To Avoid Leadership Issue, Opposition Could Aim To “Contain” BJP

To Avoid Leadership Issue, Opposition Could Aim To “Contain” BJP

                                                                                       Saeed Naqvi

Time was when even the Congress was divided in its perception of an admittedly milder BJP during the days of, say, P.V. Narasimha Rao. Rao’s ace adviser, Kerala Chief Minister K. Karunakaran had an understanding with the RSS, BJP. Since the difference between the vote share of the CPM led Left Front and the Congress led United Front was marginal, Karunakaran often fall back on the RSS cadres helping him against the “Godless” communists.  

In distinct opposition to Karunakaran’s practical approach, was Arjun Singh’s direct conflict with the BJP in Madhya Pradesh.

Karunakaran’s was a tactical understanding with the Hindu Right. Arjun Singh on the other hand stood by a firm Nehruvian secularism. This encouraged Rajiv Gandhi to elevate him (but only briefly) as the executive Vice President of the Congress.

Events which accelerated the consolidation of Hindutva as the force it is today should be touched briefly lest perspective is lost. In simple words, V.P. Singh’s implementation of the Mandal commission report, opened up reservations in government jobs for Other Backward Castes. This boost to the “avarna” or the lower caste was resented by the “savarna” or the upper caste oligarchy of which L.K. Advani as the BJP leader took charge. To neutralize Mandal the Ram Janmbhoomi or the Ram Mandir issue was raised to fever pitch.

By embarking on the rath yatra in 1990, the BJP was only catching-up. Rajiv Gandhi had already opened the Ram Mandir/Babri Masjid locks in 1985 and announced Ram Rajya (Government based on Ram’s laws). Rajiv did not even know that Ram Rajya was fanciful and presumably incompatible with the Constitution. The Hindutva urge to have Sanatana Dharma as a frame of reference for the Constitution is only an audacious real step towards Ram Rajya.

Around this time, V.N. Gadgil, one of the more sensible General Secretaries of the Congress took me into confidence on an astonishing assessment by the Congress insiders that “a feeling was growing among the Hindu masses that Muslims were being appeased.” How “appeased” the Muslims were became clear when the Sachar commission report of 2005 established without the shadow of a doubt that since independence Muslims had been reduced to the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder.

The Congress party’s internal assessment of the 1984 election results which brought Rajiv Gandhi to power with three-fourth majority set the party on a communal slope. Many naively thought it was a massive sympathy wave because of Indira Gandhi’s assassination. But the Congress divined the 1984 electoral windfall was actually Hindu consolidation against “minority” communalism. Even though the immediate focus was Punjab, what resonated in the pan Indian frame as a minority were Muslims. That was the official though unstated othering of Muslims by the Congress. To make up with Muslim, it bungled into Shah Bano, reversing a Supreme Court judgment, the Muslim clergy was unhappy with.

The reality, ofcourse, was never so straight forward. To oppose the BJP, the Congress found it expedient to wear the badge of “secularism”. But, ironically, to keep the Hindu vote it decided not to be seen in the company of Muslims. I have been witness to this policy. During the Gujarat election of 2017, Rahul Gandhi exerted every muscle in the campaign. He did not fare badly –– 77 seats as against BJP’s 99. To come this far he avoided Muslim areas during the campaign. To be seen in the vicinity of Muslims would give the BJP a handle to “polarize” the vote. In fact he went one better: during a crucial press conference at the Radisson Blue hotel, senior Congress leader, Ahmad Patel, was asked to hide himself in a room in one of the hotel’s lower floors. Rahul had Ashok Gehlot by his side. I could spot Rajiv Shukla too, who makes a cheerful guest appearance everywhere rather like Hitchcock in his own movies. Later, in the 2022 elections the Congress did much worse because AAP walked away with 12% of the vote, leaving Congress with 27%. The BJP surged with 52%. Congressmen have not stopped cursing AAP for its spanner in the works. In Delhi the picture changes. Congress leaders grin from ear to ear every time the BJP at the centre blocks reasonable AAP initiatives or throws its senior leader into jail without any proven case.

This being the equation between Congress and AAP, what does one make of AAP leaping to its feet in anger when the Modi establishment crossed red lines in suspending Rahul Gandhi from Parliament?

Mamata Banerjee’s anger in this instance must be seen in a similar frame. Congress and the CPM are in a three legged hobble in the state. The duet want their Bengal jagir back. Last month there was some joy for them when they wrested the Sagardigha assembly seat from the TMC. Not only did the Congress candidate Bayron Biswas win, he was feted by the BJP locally. With such enemies who needs friends?

The BJP has set the bar of communalism so high, armed with Hindutva that all political parties (the Congress is only one of them) must keep a steady gaze on the Hindu vote and cajole it, lest the party become an electoral invalide. By way of tactics, all parties must wear spectacles with varying shades of communalism. Will the parties dilute their communal content as and when the BJP power wilts?

There is no sign of that happening. A strategy the opposition may consider is to curb the desire to defeat the BJP because that raises an insoluble issue: that of agreeing on an opposition leader. Supposing they lower their sights and think of “containing” the force on a roll by weaving coalitions in the regions, or in any turf of their strength. They could jointly transform the runaway-force into a manageable one. The halo Rahul has been gifted with can give him a head start in the West to East Bharat Jodo Yatra to be launched on October 2 –– all geared towards containing the BJP. The results may be surprising.

#          #          #          #

Zelensky Opens Up Church Front: Expels Orthodox Bishops, Priests

Zelensky Opens Up Church Front: Expels Orthodox Bishops, Priests

                                                                                           Saeed Naqvi

By expelling the Orthodox Church from their traditional holy enclave, Ukraine President Zelensky maybe igniting a fire which will spread to the Balkans. It is a risky gamble considering that he is Jewish. After me the deluge. Is that his call? But first the facts.

The 980 year old exquisite Pechersk Lavra complex of monasteries in Kyiv, capital of Ukraine, will soon be emptied of its distinctly robed Bishops and Priests. Even though the compound has provided the backdrop for many a piece-to-camera by western TV anchors, the exodus of the Priests will not make for a lead story.

It was an intriguing announcement made by Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky: “one more step towards strengthening our spiritual independence was taken this week.” The step was to expel the Priests.

What is the implication when 35 million or 80 percent of the population is Orthodox? Only 10 percent or 1.5 million are affiliated to the Catholic Church. Is a clash between them being manufactured?

On the other side of the Ukraine conflict, 80% of the Russian population too is Orthodox. Does it mean that Ukrainian and Russian populations are holding onto their nationalisms but the “collaborating” clergy provide a bridge of unwanted moderation.

Zelensky and some of his supporters have accused the ancient Ukrainian Orthodox Church of taking instruction from the Russian Orthodox Church thereby undermining Ukrainian unity and slyly siding with Moscow.

A delegation of Orthodox Bishops and Priest were turned away by Zelensky without an audience. The Church has approached the Pope to intervene.

Does the genesis of the problem lies in one composite Orthodox Church heritage having been partitioned after the collapse of the Soviet Union? The Orange revolution of 2004, the Euro Maidan disturbances of 2014 simulated bursts of patriotism and induced a specific Ukrainian nationalism. The idea of a Church independent of Russia germinated. Zelensky and groups clustered around the far-right Azov battalion saw promise in a purely Ukrainian Church independent of Moscow. In recent months, congregations grew, riding on the back of nationalism stoked by the Russian invasion.

At this juncture in the war when Ukraine is in the process of being reduced to rubble, ecclesiastic matters cannot be uppermost in Zelensky’s mind.

Contrary to keep-the-chin-up coverage in the Western media, Zelensky is nowhere near winning this war. Indeed he is very much on the back foot. Western arms and treasure are no longer a torrent. Europe, particularly Germany, is in all manner of economic and political difficulties. A symbol of growing German distress is the bankruptcy declared by the prestigious Eisenwerk Erla Steel works founded in 1380. It is like losing a crown jewel.

Disbanding the Orthodox clergy could destabilize the Balkans, barely settling down after the breakup of former Yugoslavia. It has the potential of opening many fault lines. The Southern Slavs of Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia have a strong ethnic and religious affinity with 80% Russian population.

The complexities of the Balkans are mind boggling, as I learnt during the Bosnian war. Since the region, including Bosnia, were once part of the Ottoman Empire, the four year long siege of Sarajevo resonated in the Islamic core of Turkey. It was this sentiment which weakened Kemal Ataturk’s once iron clad secularisms. Sarajevo derives from the Turkish word “Sarai” or resting place. The siege plus the brutalities visited upon Bosnian Muslims was one of the reasons which brought Necmettin Erbakan’s Islamist Refah party to power in Ankara. This fell foul of the Kemalist secular constitution. It was then that Erbakan’s protégé, Tayyip Erdogan and Abdullah Gul disguised their Islamism behind their Justice and Development (AKP) Party.

Should the region flare up again, an “unfinished” business discussed in the capitals of Serbia and Croatia namely Belgrade and Zagreb, is to “rationalize” Bosnia, sandwiched between them.

UK’s former Liberal Party leader Paddy Ashdown, who served as High Representative for Bosnia, once described his conversation with Croatia’s first President Franjo Tudjman. What is the future of Bosnia?  Ashdown asked. Tudjman spread out the napkin on the dining table, and ran a knife through the middle of the napkins. Clearly, the incomplete agenda in both, Croatia and Serbia was to expand into Bosnia. Any turbulence in Bosnia would affect the May elections in Turkey besides destabilizing the entire region riven with the following faultlines – Christian-Muslim, Orthodox-Catholic, Allies-Axis.

When Yugoslavia broke up, Europe, determined to avoid another war after the formation of EU, decided on a joint European recognition of Yugoslavia’s breakaway parts. But German Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, with studied impatience, recognized Croatia which had sided with the axis during World War 2. This immediately brought the British behind Serbia which had been with the allies. The melee lasted four years filled with carnage.

The State of Kosovo with a population of 3,00,000 Muslim Bosnians is delicately poised. The fact that Armed forces from individual European nations under the overall charge of NATO protect different sectors of Kosovo, make its security arrangements unique.

My press card had to be cleared by armoured Italian troops guarding the great Serbian Monastery of Decani, richly decorated with Orthodox frescos and paintings. Curious monks peep from their carrels. Just before dark, a muscular, athletic Priest runs around the central structure, carrying on his shoulder a large wooden rattles called the tallanton. The sound is supposed to alert the monks against the “Turk”.

The ritual has been on since the 14^th century when the Serbs lost to the Turks at the battle of Kosovo. This loss is ironically celebrated by the Serbs. With a smaller army the Serbs gave fierce battle but lost. They gave the Turks such a ferocious fight that the Turks could not advance further into Europe. So proud are the Serbs of this feat that the battle of Kosovo is the most joyous day in the Serb calendar.

It pains the Serbs that the monument to the battle, indeed their most precious monasteries are in Kosovo. Revenge is written into the script.

Zelensky’s ouster of the Orthodox Church is provocative even beyond Ukraine.

#          #          #          # 

Turkey, Iran, Syria Postpone Moscow Meet As Xi Jinping Arrives

Turkey, Iran, Syria Postpone Moscow Meet As Xi Jinping Arrives

                                                                                          Saeed Naqvi

To gauge the importance of the Saudi-Iran rapprochement, mediated by China, it would be useful to see the evolution of this relationship since the Islamic revolution of 1979.

In an era aching for peace, such a radical development would undoubtedly be infectious. Just as the world sat up in wonder at the development, signals became discernable of quiet low key efforts at repairing other parts of the frayed tapestry of West Asia. Deputy Foreign Ministers of Iran, Turkey and Syria were headed for Moscow.

Tayyip Erdogan would be ready for bargains all around if these boost his chances in the May elections. Would it not be a coup for him if he goes into the contest after a summit with the Syrian President Bashar al Assad? The meeting of the three officials has been postponed briefly because Moscow is readying itself to receive Xi Jinping on Monday.

True, the revolution which brought the Ayatullahs to power in 1979 did introduce a sharp bipolarity in the Islamic world, but what worried Saudis much more was a development in their own citadel. At about the same time that the revolution was taking place in Iran, a group of Muslim militants who called themselves the ‘Akhwan’, a sort of double distilled variant of Akhwan ul Muslimeen (the Muslim Brotherhood) occupied Islam’s holiest mosque in Mecca, demanding that the House of Saud relinquish control of the holy shrines. The argument was that monarchical control was anti Islamic.

This was not dissimilar to the Ayatullah’s demand. It had consequences too: the House of Saud began to describe themselves as “keepers of the holy shrines”. In good time the new title fell into disuse. And now that friendship, or atleast its promise, has broken out between the countries, such awkward issues are unlikely to be raised. With such moderation breaking out, the more theological debates will now intensify in Najaf and Qom on the one hand and among the Wahabi clergy on the other.

Iran was a Shia country even under the Shah. The Ayatullahs avoided the sectarian inflection and called it the “Islamic resolution”. The sectarian divide was amplified for strategic reasons by the Washington, Jerusalem, Riyadh combine.

Since the establishment of the Jewish state, the Palestinian issue has had extraordinary saliency in the Arab world. For the Iranian revolution, it was a stated article of faith: no normalization with Israel unless all Palestinian rights were restored. Despite what happened to Saddam Hussain, Muammar Qaddafi, Bashar al Assad (his county destroyed even as he survives), the Iranians have stood firm, thereby earning the wrath of Israel and all its supporters.

This stand on Palestine, standing upto the Israeli-US combine obviously resonated in the Arab basement. This unnerved Arab potentates in dalliance with the Americans and Israelis. Playing up the “Shia axis of evil”, therefore served all their purposes. Even thinkers like Henry Kissinger began to amplify this propaganda. “The region is no longer focused on the Palestinian question, they are worried about the Shia-Sunni divide.”

When the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia returned from convalescence in a German hospital in the summer of 2011, he was dismayed that the Arab Spring had taken a toll of two of his friends – Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia.

He swore that no more monarchies, sheikhdoms and authoritarian regimes would be allowed to fall. Americans, he said, should “cut off the head of the snake”. The snake, in King Abdullah’s parlance was Iran. To reach the “snake”, the Shia arc had to be weakened.

That is when the rebellion against Assad was manufactured and stoked. I myself saw US ambassador Stephen Ford and his French counterpart huddle with rebels in Homs, Hama and Dera. A former US ambassador, Ed Peck who witnessed the brazen US interference in Syria, wrote this letter to a friend, a former Indian Ambassador to Damascus:

“I have been dismayed by the accolades and support given to Ambassador Ford, our man in Syria, for stepping well out of the traditional and appropriate role of a diplomat and actively encouraging the revolt/insurrection/sectarian strife/outside meddling, call it what you will. It is easy to imagine the US reaction if an ambassador from anywhere were to engage in even distantly related activities here. I fear my country remains somewhat more than merely insensitive, and is sliding into plain rampant and offensive arrogance.”

After ten years of trying to oust Assad with the help of Western and regional powers, Americans find to their chagrin that the Syrian President is still around. If Assad cannot be defeated by a proxy war sustained for a decade, what hope is there of prevailing on Putin by proxy methods?

By 2015, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were embarked on pivot to the Pacific. By signing the nuclear deal with Iran, they were creating a power balance in West Asia. Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey would “balance power” in the area, enabling the US to attend to the bigger business in the Pacific – the rise of China.

Donald Trump tore up the agreement. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner helped place the regional crown on the head of the Iran’s implacable enemy – Israel.

Inconsistency in US policy was causing weariness. The messy American withdrawal from Afghanistan, caused the world to gasp. Punters began to change their bets. Provoke Vladimir Putin into Ukraine, trap him into a long war and clobber him with sanctions until Putin is on his knees – this was the stated intention. Nothing of the sort happened. In fact, at this stage, French President Emmanuel Macron, appears to have called it right. “After 300 years, Western hegemony is coming to an end.”

By this token, the US, as yesterday’s hegemon, has woefully diminished persuasiveness.

When Trump asked Jimmy Carter: “What should we do because China is going ahead of us?” Carter’s response was pithy: “except a brief conflict with Vietnam in 1978, China has not been at war.” Carter’s punch line was telling: “We have never ceased being at war.”

#          #          #          #

US General Mark Milley: “Ukraine Should Move To Bargaining Table.”

US General Mark Milley: “Ukraine Should Move To Bargaining Table.”

                                                                                        Saeed Naqvi

I know a horrid, horrid man

As quiet as a mouse

Who does the mischief that is done

In everybody’s house!

There’s no one ever sees his face

And yet we all agree

That every plate we break was cracked

By Mr. Nobody.

Mr. Nobody was in action again, this time more audaciously than ever before. On September 26, 2022, Nord-Stream 2 the 1234 kms pipeline from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea was irreparably damaged. Had the pipeline, meant to carry exceptional volumes of natural gas to Germany and onwards to Europe, been activated, Europe would have all the power it would ever need. Russia would have a reliable market next door.

Mr. Nobody, whom Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has identified as the US, found both these outcomes revolting. Why?  Because European dependence on Russia would grow. Another word for mutual dependence, one would have thought, is co-operation. But co-operation between Russia and Europe would be at the expense of US hegemony. Knocking out Nord-Stream 2 was one of the acts that would be required for the continuation of US hegemony which, to the naked eye, was fraying in recent years. Particularly after the vulnerabilities in the US capitalist model were conclusively exposed with the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

Reverting to Nord-Stream 2. That this would be America’s trajectory namely assertion of power. This had been delineated as policy by one of the wisest US policy planners, George Kennan, author of the policy of “containing” the Soviet Union. His Policy Planning Study written in 1948 for the State Department is lucid:

“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth and only 6.3% of the population. We cannot, therefore, fail to be the object of envy and resentment.” Kennan suggested a pattern of relationships which will permit the US to maintain this position of disparity.

“To do so we have to dispense with all sentimentality and day dreaming……we should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far when we have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

Between Kennan’s concept and American actions falls the shadow of Western hypocrisy. In practice, it means a parrot like repetition of human rights, democracy versus autocracy but forgetting the chant while destroying Nord-Stream 2 for a perceived US good.

The headline to Seymour Hersh’s expose says it all: “How American took out the Nord-Stream Pipeline.”

Why the Hersh story should have caused global surprise is itself astonishing. After all the President had himself said “there will be no Nord-Stream 2.” Concluding a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the White House, a beaming President Biden told reporters that all would be fine, ending Putin’s “weaponization of energy” when there will be no Nord-Stream 2.

A reporter asked, how could America undo Nord-Stream 2 owned by Russia and Germany? Biden’s answer was brazen: “we can do it; I assure you.” How “we did it” is elaborated in Hersh’s report in great detail.

Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the hawk driving the Ukraine project could not conceal her ecstasy testifying before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“Like you, I am, and I think the administration is, very gratified that Nord-Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”

Officials as supremely confident as Nuland must wince when shrewd observers study all sides of the Ukraine conflict and make gloomy predictions.

Dr. Scott Burchill, distinguished scholar at Australia’s Deakin University gives reasons for pronouncing that the war appears “almost over for Ukraine.”

First he quotes the Wall Street Journal: “Public rhetoric about Ukraine’s heroic resistance masks deepening private doubts among politicians in the UK, France and Germany on whether Ukraine will be able to expel the Russians from Eastern Ukraine and Crimea which Russia has controlled since 2014. There is a belief that the West can help sustain the war effort upto a limited period, especially if the conflict settles into a stalemate.” That is precisely where the conflict stands.

The New York Times corroborates the judgement. The chair of the joint chiefs, General Mark Milley is quite frank: “Ukraine was unlikely to make substantially great battlefield gains and should move to the bargaining table.”

Dr. Burchill concludes that “that the war is unlikely to end in decisive victory for either side,” however enthusiastic Russophobes in the West are about a total Russian defeat. French President Emmanuel Macron has told President Zelensky to settle in exchange for some future unspecified security arrangement with NATO.

Former Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett revealed something surprising. He claims to have made significant progress towards a negotiated settlement. But his efforts were undermined by Washington and London.

According to Burchill “the West preferred war to a diplomatic settlement until it became clear that Ukraine was running out of soldiers and was unlikely to recover much, if any, of its lost territory.”

Another cause for concern in Washington has been the recent Chinese 12 point peace plan. Macron promised to take serious note of it much to Biden’s chagrin.

Burchill is among a host of western intellectuals – Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearseimer and scores of others – who have been pointing to the West’s cynical outrage at Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. There is amnesia about Western provocations which resulted in Russia crossing the line.

Wars induce acute nationalism. Any light hearted comment about those leading the war effort is considered anathema. That is why it does not auger well when leaders are lampooned in the middle of a war.

Olaf Scholz looks pathetic on the Stern magazine’s cover. President Biden is striding out of the page like a colossus, his height accentuated by Scholz looking like a pygmy, barely upto Biden’s hip, holding the US President’s hand for support.

#          #          #          #

The Ten Minutes Lavrov-Blinken Meeting Not To Be Sniffed At

The Ten Minutes Lavrov-Blinken Meeting Not To Be Sniffed At

                                                                                       Saeed Naqvi

It is a toss up. Which of the two incidents at the G20 was more important: the 10 minutes Blinken-Lavrov exchange or the contentions in the way of a joint communique? Both give diverse signals on whether or not there is a suggestion in the air about a crawl towards peace in Ukraine?

In the 70s, a well known strategist at Rand Corporation, Fred Ikle wrote, “All Wars Must End.” Trust a recent study by Rand to make a reference to the Ikle classic. The salient point in the piece is that the national leaderships entering a war generally plan, in any depth, only about the first act, without an eye on the ending. In a given war, circumstances can change which would alter the outcome.

The latest Rand survey gives examples of possible sudden shifts – wild cards, a serious nuclear incident at Zaporizhzhia, another war in the Middle East, an invasion of Taiwan or the outbreak of another deadly pandemic. “The longer a war continues, the greater the likelihood that such events will occur.”

The study by a think tank close to the Pentagon is not terribly optimistic of Ukraine’s chances on the battle field.

“Ukrainian ability to defend itself could also be undermined by Russia’s continued attacks on Ukraine’s civilian population and infrastructure.”

Another, and very real possibility of Ukraine being undermined is by a reduction of western military and financial support. This could be a possibility if there is a decline in European unity on the conflict. Much of this unity in any case was a media build up. Stories of clear differences between European countries were not played up. I have on earlier occasions mentioned French President Emanuel Macron’s talk with his officials and diplomats. He felt strongly that the 300 years long Western dominance of the world order was coming to an end. This is just one of the many examples.

Western hegemony may be ending but a University of Cambridge research has produced copious data to confirm an accelerated global divide post Ukraine – between what it calls the “liberal democracies of the West” and the authoritarian states which are more inclined towards China and Russia.

According to this study among 1.2 billion people who inhabit the liberal democracies 75% hold a negative view of China and 87% of Russia. Only some of this must be credited to the way the Ukraine conflict has been reported in the West. It only builds on the bias already existing in the West particularly since the rise of China 30 years ago. The growing dislike for Russia is both more intense and more recent.

What must disturb liberal democracies is that the majority of the world population, the 6.3 billion outside the charmed West, have a different attitude towards China and Russia – 70% of this population is positive towards China and 66% towards Russia. Large populations polarized in this fashion will have a profound effect on global politics, business and trade.

On the margins of the New Delhi G20 as in Ukraine related writing elsewhere, an expression commonly in use to speculate on the end of the war is “frozen conflict.” In such a situation according to Brian Jenkins of Rand, Russian forces would keep the territory already held, while Ukraine “lies in ruins, still under threat of renewed attacks.” Clearly, Jenkins continues, “few refugees are likely to return under these circumstances.” Investments would simply not come because risks of renewed fighting would be high.

All of this would be considerable disincentive for western unity in support of sanctions against Russia, as well as financial and military support for Ukraine. Is that the scenario for the end game?

In my catalogue on Ukraine the incident which gives a clue to Joe Biden’s mind on the conflict is his press conference on December 30, 2022. This briefing took place after a three hour meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Obviously, the meeting had been contentious, with Zelensky asking for arms more lethal than Biden was prepared to part with. The initial yen to defeat Putin and carve up his country had yielded to a more realistic appraisal of ground realities. This appraisal of the war was revealed quite inadvertently in the course of the White House press briefing. Biden was elaborating on weapons being shipped to Ukraine, including Patriot anti missile batteries. One of the reporters chipped in: “at an earlier stage of the war a US official had told us the Patriots were not on the table because their induction would be seen as unnecessary escalation. And now Patriots were on offer.”

The reporter concluded his argument: “Let’s make it brief: why can’t you give to Ukraine all the capabilities it needs to liberate its territories sooner rather than later.” Biden was tongue tied. In his nervousness he pointed to Zelensky and said. “He will say yes to your proposition.” Clearly Biden had said no to Zelensky’s persistent demand for lethal arms.

Biden explained his caution. The US was not giving Ukraine “everything” with reason: an entire alliance was sending arms which harmonized. If we gave equipment not cleared by NATO, the entire alliance coordination would come under strain.

“We are going to give Ukraine what it needs to defend itself.”

It has been clear to me, at least, since the December press briefing that Washington was not going to place in Zelensky’s hands anything more lethal than was required to keep the Russians tied down with the ability for battlefield gains.

This is a war the Russians cannot afford to lose. Survival is an existential necessity with NATO crouching around Russia. More firepower in Ukraine and the use of nuclear weapons by the Russians in Ukraine would become a real possibility.

Americans too cannot afford to not emerge looking victorious. They do not wish to have a seal stamped on the end of the unipolar world. When such high stakes are in the balance ten minutes of Blinken-Lavrov meeting cannot be sniffed at.

#          #          #          #

Did Failure Of Agra Summit Set The Scene For Modi’s Rise?

Did Failure Of Agra Summit Set The Scene For Modi’s Rise?

                                                                                          Saeed Naqvi

 

The passing away of Gen. Pervez Musharraf was seen in different perspectives. Ironically, the failure of the Agra Summit made it possibly the most historic Indo-Pak event. The failure became the point of departure for the hard line Hindutva which put down deep roots in double quick time.

On the general approach to Pakistan the Indian team was split. The assumption that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh would successfully navigate a soft line towards Pakistan was stoutly challenged by the rest of the BJP leadership, briefed persistently by the bureaucracy particularly hard liners like Vivek Katju.

The cause of the tussle between the two approaches lay in the internal politics of the BJP. It was clear as daylight that Vajpayee was firmly for a soft platform which entailed an attitude to Pakistan which became something of a chant with him. “We can’t change our neighbours, we have to live with them.”

The exact opposite of this approach was hard Hindutva, underpinned by an abiding anti Pakistan nationalism. Suspicion of Muslims and Kashmiris was integral to this approach. During election time hard or soft Hindutva became more a matter of tactics. Since the Agra summit took place in July, a section of the BJP leadership set its sight on the key elections to the UP Assembly which were due in six months, towards the end of February. For the explicit purpose of the UP elections, the hardlinewalas exerted every muscle to prevail.

To discard Vajpayee’s more inclusive line, the Summit was embellished with some comical touches. For instance when Vajpayee was deep into the room meant for the Summit, L.K. Advani trailed him for some last minute amendments to the Prime Minister’s approach.

The failure of the Summit, went the theory, would help the party triumph on hard Hindutva. Narendra Modi was nowhere on the horizon. But the hardline which was to place victory in the party’s lap, received a boost by something akin to divine intervention.

Osama bin Laden’s gang flew into the Twin Tower bringing Islamic terror into high global profile. 9/11 was to determine world politics, making it the single focus in what at that stage was a unipolar world.

It was an amazing coincidence that in the first week of October, Modi arrived in Ahmedabad to relieve Keshubhai Patel as Chief Minister of Gujarat. Modi became Chief Minister without being a member of the House.

Another coincidence followed the previous one. Modi was anointed Chief Minister on October 7, exactly the day on which the Americans launched missile attacks on Afghanistan.

Just image the October of 2001. Islamophobia on an unprecedented scale. An atmosphere globally charged against Muslims, magnifies a mood that was conducive to a heavy saffronization of the air over Gujarat. It promoted the kind of politics which Modi was to embrace and amplify. Global Islamophobia seemed to justify the raw communalism that was pulsating below the surface.

A matter of extreme awkwardness for India entered the proceeding as America’s global war on terror incorporated Pakistan as a frontline state.

There could not have been a more embarrassing phase in Indo-US affairs. An incident demonstrates the extent of the embarrassment in Washington as well as New Delhi.

The US Ambassador to New Delhi Robert Blackwill had established a tradition of hosting round-table lunches with set themes. The theme at one such lunch was Pakistan’s role in the US led war on terror.

Pranab Mukherjee, then in the opposition, raised his hand in great anger. “You are well aware of Pakistan plaguing us with cross border terrorism. And suddenly you have embraced Pakistan as a frontline state in your global war on terror.”

Blackwill tried to make light of it. “Your quarrel with Pakistan is a regional affair. At this juncture, Pakistan is our partner in the global war against terror.” How peeved the Indian guests around table felt at the exchange will be etched on my mind for long.

The attack on Indian Parliament on December 13, led to Operation Parakram which brought Indian and Pakistani troops in an eye-ball to eye-ball confrontation. New Delhi made maximum anti Pak propaganda from the Parliament attack. And yet paradoxically the event cooled the general temperature. Having been victimized on such a horrendous scale, New Delhi felt relieved having been elevated to a frontline status in the global war on terror.

What irony. Two quarrelling neighbours find themselves in fierce competition fighting America’s war on global terror.

It would appear that the stars were in their proper constellation for the BJP to come up trumps in UP. To the general atmosphere conducive to hard Hindutva was the gathering of Karsevaks or volunteers in Ayodhya determined to embark on the construction of the Ram Temple to mark the BJP’s expected victory.

The UP election results were a shock. The BJP lost. The results were announced on February 24. Imagine the disappointment of the volunteers, thousands of them, as they dispersed from Ayodhya in deep despair. In this black mood some of them boarded the Sabarmati Express which, on its way to Ahmedabad, passed Godhra on the morning of February 27, where a compartment was set ablaze resulting in the death of 56 passengers who could have been karsevaks. By nightfall, Ahmedabad and a series of towns in Gujarat were in the grip of unprecedented anti Muslim carnage.

Protected by Rajiv Vohra of the Gandhi Peace Foundation and a skull cap wearing correspondent of The Economist, when I reached the office of the Godhra Collector, Jayanti Ravi, she virtually threw up her hands. The Godhra carnage file had been handed over to Vijay Vipul, Director General, Anti Terror Squad, even before Ravi could study the case.

True anti Muslim excesses yielded political success serially but that trend was set when Gujarat, indeed the world was under the shroud of global Islamophobia. But the world has changed radically. How long can anti Muslim politics be sustained under the radically altered world order?

#          #          #          #

After Friendship Without Limits With Russia, Comes Turn Of Vietnam

After Friendship Without Limits With Russia, Comes Turn Of Vietnam

                                                                                     Saeed Naqvi

It is possible to speculate that Russia’s special military operations may not have been launched on 24 February 2022 had American/Western drumbeating to lure Russian into Ukraine for a proxy war not reached a crescendo, the clashing of multiple cymbals et al, throughout February.

The West began to froth in the mouth after Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin signed MOUs without number in Beijing on February 4 and announced in ringing tones: “this is a friendship without limits.” In the given circumstances, the one-two punch administered by the Sino-Russian duet straight on the West’s chin, rattled Washington and London in that order. The two capitals had barely recovered from the deep embarrassment of the Afghan debacle in August.

Deafening chant of “America in decline, America in decline” which began in 2008 after the fall of Lehman Brothers and peaked after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, caused the Washington neo-cons to see red. What choice did they have? To watch Western hegemony evaporate, yielding to a more equitable multi polar world?

Even though the Western media held onto the myth of Western unity on Ukraine, European politicians began to sustain two parallel lines – one for their domestic audience and another for Brussels and Washington.

Victor Orban of Hungary takes the championship for his wicked candour. “European Union” he said, “is a car with four tyres punctured.” Emanuel Macron of France was not quite as harsh. He invited all his diplomats and senior officials for a confidential meeting. He asked them to prepare themselves for a new world order.

“After 300 years, Western hegemony was ending.” What he thought of the US contribution during these three centuries is clear from what he told his officials. “During these centuries, France contributed culture, Britain industry and the US war.”

The “friendship without limits” between Beijing and Moscow had set the cat among the pigeons. This Sino-Russian cohesion had a magnetic effect on powers like Iran, Saudi Arabia and a host of countries some of which had traditionally been in the West’s gravitational zone. India was one such ever since Manmohan Singh’s new liberal economic policies brought it firmly in line with Washington.

The Ukraine war has introduced a certain ambiguity in Indian policy which has earned it kudos from Moscow. The Beijing-Moscow pair has attracted new adherents, whereas the Western camp is restive.

To add to Western anxieties comes a headline from Hanoi: “Vietnam sees a shared future with China.” Nothing sensationally disturbing about the headline but as you delve into exchanges between Xi Jinping and Nguyen Phu Trong, Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist the language does not touch the hyperbole of the Sino-Russian friendship, but it is close. Take the Lunar New Year messages the two leaders exchanged.

Xi Jinping: “China and Vietnam are a community with a shared future.”

Trong: Ready to work with Comrade Xi…to carry out strategic communication on theories and practice of both country’s socialist development….and to make sure that the relations between the two parties and countries continuously develop and Reach new heights.”

Vietnam is a story of economic success comparable to China except that the scales are vastly different. It is a country of a 100 million compared to China’s 1.4 billion. But as an economy of 100 million population, it has in recent years shot past Singapore and Hong Kong in its economic efficiency.

The recent Sino-Vietnam embrace follows changes in dramatis personae not to the West’s liking. Two weeks ago Vietnam’s President Nguyen Xuan Phuc was forced to resign because in his pro business momentum, his close circle was implicated in high levels of corruption. For a decade the Communist Party General Secretary, Trong carried out his anti corruption campaign against Phuc who is identified with Western interests.

A matter of great anxiety in the West is the defeat of pro business elements. This makes the Communist Party of Vietnam as powerful as its opposite number in China.

How different Sino-Vietnam relation were in 1979 when I found myself in the presence of Xuan Thuy, the then Secretary General of the party. The occasion was the Sino-Vietnam war when I learnt some early lessons about the Western media, its professionalism and its biases. It was a different world, media wise.

The global TV networks were inaugurated during Operation Desert Storm in 1992. In 1979, newspapers had considerable credibility – until an event like the Sino-Vietnam war took place. The Western media did not write purple prose about Chinese victory. Which, in any case crucially eluded the Chinese making Dung Xiaoping look very silly. He had threatened to “teach Vietnam a lesson.” The Western media fell back on an act of omission: it took no notice of the Battle of Lang Son where the Vietnamese trounced the Chinese.

After Kissinger’s opening with China in 1971, Sino-US relations were in their warmest phase through the 70s. At this stage, it would be a strategic loss for the new US ally to be so roundly beaten by a Soviet ally. With this victory, Vietnam became a global champion – the only country to have defeated three permanent members of the Security Council in the battlefield – France, the US and China.

The ouster of the market oriented Phuc from Vietnam‘s power structure leaves a gap in the Western strategy of encircling China. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the China or the US debate has raged in Vietnamese party circles. After the horrors of the Vietnam War a rapprochement between Hanoi and Washington would have been unthinkable.

Likewise, a Sino-Vietnam entente cordiale would be remote after the 1979 war. When, Vice President K.R. Narayanan visited Vietnam in 1993, among the statesman and victor of three wars with great powers, Vo Nguyen Giap called on him. The inevitable question arose: Vietnam’s long term ally would be the US or China? Giap quipped, as a soldier I have learnt that logistics is crucial for both, war and peace. “China was next door and therefore a manageable long term friend.”

#          #          #          #