The CPI described it as a policy of “Unity and struggle”. In other words “we struggle” against Congress’s “anti peoples” policies and unite on its socialist programmes.

This leftward lurch reached a climax when Soviet advisers helped New Delhi’s 1971 Bangladesh operations. The high Soviet profile in these operations was the principal reason for Nixon-Kissinger to order the 6^th fleet in the Bay of Bengal, as a check.

The fierce East-West competition induced a parallel internal Right-Left competition. As her comfort level with the Left increased, the powerful Congress party satraps, expelled by Indira Gandhi clasped the hands of compulsive anti communists, anti Congress, Hindu nationalist, all on the capitalist page, under the leadership of arch Gandhian, Jayaprakash Narayan. It came to be known as the Bihar movement for “total revolution”. This movement itself had antecedents, both internal, like Gujarat’s Navnirman Samiti agitation and external, like the Grosvenor Square demonstration in London and the barricades in Paris which shook De Gaulle. In fact the cusp of 1968 and the 70 were momentous – Prague Spring, Tet offensive (Vietnam), Martin Luther King’s assassination, Robert Kennedy’s assassination. These traumatic events were chronologically proximate to the Congress split, Navnirman agitation (Gujarat) and, JP movement in Bihar, the state with a powerful communist party which, unlike elsewhere in India, had not split into CPI and CPM following the Sino-Soviet split of 1964.

Although the Bihar movement projected itself as anti corruption, it was primarily aimed at seeking regime change at the centre and the state to give advantage to anti Left forces in Bihar where the communists and a Left inclined Congress – I (I stood for Indira) had retained their power.

It was the thrust of JP movement combined with the Allahabad High Court judgement unseating Indira Gandhi – a double fisted punch which unnerved Indira Gandhi to the extreme. She imposed the Emergency in 1975.

Conspiracy theorists advanced a right wing plot. Indira Gandhi had walked straight into the post emergency elections which colleagues like P.N. Dhar advised her to undertake. These held in 1977 brought to power the Janata Party, consisting of every political formation under JP’s banner including the tallest leaders of what is today the BJP – Atal Behari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani. The Right had got the opening it was eyeing.

During her brief political wilderness, Indira Gandhi spoke at length of the “foreign hand” in Indian politics. This was in continuation of the “foreign hand” chant sustained by her hand picked Congress President, Shankar Dayal Sharma. Sharma’s “foreign hand” inspired Swatantra Party leader, Piloo Mody to come to the Lok Sabha wearing a placard – “I am a CIA agent.”

An Agatha Christie like twist to this tale was my conversation with Chester Bowles in the US. Afflicted by galloping Parkinson’s disease, Bowles used to whisper into a pipe which his secretary decoded. When he heard of allegations in the Lok Sabha about the CIA having placed a device on the Nanda Devi to spy on the Chinese, Bowles sat up from his reclining position. “But Indira had asked me to.”

Indian independence coincided with the Cold war. Continuous interplay between the external and internal was built into the script. And now that world order, unrecognizably smudged during the Trump years, is reshaping itself with Biden’s inauguration, what lies in store for Indian politics which was fractured in two during Badshah Khan’s 1969 visit?

#          #          #          #

Communalism Eases Out Legendary Wasim Jaffer From Uttarakhand Cricket

Communalism Eases Out Legendary Wasim Jaffer From Uttarakhand Cricket

                                                                                       Saeed Naqvi

Culture of cricket on both sides of the border suggested itself at this stage as a theme because of the shocking developments in Uttarakhand Cricket. Coach Wasim Jaffer, a legendary batsman (no one in cricketing history has scored over 19,000 runs in first class cricket) resigned from his job, harried by allegations of “communal bias” in selection of the state’s team. Jaffer blames Mahim Verma, Secretary of State Cricket, for promoting undeserving favourites, a fact which led to a conflict between the two.

Another cricketer, Iqbal Abdullah, more interested in the hereafter than scoring runs on the pitch, sought permission to invite a Mullah to lead the Friday prayers. This was unacceptable to Secretary Verma as it would be to any sensible person. But Verma was supportive of “Ram bhakt Hanuman ki jai” as the team’s slogan. Jaffer’s suggestion that “Go Uttarakhand” would help weld the team better was ignored.

Distress at incidents of this nature causes me to reminisce about better days. My initiation into test cricket was through the agency of a medium size AGA radio which had to be tuned every minute to hear the commentary with any clarity.

Commentary by Vizzy or Maharaj Kumar of Vizianagram was the soul of Indian cricket for us novices. One of Vizzy’s obsessions was to have test cricket shifted from Green Park Kanpur to Lucknow, the city of Nawabs, which vibed better with Vizzy’s feudal, aristocratic temperament.

Lucknow, because of its stout resistance during 1857 was punished by the British on every count. Thus the High Court was bestowed on Allahabad as was the country’s premiere university. Industry was parceled away to Kanpur (Cawnpore, during the Raj) which, per courtesy the Industrialists, began to host the Test match at Green Park.

Vizzy was determined to exert all his influence in cricketing circles to have the Test match venue shifted to the picturesque grounds located between the University and Gomti River. It was on these grounds that the 1952-53 Pakistan team clashed with India in the second test. Opener Nazar Mohammad hit a century. Fazal Mahmood with his leg cutters took 12 wickets. Indian was routed. Meanwhile Lucknow’s adorable vagabond, raconteur and wit, Safdar had found two Maulanas at the match sources of great amusement with their gentle biases.

Fazal Mahmood bowled a leg cutter which was snapped up by Imtiaz Ahmad behind the stumps but the umpire disallowed the appeal. The Maulana’s leapt to their feet in excitement. “Click to hua tha?” (There was a click) said the Maulana peering into the binoculars. Safdar could not contain himself. Pointing to the binocular he asked: “Ismein sunayi bhi deta hai, Maulana?” (You can also hear through this instrument?) I have told this amusing incident earlier too.

Safdar had failed in High School several times at Islamia College where he remained an institution for years after his unsuccessful bid at scholarship. Islamia College was on a narrow lane which opened onto one of Lucknow’s main roads curving from Hazratganj past the Legislative Assembly building, towards Charbagh railway station. At this intersection was Royal hotel where the Pakistan team were staying. As one entered the hotel the lounge bar immediately caught the eye. In the middle was a circular service area decorated with alcoholic beverages, mostly beer served to guests seated on high bar stools.

The lounge bar was a curiosity by itself for students of Islamia College drawn to the Royal hotel for a glimpse of Pakistani players particularly, “batting prodigy” Hanif Mohammad, only 17 years old and Fazal Mahmood the ace medium pacer with blue eyes. For Islamia College students the “maikhana” or the Tavern was the haunt of Urdu poets. They had not seen a bar in real life.

What astonished them more was Maqsood Ahmad, Pakistan’s stylish number 3 batsman, quite at home at the bar with a large tumbler frothing over with Golden Eagle lager. Musharraf, the tall swing bowler from Lucknow’s famous Morning Star club, leading a handful of Islamia College boys lurched aggressively towards Maqsood.

“Aapko sharm naheen aati; Mussalmaan hote hue bhi sharab peete hain? (Aren’t you ashamed drinking even though you are a Muslim) A shocked Maqsood, along with his team mates, receded, balancing his beer.

It was stunning irony. Here were students in a secular state, admittedly culturally conservative and of a somewhat mofussil background, faulting cricketers from the newly formed Islamic Republic on the question of alcohol.

The answer possibly lies in the different evolutions of Lucknow and Lahore, the primary catchment area for the Pakistan team. After the experience of 1857, Lucknow had begun to accentuate its Urdu culture and shed the Anglaise in its makeup. The core of old Lucknow rejoiced in its chant “gandi galiyaan; saaf zubaan”. (Dirty lanes but elegant speech).

Lahore retained its cosmopolitan vigour until the other day – Maqsood or Maxi as he was called, was a creature of this culture.

Directive Principle of the Indian Constitution sets prohibition as a sort of ideal. This is in deference to Gandhian abstemiousness. In 1977, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, in a burst of populism to outflank Gen. Zia ul Haq’s excessive Islamism, banned the consumption of alcohol. Yes, the same Bhutto who had brought his own crate of Chivas Regal to the Simla Summit in 1972. An exchange in Simla between Bhutto and his Berkeley University friend, the late Swatantra party leader Piloo Mody is memorable.

“Zulfie, I can understand you bringing your own scotch to Simla, but surely you could have accepted Indian soda.”

For irony, Bhutto’s response is a classic, considering that he is the author of Pakistan’s much flouted dry law.

“Have you forgotten Piloo, Scotch tastes best with Schweppes soda!”

Incidents mentioned above touch on creeping religiosity but they can yet provide some amusement. That religiosity has now putrefied to a point that a gentleman cricketer like Jaffer becomes an object of hate for folks like Mahim Verma advancing personal interests on the back of rampant communalism.

#          #          #          #

Liberal Cleric Sounds Like A Contradiction But Not Kalbe Sadiq

Liberal Cleric Sounds Like A Contradiction But Not Kalbe Sadiq

                                                                                       Saeed Naqvi

 

Mir Taqi Mir describes his “perfect” man in a rubayee:

“Miliye us shaqs se ke jo aadam hovey

Naz apne kamal par use kum hovey

Boley to usey sunne ko aaye khilqat

Khamosh rahey to ek alam hovey”

(The person to seek out must, above all, be humane.

He must not wear his knowledge on his sleeves.

When he speaks, the world listens to him,

But when silent, he is a universe unto himself.)

The quatrain applied aptly to Saiyyid Kalbe Sadiq, who passed away at 83 in Lucknow earlier this month.

Just as Lucknow has lost so much of the eclectic culture nursed over hundreds of years, the death of Maulana Kalbe Sadiq brings down the curtain on the institution of the “Aalim”, which derives from “ilm” which means “knowledge”.

That this was largely a Shia institution is easily explained: the Nawabs of Awadh were Shia, which is where the patronage came from. This must not detract from the fact that internationally known Sunni institutions like Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulema, or the House of knowledge also flourished. There was considerable intellectual rapport between the sects. How else does one explain the masterly “Muazna-e-Anis-o-Dabir”, comparative study of Anis and Dabir, written by one of Nadwa’s greatest scholars Shibli Nomani. Anis and Dabir were famous Marsia writers, a genre focused on the tragedy of Karbala, central to the observance of Moharram, not exclusively but primarily a Shia occasion.

Kalbe Sadiq came from a long line of “Ulema” (plural for Aalim), or theological scholars conversant with liberal traditions of which Sufism was another important part. Saiyid Waris Shah, the Pir of Dewa Sharief, seven kilometers away from Lucknow, had a simple explanation for not going through the rituals of “Namaz”, prayer. “Where is the space to bow in supplication?” The implication was: “He is in me.”

During my school days, a phase of cultural bifurcation between school and home, the two towering “Alims” of Lucknow were Maulana Kalbe Hussain (alias Kabban Sahib), Kalbe Sadiq’s father, and Maulana Ali Naqi (Naqqan Sahib), both brilliant orators whose sermons were much valued at congregations called the “Majlis”. The themes ranged from history, politics, metaphysics, any subject, provided the speaker deftly brought in Karbala, preferably towards the end to clinch the argument.

Lucknow’s celebrated tapestry of manners did find itself frayed even in this limited circle of theologians and their flock of followers. A group, clearly not from among “Naqqan Sahib’s” followers, created what for Lucknow was a major scandal. The group accused the respected cleric of blasphemy and physically assaulted him.

Apparently, Naqqan Sahib had in his researches spotted mention of water in Imam Hussain’s tent. Even a hint on these lines was anathema to a bunch of fanatics. The absence of water in Karbala’s torrid heat heightens Hussain’s tragedy. For that very reason, even a suggestion of water in Karbala would soften the tragic effect. The truth, ofcourse, is that “Naqqan Sahib’ had never said that “water” was available. He had simply cited sources which hinted at such a possibility.

Worst was the treatment meted to poet Yaas Yagana Changezi, a contemporary of Jigar, Firaq and Josh. Yagana wrote:

“Samajh mein kuch nahee ata,

Parhey jaaney se kya hasil?

Namazon mein hain kuch maaney,

to pardesi zabaan kyon ho?”

(What’s the point of reciting namaz

When you do not know its meaning?

The simple question is:

Why should namaz be in a foreign language?)

Put it down to Lucknow’s open mindedness that this affront was tolerated. But in the next instance the pot boiled over.

In one of his “naats” or religious songs Yagana referred to Prophet Mohammad in less than reverent terms. He probably did not know that he had violated one of the unenforced codes:

“Ba Khuda deewana baash-o

Ba Mohammad hoshiyar.”

(Take liberties with God, but be careful with Mohammad)

Dara Shikoh’s Prime Minister, Chandrabhan Brahman broke the code most brazenly:

“Panja dar panja-e-Khuda daram

Man che parwa e Mustafa daram.”

(My hand is in the hand of God:

Why should I worry about Mohammad?)

It reflects in the backward slide of a tolerant culture, that Yagana did not go scot-free. His face was blackened black and he was given a donkey-ride through the old city.

The liberal streak in the “Ulema” of Lucknow comes out in bold relief in an incident concerning Josh Malihabadi. His Marsia titled Hussain and Revolution became a cult poem even in devout circles. Josh became a popular invitee to various Imambaras of Lucknow, indeed across the country. He built up a reputation for Marsia writing, second only to the great Mir Anis. A group of orthodox Shias turned up at the residence of the great Aalim of his age, Maulana Naasir ul Millat armed with a plaint. Josh, devoted to liquor (he called it Kaaba e khaas o aam) should be banned from reciting Marsias from pulpits in “our sacred Imambaras”.

After reading Josh’s Marsias, the Maulana invited the complainants and Josh. What happened next was dramatic. The Maulana spread out his personal prayer mat for Josh and invited him to recite “Hussain and Inquilab”. The message from the Maulana was straightforward: it would be wrong to occupy the pulpit inebriated. Otherwise there is no specific bar on drinking.

This was the open mindedness Maulana Kalbe Sadiq inherited from generations of “Ulema”. From the 1990s he had pleaded: Even if the Muslims win the Ram Janmbhoomi land dispute, they should gift the land to the Hindus. “You will win their goodwill.” His point was that a Muslim can turn towards Kaaba and say his prayers anywhere. “Ram is central to Hindu ethos.” He initiated joint Shia-Sunni Namaz, allowing the Sunni cleric to take the lead.

He traced Muslim backwardness to a singular lack of education and dedicated his life to establishing non sectarian institutions in every possible field. But he died a disappointed man because of expanding communalism and a community trapped in the snare of selfish political leaders.

#          #          #          #

The New Team In Washington Surveys West Asia Trump Leaves Behind

The New Team In Washington Surveys West Asia Trump Leaves Behind

                                                                                      Saeed Naqvi

For the new team being announced by the Biden administration any innovation can only follow repair work of the considerable wreckage that is being left behind by the outgoing team.

At this moment of transition, what construct does one place on the outgoing Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo’s participation in the cloak-and-dagger meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu in the mega city of Neom being built on the Red Sea? The drama of this meeting was heightened by Netanyahu’s office denying the meeting in tones which seemed to suggest that the Israelis were not busting their guts to keep the meeting secret. A pretense of secrecy was essential because otherwise “MBS” would be in “trouble”.

Netanyahu’s Education Minister, Yoav Galant, could not contain his joy at the “amazing achievement” because the “Sunni world” was joining the Israel-US alliance to counter “Iranian Shiite extremism”.

This Shia-Sunni confrontation, real or simulated, has been the game ever since the Shah was toppled in Iran. Why then this secrecy now? Why is MBS so scared being seen in an embrace with Netanyahu on Saudi soil? Because his people will find out? Do his people matter? But it turns out that Human rights is an article of faith with the incoming Secretary of state, Antony Blinken. This may well be a source of anxiety not just for Saudi Arabia but all monarchies and authoritarian systems. Are there any in our vicinity?

A hint about MBS’s source of anxiety was available in the other crucial meeting the Saudi king had with President Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. The Turkish strongman is part of a quadrangle which both, Washington (the incoming administration) and MBS, Netanyahu too, should by analyzing.

After the Soviet collapse in 1991, it was elementary that creating a distance between Moscow and Beijing would remain a US strategic goal. But George W Bush and his deluded neo-cons asked for the moon – full spectrum global dominance into the American century. The financial crisis of 2008 rapped them hard on the knuckles. American decline was well underway when Trump greased the downward slide even more effectively.

The evolving Biden team will contemplate at the menacing quadrangle I mentioned at the outset. To begin with, Moscow and Beijing have never been closer. The duet spotted the potential of Iran too, and included it in the club. After all, Washington is just about to dust up the Iranian nuclear file for a resumption of a conversation with Tehran.

No sooner had Trump lost the election, when Imran Khan was on his maiden trip to Kabul. This, when the US troop withdrawal from the Afghan capital had run into the sort of snags which US representative for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad was trying to sort out. Was the Pakistan Prime Minister now effectively being positioned to handle the Afghan file? This became a very real anxiety in both Tehran and New Delhi. But Iran being re invited on the nuclear file, mollifies it somewhat. How happy New Delhi should be with its exertions in the Quad (US, Australia, Japan, India) only time can tell. The Japanese Foreign Minister has already clarified: our membership of the Quad is not directed against any country.

So, while the US was on the Trump rollercoaster and coping with the social mayhem and galloping Covid, other countries were moving increasingly in concert. There has been so much continuous chanting of the Shia-Sunni conflict that real and abiding antipathies have been lost sight of.

A convenient point of departure to explain this narrative are the two events in December, 1979, which rattled the Saudis, indeed the world – Ayatollah Khomeini’s return, signaling the Iranian revolution. Around the same date, an anti-monarchy, Sunni, an extreme version of the Muslim Brotherhood, Juhayman al-Otaybi, defied the Saudi state by occupying the holiest Muslim Mosque of Mecca.  

Unable to flush out Otaybi and his armed supporters, Saudis sought Western help. A situation emerged which to a non Muslim would read like a situation comedy. Since non Muslims are not allowed in Mecca, US and French soldiers had to be converted to Islam to enter the mosque and accomplish the holy task of killing Otaybi and his men. This “rebellion within” gives Saudis nightmares. But they feel more secure externalizing the threat. They have persistently targeted Iran and Shiaism as threats to themselves, Israel, indeed, the West. When did you last hear of the 15 days siege of the Mecca Mosque?

To point fingers at the Muslim Brotherhood (Akhwan ul Muslimeen) as the enemy would isolate most of the GCC Sheikhdoms from the larger Muslim “Umma”. They would then be perceived as only the “Wahabi” sect of the Sunni world.

Incalculable Saudi wealth, particularly after the quadrupling of oil prices following the 1973 Yom Kippur war, had the Western Military Industrial Complex salivating on Arab petro dollars. The oil rich Sheikhs are, by formal agreements, dependent on Western arms. Their wealth plus their links to Israel give them considerable control on Western media which has quite shockingly harped only on the Shia-Sunni conflict.

When the Arab Spring dethroned Hosni Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood’s, Mohamed Morsi became Egypt’s Prime Minister. Coming to power of a Brother in Egypt caused the Saudis to load their camels with their billions and turn up in Cairo to stabilize Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi’s coup in Cairo. Brothers in power in Egypt was anathema to the Israelis too because the Hamas in Gaza would now have help from all sides. Brother in Turkey, Qatar and Egypt. They were ideologically coherent with Hamas.

At the Shia end, the Hezbullah in Lebanon, Iran, the Alawi elements in the Syrian Army, the Shia majority in Iraq, war tried Houthis of Yemen are all supporting the Palestinian cause to the hilt.

No, it is not the Shia Sunni divide which is bothering MBS and Netanyahu. What worries them deeply is the Shia-Sunni combine zeroing in on the Israelis and the Wahabis in unlikely comradeship.

#          #          #          #

After Bihar, The Enigma Of Asad Owaisi Deserves To Be Understood

 After Bihar, The Enigma Of Asad Owaisi Deserves To Be Understood

                                                                                       Saeed Naqvi

The enigma of Asaduddin Owaisi on the rise in recent years has, after he won five seats in the Seemanchal area of Bihar, acquired a new salience.

Speculation now centres on how he might fare in West Bengal where the Muslim population is estimated to be 30 percent which is the backbone of Mamata’s support. Since the Muslim is presumed to be Owaisi’s hunting ground too, will the Muslim vote be confused? If Amit Shah had not made it his life’s mission to oust or substantially diminish Trinamool and “Didi”, Muslims may well have risked a breach in their absolute support for Mamata. In current circumstances, any bid by Owaisi to fish for a small catch, just enough to open an account in West Bengal, will expose him to the slur that he is a “vote katua”, a vote divider which is what parties, particularly the Congress, like to cast him as. This allegation of communalism against Owaisi, helps the Congress sustain the delusion that it is still with the secular line up. The Congress does not like the refrain: Congress and the BJP, tweedledum and tweedledee. It must ofcourse be admitted that there are differences between the two ruling class, corporate supported parties. Former Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Digvijay Singh may, admittedly, drink a liter of cow’s urine everyday but his drinking habits do not come into conflict with the secularism a handful of Congressmen swore by in the days of yore.

It is an article of faith with connoisseurs that the non dairy yield from a jet black cow is comparable to “Amrit” or nectar. Congress leader Randeep Surjewala, who declared Rahul Gandhi a “janeudhari” Brahmin during the Gujarat Assembly elections, would have had the electronic media riveted on the cow shed in Rahul’s bungalow had he gifted him with two black cows. Surjewala held the gift back presumably because he may have had the foresight that Rahul would eventually have to move to Wayanad in Kerala where the cow is otherwise contemplated.

To fast forward the narrative, there were no cow vigilantes, no lynchings in the name of the cow, no bar on Love Jihad. The Congress can never be blamed for inaugurating such trends. The charge against them is different: extreme cowardice. When these shameful events happen, the Congress instead of going for the opposition jugular, just shuts up – in case taking sides results in a loss of Hindu vote. Little wonder, the “B Team of the BJP” is a label which has stuck on the Congress.

Take the latest fusillade Amit Shah has directed at the “Gupkar gang” for international conspiracy. The tepid response by Surjewala says nothing. Why does the Congress not come out with a clear stand on article 370?

Sheikh bhi khush rahey

Shaitaan bhi naraaz na ho

(Keep the agents of God and of Satan equally happy.)

How can the Congress point fingers at Owaisi’s “pro BJP stand” when it reduced senior leader Ghulam Nabi Azad to tears during the 2019 elections. “Even district committees of the Congress do not invite me to address rallies.”

This is the pincer in which Owaisi holds the Congress. He taunts the Muslims: “Your consistent support to the Congress has brought you down to the level described in the 2005 Sachar Committee report.” Since then “your condition has become worse.”

The thrust of Owaisi’s argument is that Muslims have been tricked into supporting “pseudo secular” parties like the Congress, and caste parties in UP, Bihar etcetera.

The Muslims have been frightened into supporting these parties. The ogre they have been frightened by is, obviously, the RSS-BJP. Owaisi’s argument is that the so called secular parties seek Muslim support not to defeat the BJP (they are separately incapable of defeating it), but to enlarge their power base, a delusion at best, and end up doing nothing for the Muslims.

With a population of 200 million or 14% of the total population there are 27 Muslims in a Parliament of 543. The ratio in the state assemblies is even more embarrassing. Owaisi’s argument is simple: seven seats in Telangana, two in Maharashtra and now five in Bihar adds upto fourteen seats. Supposing Muslims pick up an average of even one seat in 28 states and 8 union territories, the figure 36 will not look so negligible.

The electoral weakness of Indian Muslims is precisely this: though substantial in an overall sense, they are scattered all over. Quite ironically Covid 19, by linking schools, colleges, businesses, international conferences by the magic of virtual reality will come into play: Members of Assemblies can be in instantaneous contact.

The danger, ofcourse, is that the growth of a Muslim entity will help accelerate Hindu consolidation. How does one obviate that emergency? By allowing the Muslim vote to habitually occupy frayed mattresses in parties like the Congress which are in fatal decline?

The durability of Owaisi in public life denotes the failure of all political parties to paint him in lurid, communal colours, much as they tried. Such a moment did offer itself in 2013 when his younger, much more fire brand brother, Akbaruddin Owaisi made a provocative reference to police support for the violence against Muslims. “Remove the police for 15 minutes and let’s see.” The speech smacked of a sort of Muslim macho, causing the media to go into convulsions.

Since then Akbaruddin has clearly been kept on a short leash. Asaduddin, a barrister, a restrained and skilful speaker, once a medium pacer for the South zone cricket team, and one who anchors his political stance unerringly to the Constitution is an uncommon phenomenon in public life. For right, left and centre, Asaduddin is the exasperating opponent who does not deviate from good manners, logic, the Constitution and, woe of woes, happens to be a Muslim. Well, if he has such qualities of heart and mind, why will sensible non Muslims not turn to him some day?

#          #          #          #

American Democracy Loses When Most Popular Candidate Kept From Race Twice

American Democracy Loses When Most Popular Candidate Kept From Race Twice

                                                                                         Saeed Naqvi

It was nice to receive mails from friends who had assembled at Lucknow boy Nusrat Durrani’s Dumbo apartment under the Brooklyn Bridge on 3 November 2016, election night, armed with champagne bottles to be uncorked as soon as Hillary Clinton pipped the post.

In the event, the champagne bottles stood in one straight line on the dining table like a row of brooding bishops. Trump had shocked all the guests. A submarine sandwich hurled as a missile by a despairing guest knocked the lamp over.

I have repeated the above story because that is what history is supposed to be – a continuous repetition of facts. So indelibly etched on my mind is that party in Brooklyn that every US election will bring alive that episode.

There is another reason for that episode to be so etched on my mind. I did not wish to be the only one out of synch with the general mood that evening, but I was in a minority of one who expected Hillary to lose. Having arrived in New York a fortnight ago for a discussion in the various campuses of my book, “Being the Other: The Muslim in India”, kept me away from a 24X7 bombardment of punditry on elections.

A cluttering of detail tends to push out of focus the simple, plausible outline conditioning of electoral behaviour. Experience from most electoral theatres had taught me a simple lesson: people were tired of two parties, one indistinguishable from the other.

This was happening at local levels too, even in India. The Aam Aadmi Party’s record 67 out of 70 seats in 2015 was one such wave, smothered by the media which is controlled by the Corporates whose key projects in New Delhi were threatened by the untried party. It did not have the ideological spine to withstand the assault from the main political parties and the corporate media. Therefore, the bubble burst. AAP is now an ordinary party circling around power.

There are comparisons between Joe Biden scraping through and Hillary Clinton losing in 2016: neither were popular candidates. They were candidates that the Democratic Party “maneuvered” as front runners because on both occasions Bernie Sanders was the most popular candidate, but his democratic socialism was anathema to the establishment.

As soon as it became clear that Sanders was leading the field, the establishment came out, all guns blazing. Thomas Friedman, whom the New York Times values as its star columnist, forgot all decencies of independent journalism and wrote two full columns rooting for former New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg and a billionaire several times over, as one of the Democratic front runners. There was no hope in hell that Bloomberg would win (buy) the nomination but, by spending a billion on TV, he would disrupt the game sufficiently for Sanders to advance. “This is a capitalist country” thundered Bloomberg. To protect his credibility, Friedman admitted in his column, that his wife worked for one of Bloomberg’s charities. This is just one of the umpteen tricks employed to obstruct Sanders.

There was a straightforward reason why Clinton was the wrong candidate. The velocity given to globalization after the Soviet collapse gave a fillip to rampaging capitalism. Inequalities broke all barriers. It did not require Thomas Piketty to enlighten as that even in India barely one percent of the rich had cornered 51.53% of the wealth. The picture in the US was worse. Occupy Wall Street became a popular movement. It invited a capitalist riposte – the Tea Party. People were disgusted with Washington, which symbolized the US establishment. A quest began for an anti establishment candidate. Just one such candidate appeared to be Bernie Sanders. People were looking for social welfare, universal health care, education exactly what the Bloombergs of the US thought would kill the initiative which made America great. Quite unabashedly, the Democratic Party gave the impression that it was preferable to lose the White House than lose corporate support.

One hoped the shock reversal of 2016 would have taught the Democrats a lesson. Across the Atlantic, Jeremy Corbyn was being likewise thwarted by New Labour. One of their leading lights, Lord Peter Mandelson, had sworn to “undermine” Corbyn. The other day they suspended him. Corbyn was to Mandelson what Sanders was to Bloomberg. This in June 2017 when the latest opinion polls projected Corbyn as the possible Prime Minister. Another example that the establishment trumps the popular will. Whither democracy, then?

At this very time, another reality was allowed to go unnoticed. A Fox News poll showed that Sanders has a +28 rating above politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. At that time, the Guardian’s Trevor Timm wrote “One would think with numbers like that, Democratic politicians would be falling over themselves to be associated with Sanders, especially considering the Party as a whole is more unpopular than the Republicans and even Donald Trump right now. Yet instead of embracing his message, the establishment of the party continues to resist him at almost every turn, and they seem insistent they don’t have to change their ways to gain back the support of huge swathes of the country.”

Sanders popularity is now recognized, but after he spelt out the scenario on October 23 in a talk show on how the drama will unfold when votes are counted in these elections, he is well on his way to being prophetic.

“In states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and elsewhere, Republicans are likely to go to the polling booths to cast their votes. Democrats, are likely to mail in their votes. When counting begins, the votes counted first will be Republican votes for that reason. So by 10 pm on counting day, Trump will thank his voters and announce victory. But next morning when millions of mails will be counted, the trend will change. That is when Trump will scream murder: I told you they’ll cheat.” Mayor Rudi Giuliani has already elaborated the case in Philadelphia.

#          #          #          #