Ten Commandments And A Parable Of Four Brahmins

Ten Commandments And A Parable Of Four Brahmins

                                                                                  Saeed Naqvi

 

Coping with Corona season, confined with books and great cinema we stumbled upon Polish film maker, Krzysztof Kieslowski’s masterpiece, Dekalog, a 10 part series which explores ethical issues raised by the ten commandments.

In the eighth episode, thou shall not bear false witness, 40 year old New Yorker, Elizibieta, who had earlier translated works of Sofia a Polish professor of ethics at Warsaw University, visits the university to attend the lectures of the teacher she obviously admires. In passing, the camera focuses on the cross she is wearing, establishing her Roman Catholic Polish background. Trust my Uttar Pradesh obsession, the film directed my mind unexpectedly towards avatars of Brahminism.

Elizibieta raises an issue in Sofia’s class which she continues even at Sofia’s apartment. It turns out that in 1943, when anti Semitism had taken a murderous turn, a six year old Jewish girl had been left in Sofia’s apartment for protection. This child was Elizibieta. Sofia and her husband, practicing Catholics, flinched at the last moment: baptizing Elizibieta was the only disguise that would guarantee protection from the Gestapo. Their faith was at risk of being compromised. This despite the fact that Sofia and her husband were progressives in the Resistance. Elizibieta, who found shelter with other progressive Catholics, was baptized, a fact which facilitated her passage to America in the care of Polish Jews migrating to what was then the promised land.

Were Sofia and her husband, really faced with a dilemma? The choice was between saving the life of a child placed in their care by trusting Jewish parents or risking the child’s life by rigid adherence to the Commandments Moses received from God?

Kieslowski’s portrayal of a bruising reality reminded me astonishingly of the Kanpur riots in December 1992, post Babari Masjid demolition.

Cameraman Kabir Khan and I were directed to a two room accommodation where a certain “Panditain” (widow of a Pandit or a Brahmin) had saved a Muslim woman from a rampaging mob which entered her quarters. “Where is Aisha Bi?” they demanded in deafening decibels, flourishing their weapons. “I don’t know” she said. Can you swear by Lord Rama that you have not hidden Aisha Bi?

Not only did she willingly swear but she enhanced her credibility by pointing to a plaster head of Lord Rama above her bed. “I swear by that statue I have not hidden Aisha Bi in my house.” The mob, which had done its homework on Aisha Bi’s whereabouts, found itself impossible to challenge the Panditain once she had sworn by Rama.

Once they had begun to slink away, the Panditain hurriedly removed mattresses, quilts, blankets, washed clothes from on top of a large, window size wooden trunk. She lifted the cover. The portly half conscious figure of Aisha Bi, drenched in sweat, was lifted out.

Revert to Warsaw of 1943. Sofia faced a dilemma. She made a choice a consequence of which could well have been tragic. Elizibieta may well have ended in Auschwitz had other Catholics and Jews not collaborated. The Panditain of Kanpur faced no dilemma. She fell back on tact as distinct from a lie. Invocation of Rama’s name was in the situation in effect an act of mercy.

Parallels between the two episodes in Warsaw and Kanpur have risks. The debate will inevitably slide towards comparative religions, rituals. Times are not ripe for such debate.

How would the Urdu poet steeped in Sufism respond:

“Karein hum kiski pooja aur charhaen kispe chandan hum?

Sanam hum, daer hum, butkhana hum, but hum, barahman hum”

(Where do I turn for my prayers;

I am His image, am the room for bowing to him, the keeper of His idols,

Indeed, I am the idol, the Brahman)

Waris Shah the high Priest of Dewa shrine outside Lucknow was more succinct.

Asked, “Why do you not say your Namaz regularly?” Waris Shah replied, “Where is the space to go down in supplication?” The implication is: “He is in me”, the essence of Advait or non-duality.

The Kanpur riots yielded more sociological narratives of a different order. A mob carrying Trishuls, rods, axes and swords were blocked by a solitary man from entering a gated garden where scores of Muslim families had taken shelter. The man’s name was Tripathi. In another area an elderly lady, described by neighbours as Mishrain, threatened the rioters with construction bricks piled on her terrace. The mob retreated.

A certain Pande ji stretched his arms across a narrow lane to thwart an armed mob trying to enter a row of houses occupied by Muslims. Like many other stories, the Kanpur story would have been canned and possibly forgotten. Since we were leaving for London in the next few days to film a feature on an Irish school teaching Vedic mathematics, Kabir’s edited copy of Kanpur also found its way into our baggage. Gopal Gandhi who was then incharge of the Nehru Centre in London, selected the Kanpur feature for screening before a packed hall.

That Hindus helped Muslims during the riots was an obvious attraction, a sort of relief for an audience fed excessively on communal brutalities post Babari Masjid. But the edited episode on Kanpur shed light on another piece of sociology. Wherever armed gangs baying for blood were stopped from advancing towards Muslims, the individuals happened to be a Panditain, Tripathi, Mishraen or Pandey – all Brahmins, something not fashionable to mention in the caste convulsions boosted sky high by the Mandal Commission report. The point of emphasis is not that Brahmins alone are filled with the milk of human kindness to check a blood thirsty mob in its tract. A different group would simply not have the self confidence to confront a mob baying for blood. I write from my experience in Awadh and districts around Kannauj where political opposition to Brahmins contradicts their social standing.

#          #          #          #

US Withdrawal: Afghanistan Face Chaos Or Iran, Russia, China, Pak Quad?

US Withdrawal: Afghanistan Face Chaos Or Iran, Russia, China, Pak Quad?

                                                                                          Saeed Naqvi

Having kept a steady gaze on Kabul atleast since Noor Mohammad Taraki’s press conference in April 1978 when Khalq and Parcham, the two Communist parties of Afghanistan, came to power, I am kicking myself for having missed out on the latest open ended transition being scripted. I have been shuttling between hospitals and home shuffling out of a long Covid spelt.

The United States has conflictual equations with China, Russia, Iran and others either in the region which are in Chinese or the Russian ambit. All these countries have borders with Afghanistan. Did the US spend two trillion dollars in 20 years with the benign intent to provide tranquility for these countries on their Afghan borders only to confront these powers elsewhere?

Turkey, or, to be more precise, President Tayyip Erdogan has been roped in to supervise Kabul airport. Taleban are pretending to throw a ginger fit should Turkey post troops to protect the airport. Since the Taleban have to be pleased at all cost, Turkey has decided to deploy contractors, engineers etcetera. But who will provide them armed protection? The Americans, ofcourse. The Americans will obviously have plans to keep an eye on the Bagram air base too. I have vivid recollections of the US bombing Serbia for 72 days, carve out a state of Kosovo and leave behind what in those days was globally the largest US base, Bondsteel, abutting Macedonia.

What great urge did the US have in carving out a Muslim state in what was the holiest real estate for the southern Slavs of Serbia, ethnic cousins of the Russians? Well, the first purpose was to hit the Russians where it hurts. The second was to build bases which radiate power.

Likewise, Turkey is being given a toehold in Afghanistan which has the potential of opening vistas across central Asia, an expansive oil rich block of Turkik speaking people. As in the Balkans, here too the historical, entrenched interests of Russia will be posed in competition.

When a vision of the Ottoman Empire being revived was dangled before Erdogan he wasted no time in turning up for prayers in the main square of Tripoli in November 2011. The “Ottoman” dream which faded in the West Asian theatres may well be revived in Central Asia where there is greater ethnic continuity. Erdogan is unlikely to leap for this elusive carrot but he may begin to focus a little more time on this theatre. This will be welcome to Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia. The last two will be dreaming of the extreme Islam of the Taleban blending with the Akhwan ul Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) of which Erdogan is now an unabashed leader. This will be expected to be a bulwark against Iran. Binoculars will also be fixed on China’s Uighurs and Russia’s Caucasus.

So long as imperialism has a central role for Israel in West Asia, Iran will remain the target. Little wonder US forces are being relocated. Just the other day, the US announced the closure of its bases in Sayliyah, Qatar. The base being activated in utmost secrecy happens to be in Jordon, out of the range of Iranian missiles.

There is another very good reason to have Erdogan ration some of his time away from West Asia where the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood causes anxiety to Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt whose suppression of the Brothers cannot last eternally. Riyadh shaken in the south with the advances made by the Houthis from Yemen has not forgotten the occupation of the Mecca mosque in November 1979 almost at the same time as the Iranian revolution toppled the Shah in Tehran. For two weeks the mosque was occupied by anti-Monarchy extreme Islamists. Eventually, French troops had to help Saudi soldiers. Since then Saudi Royals have nightmares about a secret anti monarchy cult, not different from the Brothers. There is a tendency to exaggerate an external danger of Shia Islam. The truth is that the ‘Akhwan’ or the Brothers, with roots inside the kingdom are much more of a danger.

Brothers in Egypt will have a huge morale booster, should Erdogan without other distractions go full throttle in his Muslim Brotherhood avatar. The revival of the Brothers in Egypt will be of considerable help to Hamas which is another name for the Brothers. This will be a thorn in the side of Israel. Notice how many capitals have an interest in the Turkish role in Kabul.

It is not fanciful that one chapter of the Afghan saga may be coming to a close. But what has always puzzled me is the singular lack of interest in the origin of a catastrophe when the iconic Tajik leader Ahmad Shah Massoud’s exceptional intelligence gathering on Al Qaeda’s operations in Afghanistan hinted at the possibility of 9/11.

In August 2001 he alerted the European Union in the course of an address in Brussels that the anti Taleban Northern Alliance had learnt that Al Qaeda, were planning some action on the US mainland. On September 9, two days before the attack on the twin towers in New York, Massoud was assassinated in his hideout on the Tajik border. The two Tunisians, disguised as journalists detonated their vests as soon as they began their “interview” with Massoud. The passports of the two assassins had been forged in Brussels at about the time Massoud alerted the European Union about the attack on the “US mainland”.

Since the Syrian theatre began to quieten down in 2018, there have been reports of militants being flown to Northern Afghanistan, exactly the location from where out-of-work Mujahideen had fanned out to Kashmir, Egypt, Algeria, Syria.

So, is Afghanistan headed for chaos or, as a Marxist analyst predicts: “A Quad is taking shape – Iran, China, Russia and Pakistan.” If correct, has India opted for the wrong Quad?

#          #          #          #

April 2003: US in Iraq, Vajpayee’s Pak initiative and Worldview India

 

April 2003: US in Iraq, Vajpayee’s Pak initiative and Worldview India

                                                                                                                                   Saeed Naqvi 

Dated: 16-04-2021.

 

April, 2003, was the cruellest month for the people of Iraq, a month of reflection on Pakistan by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and a rare opportunity for Worldview India, a dedicated group of Indian journalists who helped lift the mist from the historic events that month.

Americans had occupied Iraq, by April 3.  Vice President Dick Cheney, the real author of the operation, was eager to declare victory on April 9. It was to be a spectacular media event. After all, Cheyney had embedded 300 plus journalists with the forces.

The choreography was audacious. In a prepared statement Dick Cheyney would declare victory on Global Media. This statement would be interspersed with images of an ecstatic, popular upsurge pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussain at Firdous square. Cheyney’s talking head would alternate with the slow fall of the statue. Cheyney would never have dreamt that all the back channel tricks that had gone into the manufacture of the memorable spectacle  would be exposed. For the first time in the history of Indian journalism, Worldview India had posted camera units/ cum reporters in Baghdad, Najaf, Istanbul, Jerusalem, Amman, Lebanon. Some of these reporters happened to be in Palestine hotel, witness to the real story – the one the world was not supposed to know.

Contrary to the narrative of a popular uprising toppling the statue, the Americans had to think on their feet: they had to improvise the iconic images because the popular upsurge had simply not materialized. US marines were mobilized to “lasso” the neck of the statue and have it pulled down by cranes. CNN, premier cheerleader for the occupation, has to this day incorporated a video of the statue as a lasting symbol of Americans replacing  a “brutal” dictatorship with democracy.

As we know from the experience of various “colour revolutions”, camera angles can amplify a handful of people (in this case the workers of Palestine hotel) into a revolution on the march. True, the sole super power can arrange for a statue to be pulled down, but how does it show images of crowds celebrating Saddam Hussein’s fall?

1991-92 Shia uprising in Najaf and Karbala encouraged by operation Desert Storm was harshly put down by Saddam Hussain. The only images of the damaged shrine of Imam Hussain was brought to the world by a TV crew led by this reporter. The Shia refugees from this almost unreported conflict had been settled in a vast ghetto on the outskirts of Baghdad. It was named, like much else in Iraq those days, as Saddam City.It dawned on Cheyney’s team that one group of people thrilled at  the “fall of Saddam were actually the inmates of the nearby ghetto,  teeming with disgruntled Shias.

A deal was struck with the controversial cleric, Muqtada Sadr. Saddam city was renamed “Sadr” city. That is when celebrations erupted on the streets of Baghdad. Crowds from Sadr city trampled on posters of Saddam Hussain and beat it with their Sandals. American romance with the Shias of Iraq burgeoned. On March 20, 2005, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recommended Grand Ayatullah Ali Sistani for the Nobel Prize. Sistani remains the blue-eyed Ayatullah because he differs with Tehran on the clergy’s role in governing the state.

Cheyney’s contrivance of a quick victory in Iraq was matched by the energetic diplomacy of the US embassy in New Delhi. They persuaded South Block to participate in the American victory by taking over the administration of Iraq’s Kurdish North. Powerful cabinet Minister like Jaswant Singh found the American blandishment tempting. Prime Minster Vajpayee, as much a statesman as a skilful politician, rather than rubbish his cabinet colleagues, went into one of his extended spells of deep reflection.

He called up his friend A.B.Bardhan, Secretary General of the CPI. ”Are you supporting Indian occupation of Kurdish Iraq?”. Vajpayee taunted. “Not at all” exclaimed Bardhan. “But I see no protest”. Vajpayee continued. The Prime Minister was looking for signs of street restiveness on the issue   to cite in opposing the idea.The source for this exchange was Bardhan.Vajpayee did not deny it.

This was a period of extraordinary tension between India and Pakistan. After the 2001 December 13 attack on Indian Parliament, the two militaries were in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation. On April 18, Vajpayee landed in Srinagar and, without a hint to his cabinet colleagues,  held out his hand of peace to Pakistan. “An awesome power has arisen”. Regional quarrels have no meaning now. Conflicts in the region would have to be composed. The January 4, 2004 Indo-Pak summit in Islamabad followed.

Vajpayee found the “sole super power” moment forbidding. Hence his quest for regional peace. Narender Modi’s crawl towards a regional entente is dictated by a different set of circumstance. The burgeoning China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan togetherness in the vicinity makes a friendly US look too distant.

Journalists of Worldview India remember April of 2003 for the kind of journalism Indian journalists have never practiced before or since. The idea was to cover the war and the occupation of Iraq from an Indian perspective.The western media would ofcourse cover the occupation comprehensively, but from its own perspective. Indeed the embedded journalists would be part of the war effort. This would not be the Indian perspective, unless New Delhi accepted the proposition that it was India’s war too. Indian media houses are stone deaf on such issues. For coverage of foreign affairs they have deals with Reuters, BBC, CNN, FOX News and so on --  so much for atmnirbharta or self sufficiency.  A word of gratitude is owed to S.Y Qureshi, Director General of Doordarshan, for having grasped the significance of the project. He fought the resistance in the system. The standard argument against covering foreign affairs was familiar . “Foreign affairs have low TRP ratings”.

Let Qureshi bear witness. Amitabh Bachchan’s Kaun Banega Crorepati (who will be the millionaire) had the highest ratings until Worldview India’s one hour prime time reporting from the gulf by dedicated reporters pipped it to the post.

 

===========################## =================   ##############

Can US Ignore The “Moscow Format” On Afghanistan Reiterated By Lavrov?

Can US Ignore The “Moscow Format” On Afghanistan Reiterated By Lavrov?

                                                                                         Saeed Naqvi

The “Moscow Format” for Afghanistan spelt out by foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in New Delhi is straightforward. Russians want all the afghan ethnicities, religious groups, political parties, plus neighbouring countries to participate in a process for an all inclusive Kabul. Americans on the other hand would like to yoke President Ashraf Ghani and Taleban into a power sharing arrangement in Kabul. From this arrangement will flow a new constitution and an invitation to broad base the stakeholders.

Too much should not be read into the fact that Lavrov was not given time by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, something that foreign ministers from Washington, London or even the Gulf states take for granted. American exceptionalism, particularly when its underlying basis is being persistently questioned, has to be sensitively handled. Holding back on symbolic signs of upgradation of rising power centres will be noticed in capitals New Delhi habitually clubs with: the Quad, for instance.

An almighty fly in the American ointment for Afghanistan is there for all to see. Ghani, like Barkis, may be willing to sup with the Taleban. But the Taleban are obstinately opposed to such a feast. Should anyone still anchor optimism on Zalmay Khalilzad’s capacity to pull a diplomatic rabbit out of the hat should glance at the Peace Agreement Khalilzad coaxed out of the Taleban in February last year in Doha. So eager was he to flourish an agreement that he harmed his own credibility.

The headline or the title given to the “agreement” only amplifies disagreement.

“Agreement for bringing Peace to Afghanistan between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taleban and the United States etc.” Obviously, the Taleban threw a ginger fit when they did not see their definition of themselves as the “Islamic Emirate” in the draft proposed by Khalilzad. He was, in other words compelled to include the phrase even though it made the US envoy look like a diplomatic eager beaver.

Russians, in their Soviet Avatar, have actually administered the country during the period of their occupation from 1980 to 1989. Soon after 9/11, the US found reasons to bomb their way into that strategic real estate. Both know the terrain.

For announcing initiatives and not being able to implement them, Barack Obama holds something of a record. Remember how demeaning of the American image, in his oft repeated utterances, was Guantanamo Bay? That dehumanizing torture centre and prison would be shut down the day he entered the White House, he promised. That facility remains in operation.

With what fanfare he announced that US troops would start withdrawing from Afghanistan “from July 2011”. Even then this reporter had predicted that the Americans were not going to leave “now nor tomorrow”. A super power enters a major theatre with one set of interests but, over a period of time, develops multiple compelling interests.

The US entered Afghanistan in its very heady sole-superpower moment. Reality dawned with the end of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, signaling the climax of the subprime mortgage crisis and the subsequent free fall of capitalist economies. Hence Obama’s urgency to cut costs and withdraw. Trump’s sidekick Steve Bannon during his spell of glory, even encouraged Erik Prince, former US Navy Seal officer and founder of the world’s largest military company, Blackwater, to dream dreams of privatizing the war in Afghanistan. In his 100 page project report, studied by the White House, Prince envisaged a “Viceroy”, exactly as the British had in India.

After going through a series of gyrations, the Trump administration set May 1, 2021 as the date for final troop withdrawal. Qualifications attended even these intentions: “interests” would be left behind to be quickly mobilized, should a post US Afghanistan be gripped in need.

President Biden is abiding by the May first deadline but there are sufficient statements, from Washington that the deadline is not cast in stone. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, surrounded by the “neo-cons” saw an American century right there, within grasp when the occupation began. And now the US is contemplating withdrawal from its 20 year involvement at a time when its plummeting self esteem is being maliciously watched globally. Is this the right psychological moment for it to pick its chips and walk away from the game?

Why then would the US military industrial complex not sketch a posture of greater aggression, quite the opposite of withdrawal? After all, the Obama-Kerry team had brought Iran into a West Asian balance of power by signing the nuclear deal, because the “pivot-to-Asia” was beckoning the White House for a more hands-on engagement to manage China. Alarm bells on that count have reached a deafening pitch. Harvard Professor Graham Allison’s Thucydides Trap is only one of the dreadful images being cited. Allison’s thesis based on the Greek historian’s insights is not to be trifled with: when an established power is challenged by a rising power, war takes place. According to Allison, in the past 500 years, there have been 16 cases in which a rising power threatened to displace a ruling one. Twelve of these ended in war.

Against this perspective, why would the hawks in Washington not salivate at China’s vulnerabilities in Xinjiang. What better launching pad to insert Islamic militants, freshly flown from Syria, for instance, to mingle among the restive Uighurs? Again, the might of the US will be pitted against the consolidated power of China and Russia. Even during the sole super-power days, when the US tried to sideline the Russians in Kosovo, the Russians defiantly barged in and occupied Pristina airport in 1999. In 2015 Russians again spoilt America’s game in Syria. And now when not just Xinjiang but even the Caucasus can be exposed to imported Islamism, will Moscow, backed by China, allow the US to do as it pleases in Afghanistan?

#          #          #          #

Tenth Anniversary Of Syrian Crisis: Home Truths From An Eye Witness

 Tenth Anniversary Of Syrian Crisis: Home Truths From An Eye Witness

                                                                                         Saeed Naqvi

In 1952, like a bolt from the blue, came UP Chief Minister, Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant’s order abolishing zamindari (landlordism). The abrupt drop in prestige and lifestyle caused a relative across the Ganga to hide his arsenal of a few rifles and 12 bore shotguns along with boxes of Eley cartridges with LG or Large-Goose loads.

Whenever courtiers in rags, with some previous pique, stoked his fragile ego with stories of rampant lawlessness in the villages because “huzoor’s” power had ended, “huzoor” would come out with his preferred shotgun. This sad, fake “dadagiri” (gangsterism) lasted as long as the boxes of Eleys did.

This trans Ganga tragic hero came to mind when my eye fall on a bold headline of a piece written by Graham E Fuller, Ex high CIA officer, on the aggressive style of Biden-Blinken early outings in Foreign Affairs:

“Hell Hath No Fury Like A Superpower in decline” said the headline.

Fuller writes: “The US leadership must have set some kind of new record in managing to personally insult the powers of the world within 48 hours of each other in these early days of Biden administration’s Foreign Policy. President Biden called, Vladimir Putin a “killer” and lacking “a soul”. Blinken was equally insulting on China.

“This country has some grounds for pride in its own-imperfect-democratic order. No such democratic orders are perfect. Still, how much reflection does it take to acknowledge what the Chinese communist party has accomplished in the past thirty years? Is it more worthy to bring half a billion people out of poverty into middle class life in a mere generation? Or more worthy to maintain intact an American electoral system in which mediocre or bad leaders emerge as readily as good ones?” He goes on and on, very readably.

Fuller’s invective is focused on the Biden-Blinken’s opening salvos at Russia and China. I would have scoured anything he wrote on the tenth anniversary of the Syrian crisis which has been aggressively observed by five western powers. Fuller knows the area backwards. A key policy document advising the Reagan administration in 1983 for military action against Syria for strategic reasons was his handiwork. I have had this document eversince it was released in 2008, having been in secret vaults for 25 years.

After visiting Damascus and almost all the trouble spots in Syria’s neighbourhood, I had written a paper for the Observer Research Foundation, “The Storm in the Arab Spring”, eye of the storm being Syria. I feel qualified to take a critical look at the statement Foreign Minister of the US, France, Germany, Italy and UK, issued on the tenth anniversary of the beginning of the tragedy.

One allegation the foreign ministers repeat is straightforward: President Bashar al Assad started the ghoulish operation against his own people who were rebelling against misrule, corruption, economic distress. Not true. I was in Damascus at the outset.

There were reports fairly early in the proceeding of the Obama administration leading the global effort to deploy “shadow” internet and mobile phone systems which “dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by shutting down communications network.” James Glanz and John Markoff of the New York Times described one operation in a fifth floor shop in L Street, Washington, where “a group of young entrepreneurs, looking like a garage band, are assembling deceptively innocent-looking hardware into a prototype “internet-in-a-suitcase.” It was all part of the big push for “Liberation Technology Movement”. And how comprehensively was it applied against the Syrian regime.

In the case of Syria, the so called “moderate operation” which the “free” world was busting its guts to help, in many cases turned out to be cover for extreme Islamists like Jabhat al Nusra. One such instance Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin admitted before the Senate Armed Services Select Committee, which is even today available on internet. A $500 million project to train the “moderates” to fight Assad, ended up as an embarrassment for Washington. Most of the trainees disappeared, along with the lethal equipment, presumably to join groups like Nusra. Asked by members of the committee, “how many trainees are still fighting?” Austin almost lost his voice. After a lengthy pause he mumbled “four or five”. The US has spent $2 billion on such efforts in Syria.

Among the trick sentences in the foreign minister’s statement is one about Daesh or the Islamic State. “Preventing Daesh’s resurgence remains a priority”, says the statement.

Hadn’t Daesh, in the Administration’s word been “destroyed?” why is its possible resurrection being posed as a threat? Because the threat, when live, can justify air strikes and other forms of intervention?

In the US’s “Sole super power” moment, countries were averse to calling US names: how can the US be accused for nurturing “terrorists” as possible assets in future contingencies.

The free run the US and its regional allies like Saudi Arabia had, to alter ground realities in Syria came to an end when the Russians arrived in 2015, boots on the ground et al.

A brief background to place Baghdadi in perspective. President Obama was livid with Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki for not signing the Status of Forces Agreement before the departure of US troops from Iraq. Washington wanted him out.

Just about this time, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi puts out a video from Mosul’s main mosque on July 4, 2014, declaring the formation of an Islamic Caliphate. In August 2014, Obama gives a significant interview to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Asked why he did not order air strikes against ISIS just when it reared its head in June-July 2014, Obama makes an admission:

Airstrikes on Baghdadi in July, “Would have taken the pressure off Nouri al Maliki” Iraq’s stubbornly anti American Shia Prime Minister. In other words, the rapid march of the ISIS from Mosul to the outskirts of Baghdad was “facilitated” to keep the pressure on Maliki. In September 2014, Maliki was shown the door. Moral: terrorists can be assets in circumstances.

 

#          #          #          #

Pope Francis And Ayatullah Sistani Talks: Balm For Bruised Souls

Pope Francis And Ayatullah Sistani Talks: Balm For Bruised Souls

                                                                                   Saeed Naqvi

Pardon my Lucknow chauvinism, but the benighted city once had intimate links with the centre of Shia Islam, Najaf, in Iraq, which Pope Francis visited early March in what must be counted among the Pontiff’s most epoch making journeys. His 50 minutes conversation with Shia Islam’s highest spiritual authority, Grand Ayatullah Ali Sistani, in his modest, rented house in a Najaf alley, must have enriched both.

“A humble and wise man”, the Pope said of Sistani. “It felt good, for my soul, this meeting.” This was no hyperbole; this seemed to reflect the tenor of the conversation, where only interpreters were present.

Yes, that Lucknow link: in 1850, the Begums of Oudh (Awadh) established what came to be known as a Bequest, a trust, of rupees six million to be spent on the maintenance of the shrines at Najaf and Karbala. Stipends for Indian scholars were also established. After the first war of independence in 1857, the British administered the bequest, which gave them leverage over the Shia clerical authority from Najaf to Tehran. By default or deliberation, the system continued until 1979 when Saddam Hussain consolidated power in Baghdad. Saddam’s Ba’ath atheism would have been uncomfortable with Indian indulgence of Shia sectarianism. What would Pope Francis have made of the fact that “Allah o Akbar” was inscribed on the Iraqi flag only after Operation Desert Storm in 1992?

Another Lucknow link would have come up tangentially: Awadh antecedents of Ayatullah Khomeini, leader of the Iranian revolution. Khomeini’s ancestors migrated from Kuntur, a qasbah not far from Lucknow, known for a line of Shia theologians.

The Pope would have been briefed on the vast difference between Sistani and Ayatullah Khamenei (Khomeini before him) on the role of the clergy in the affairs of the state. The issue had divided the Shia clergy down the middle. How can the Iranian revolution of 1979 be deemed to be an “Islamic revolution” without the second coming of the messiah who, in Shia theology, happens to be the 12^th Imam who had “disappeared” in Samarra, Iraq. He would appear only on the Day of Judgement.

The clergy in Qom were on sixes and seven. I was in Qom to meet Ayatullah Montazeri when this was a common topic of discussion. A revolution had come their way, pending Roz e Mahshar, Judgement Day. What label was to be pasted on the great happening? That is when the theory of Vilayat e Faqih or Vali Faqih, the Intermediate Imam, was enunciated. Pending the return of the Imam, an Intermediate system, under the Supreme leader, would govern, guided by the teachings of Islam.

Sistani and a section of the clergy even in Qom see their role differently – as spiritual guides only. Was Francis comfortable with Sistani on this score? The different circumstance of Tehran and Baghdad must have been part of the briefs prepared for Francis.

In 1979, the Shah was eased out and the Ayatullahs ushered into Tehran. Ayatollah Khomeini, who had been moved from Najaf to the suburb of Neauphle-le-Chateau on the outskirts of Paris, was that very year flown to Tehran. Why this complicated trapeze act?

In the mid 70s, the US had communist parties coming out of their ears in Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Chile, why, even in Afghanistan. Post Shah fervour in Iran would cause Persian Communist Parties, Tudeh and Mujahedin e Khalq to surface from the underground. The Ayatullahs, the mosques filled with their cadres, would pounce on the communists. That the Ayatullahs would be no friends of the Americans became apparent only when the siege of the US embassy in Tehran lasted 444 days, an embarrassment on a scale the Americans had never experienced.

1979 also happened to be the year in which Saddam Hussain consolidated himself in Baghdad. Neither the Ayatullahs nor Saddam were buddies of the US, but each could easily be tempted to seek US help against the other. This suited US officials like Martin Indyk, former Ambassador to Israel, who devised dual-containment – supply arms to both and make them fight. The monkey-between-two-cats policy lasted eight long years.

More to the point for the Pope would have been the after effects of the post 9/11 wars thrust on Iraq, Syria, Libya, leading to the trek of millions looking for havens in Europe which, in this instance, was fighting xenophobia at home, a creeping aversion to the outsider, resulting in avowedly illiberal politics. Two of the world’s highest religious leaders must have exchanged views on this frightening trend. True they are religious leaders whose mission was not to discuss politics, but rampaging identity politics are nothing but putrefied religious ideas.

Islamic terror, for instance, is cited as a cause for increasing Islamophobia by politicians like, say, Marine Le Pen in France. Such examples are strewn across Europe and other parts of the world. What was at fault was a one sided media focus on Islamic terror, fuelling a Muslim sense of helplessness and anger, there being no outlet for his point of view.

Some of this Sistani must have addressed during their conversation. I hope he reminded the Pope that the first act of occupying forces was to vandalize the National Museum, the great storehouse of artefacts, books, scrolls representing one of the world’s great river civilizations.

It might be something of a hyperbole that his meeting with Sistani, laden with peaceful intent, reversed the Jehad or crusade launched in 1095 by one of his earlier predecessors Pope Urban II. The eleventh century Pope was rattled by the Muslim occupation of the holy lands. Also, within a hundred years of Prophet Mohammad’s death, the Muslims had established their rule over Spain and beyond. The pace of Muslim spread was unnerving. Pope Francis’ expedition on the other hand provides a soothing touch to a people battered and bruised, having been on the declining side of the civilizational giant wheel for too long, a far cry from the days of Pope Urban.

#          #          #          #

Indo-Pak Pirouette On Afghan Talks: Will They Be In Step?

 

Indo-Pak Pirouette On Afghan Talks: Will They Be In Step?

                                                                                    Saeed Naqvi

 

It is exactly a decade since President Barack Obama set the deadline to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Even then, Obama recalled how the 2001 Bonn conference had only “Provisionally” installed Hamid Karzai in Kabul. We all know how long that “provisional” government lasted: 15 years. For Afghanistan, deadlines do not matter.

Are we about to witness Obama’s third term in Foreign Affairs? The question arises because people fear Joe Biden may have inherited some of his previous bosses’ instincts. No sooner had Obama’s intention to withdraw announced than qualifications were introduced: the date of withdrawal is not cast in stone. Reminding us of those days, again there is a deadline – May 1, for withdrawal of the remaining 2,500 troops. True, the deadline was set by the Trump administration. But Zalmay Khalilzad, veteran US diplomat and a Pushtoon to boot is being continued for the time being. Is his earlier recommendation being set aside? Will he be shown the door soon?

Having served four Presidents as Ambassador to Kabul, Baghdad, UN and now trying to bring Taleban, Kabul, Washington on a platform of lasting peace, it is Khalilzad who knows whether or not there is light at the end of this tunnel. But Secretary of State Antony Blinken has, in a letter, revealed a divergent wish for Afghanistan. He may have to replace Ashraf Ghani with someone who the Taleban may be less averse to. This, Khalilzad may not like. Soon Biden will learn that two swords cannot be kept in the Afghan scabbard.

Americans are faced with an impossible task. They do not wish to be seen to be installing a Taleb Emirate in Kabul. If identified with such action they may never look like harbingers of democracy, part of their manifest destiny. There is advantage in striking the modernist stance. They will look loyal to Ghani, whom they installed twice over, by hook or by crook even though Ghani had, in reality not won the elections. His school education in Oregon and his “loyalties” at the World Bank, clearly helped. The 1978 Saur revolution ended 200 years of Durrani rule. Ghilzai, proletariat Pushtoons came to power and they will not let power slip from their hands. Ghani is a Ghilzai but Talebs see him as an American stooge, like the Durranis of yore.

“Democracy” particularly during the “sole superpower” moment was the cover for advancing American strategic and economic interests. To continue playing that sort of hand requires unbridled power. It vanished for a range of reasons but in popular perception worldwide what stayed were US brutalities in Iraq, Syria, Libya. The image of America as a destructive power gained ground.

When Donald Trump sought Jimmy Carter’s advice on what to do because “China is going ahead of US”, Carter’s response was sobering: “China has not been in a conflict since the 1979 war with Vietnam.” Carter added: “We have never stopped being at war.”

A realization of decline may yet set the US on the path to recovery but in Afghanistan, as elsewhere, a certain fear lurks: a touch of Obama in Biden’s make up. Gen. Lloyd Austin elevated as Defence Secretary, for example, was during Obama years responsible for the entire project of training Syrian “rebels” to fight Assad’s forces.

He did not endear himself to the Senate Armed Services Select Committee who asked him tough questions: what happened to the men he had trained? His answer was “three or four men are still fighting.” The remainder walked away with the equipment and joined the Jabhat al Nusra, the terrorist group. Google for a clip of the classic Senate hearing. This $500 million project was then discontinued. Obviously, Syria for Gen. Austin is “incomplete” business. Little wonder, the administration’s first military action were air strikes on Syria albeit on Iranian supplies to bolster Assad.

The fact that the May 1 deadline for the withdrawal of the remaining 2,500 troops has already been changed to some future date, points to the uncertainties ahead. Austin has vast field experience in Afghanistan. His “ears-to-ground” inputs will therefore influence Afghan policy.

It is nice that the US is including India in the Afghan initiative. But on the Afghan process Pakistan’s centrality has been spelt out by everybody, including Austin. What pleases New Delhi is Austin’s qualifier: Pakistan has not completely put an end to all its terror outfits.

India being included in the Process, significantly moved from Qatar to Turkey, has to be seen in perspective. Pakistan has excellent relations with Turkey, plus, there is universal acceptance of Pakistan’s importance in the process. New Delhi has an opportunity to balance issues. This, ironically, is also where New Delhi may be seen to be placing the odd spanner in the works.

After travelling extensively in Afghanistan some years ago, I had written a paper for the Observer Research Foundation in which I had praised India’s low key diplomacy. This diplomacy had the effect of conferring on India heaps of goodwill among the Afghan people.

A country which has known conflict for 40 years found India’s, non lethal, soft-touch soothing. Schools, hospitals, technical training institutes, hospitality to the injured by flying them to Indian hospitals – all of this found way to Afghan hearts. Visit parts of Hauz Rani opposite Max hospital in Saket, and you have Afghan eating houses complete with Chapli Kebabs, giant size naans, and travel agents offering amazing rates for Delhi-Kabul-Delhi journey. Above all is the magic of Bollywood: India’s most effective soft power. After evening prayers, every house in Kabul is watching an Indian movie. Whatever role Americans assign New Delhi, nothing can compare with the effectiveness of India’s “Diplomacy by Default”. Remember, in 2011, General Stanley McChrystal, US Force Commander, had openly complained that India’s soft diplomacy distracts Pakistan from being constructive in Afghanistan. Who knows, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa-Imran Khan duet may be inclined not to complain on that count.

#          #          #          #