Lucknow: Decline, Demise, Despair?
Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 09.04.2010
Most people do not realize that Hyderabad’s cultural ambience began to fade only in the 1950s, after police action against the Nizam. But Lucknow as the centre of Urdu and India’s composite culture, “dropt from the zenith like a falling star” abruptly when the British dispatched the last King of Oudh, Wajid Ali Shah, to Matia Burj, a suburb 50 kms from Calcutta, in 1856 to complete their conquest of Oudh.
And, like a “falling star” (Milton used the phrase in a different context) it has been floating through the spaces in phases of cultural decline, rehabilitation, decline again, then, the final burn-out, the contemporary condition.
To borrow an expression from boxing, the British administered a double fisted one-two by sending Wajid Ali Shah to Calcutta and, after the 1857 uprising, the last Moghul emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, to Rangoon (Yangon), to languish and die in the garage of a junior British officer. It is an interesting detail that both the deposed Kings were accomplished Urdu Poets.
In fact Wajid Ali Shah wrote plays, thumris, patronized dance, retained and decorated Krishna Lila in Kathak, played holi and observed Ashura, the tenth day of Moharram, both with religiously mixed groups. This backdrop is important to realize that the cultural demise of Lucknow has not only been in chronological time but in creeping amnesia in our minds about the past.
Actually, Lucknow has taken three major hits – 1857, 1947 and Zamindari abolition in the 50s. These three events rattled the elites who determined the city’s cultural tempo. The last of these events must be accorded a mixed reception because it inaugurated an era of egalitarianism which no one can quarrel with (feudalism was untenable) but which entailed cultural costs.
The elite, bruised and battered, retained their elegance and style. If they had to pick a bone with the British, they did not pelt stones at the objects of their ire. They resorted to the most brilliant political and social satire, wit and lampoon ever seen in Indian literature.
Punch magazine was in those days the high point of British wit and humour. The Avadh elite (to call them Lucknow elite is restrictive) launched a magazine, naming it quite unabashedly, Avadh Punch, an extraordinary vehicle for Urdu satire (cartoons and all) in which the great satirical poet, Akbar Allahbadi, wrote his earliest verse.
On the Late Agha Khan’s politics he wrote:
“London se Dilli aaye hain do yaum ke liye!
Yeh zehmatein uthaeen faqat qaum ke liye!”
(From London to Delhi just for two days!
O’ his love for his people and his caring ways.)
Or on politicians in general:
“Qaum ke gam mein dinner khaate
Hain hukkam ke saath!
Runj leader ko bahut hai
Magar aaram ke saath.”
(For love of his people, with the rulers he dines.
He anguishes in comfort with the choicest wines)
Lucknow’s culture was enriched from many sources. There were the Qasbahs, the abode of the landed gentry who brought to their “camp” houses in Qaiserbagh in Lucknow an Avadhi tinge, introducing an earthy lyricism into Lucknow’s urbane Urdu.
In fact the “pure” urbanity of Urdu was much more a preserve of Kashmiri Pandits and Kayasthas, purely non rural groups. The only Muslims who approximated to this “urbanity” had their residence, from havelis to hovels, in the old city, Chowk and Nakkhas. The residents here prided themselves in their “gandi galiyan; saaf zubaan” (dirty lanes, but sparkling speech)
Lucknow’s cultural schizophrenia grew in direct proportion to the expansion of British administration.
For example, one brother stayed in the old town, clad in “Sherwani”, increasingly smudged with usage. The other, clambering onto western education, crossed over to the cantonments and Civil lines in black tie.
The upwardly mobile in the western idiom sought membership of the Army and Civil Service dominated Mohammad Bagh Club. Those obstinately anchored to the floral patterns of Urdu conversation, laced with verses in Persian, Avadhi and Braj Bhasha (Lord Krishna’s spell on Urdu aethetics is generally not known), gravitated towards Rifaah-e-Aam club near City railway station.
The Urdu elite kept the chin up in their ever shrinking spaces. In addition to indispensability of English for employment across the board, a newly emerging political class fell back on the Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan call of Bharatendu Harishchand. This drove a nail in Urdu’s coffin. It also led to the supercession of Khari Boli over the lilt of Avadhi, Braj Bhasha, Maithil, Bhojpuri. Hindi successfully claimed the slot as the national language. However, resistance to Hindi in the non speaking states remains but is being slowly eroded by the expansive power of Bollywood. It is Bollywood which is emerging as the principal determinant of a sort of “Hinglish” as the de facto Lingua Franca, far removed from the ostentatious self assurance of Urdu diction as “she was spoke” in Lucknow.
No one exemplifies the tragedy of the decline of Urdu and Lucknow’s composite culture as Josh Malihadadi does. He was, without a shadow of a doubt, the greatest master of Urdu since Mir Anis in the 19th century.
In the 50s, pushed by his uneducated sons and persuaded by Abu Talib Naqvi, ICS, Commissioner of Karachi, who was eager to claim Urdu’s crown jewel as a Pakistani, Josh crossed over much to the annoyance of Nehru and Maulana Azad. Josh feared the Bharatendu ideology and thought his “Dear Urdu” would be safer in Pakistan. He lived to rue that decision.
The disillusionment that set in, broke him. His hurt was not that Punjabi and Sindhi chauvinism towered over Urdu. His anguish was that he found himself among narrow minded Mullahs. He laments:
“Yahaan Maudoodiyon ke darmiyan hoon”
(I find myself among the followers of Maulana Maudoodi, the founder of Jamaate Islami)
“Sab se zyada khauf hai is baat ke mujhe.
Dum tor dein kahin na meri wazadariyan.
Aisa na ho ki aale suboo se bigar kar,
Ehle wuzoo se gaanthna par jaen yariyan.”
(I live in dread that style will be compromised. I fear that those colourful evening with my drinking companions will give way to the tedium of ablutions and prayer)
This finest of modern poets died with Lucknow and Malihabad etched on his heart.
But the one who died in penury in a Lucknow country liquor shop and who never abandoned hope, was another great poet, Majaaz.
“Phir iske baad Subah hai, aur Subhe nau Majaz
Hum par hai khatm Shaam-e-gharibane Lucknow”
(Look! A new dawn breaks! The tragedy of being exiled in my beloved Lucknow, ends with me)
So, this, in brief is the narrative from 1856 upto Majaz’s death in 1956, full hundred years. What we are witnessing is the inevitable aftermath, a Lucknow gripped in egalitarianism’s unaesthetic garb, one which would cause Josh to wail:
“Andhera, Alaman, itna andhera!
Ilahi Kaun hoon, Kyon hoon, Kahan hoon?
(Such blinding darkness!
Dear God, I grope for I do not know who, why, and where am I)
# # # # # #
Monday, April 12, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Preparing for the Endgame. But which one?
Preparing for the Endgame. But which one?
Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 04.04.2010
The season is on for excessive analyses of the Endgame in Afghanistan which to me is nowhere in sight.
If the war in Afghanistan were nearing some sort of a conclusion, surely Washington would be in grasp of a script. This is not the impression I have after a recent visit to that capital.
Indeed, the “18 month deadline” for scaling down in Afghanistan is not true. That “may be” a notional date when an appraisal will be made of the situation on the ground to explore possible exit strategies.
So pre occupied has President Obama been with the Health Care Bill, that he has not been able to find time to address the foreign policy challenges facing the new administration.
One such challenge is the growing allegation by the administration’s critics, mostly Republicans, that Washington was causing anxieties among traditional allies – Israel and Japan for instance.
This is a sort of pre emptive murmuring campaign by the Republicans who should know that a combination of foreign policy debacles and the economic meltdown are a hold over from the Bush years. That is why neither Israel nor Japan, among others, is listening.
The “End of History” mood in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Collapse is giving way to realism. Phrases like “full spectrum dominance”, an article of faith with the neo-cons, now cause derisive laughter.
Power is now circumscribed and Americans know it. So, whether they like it or not, the US base at Okinawa in Japan will have to the vacated soon. North Korea is obstinate on the nuclear issue, as is Iran. China is standing its ground on currency and trade.
Vice President Joe Biden is roundly snubbed by Israel which announces more settlements in Jerusalem, exactly the opposite of what the Vice President required to give Israel-Palestinian peace talks an impetus.
Nearer home, in Afghanistan, even President Hamid Karzai, who would wilt without American support, was able to withstand the Richard Holbrook – Peter Galbraith combined displeasure after irregularities were discovered in his election. Peter Galbraith has since resigned.
Why, India too has successfully thwarted the once all powerful Holbrook’s instinctive interest in the Indo-Pak-Kashmir theme. Although I am not so sure that allowing a powerful Hillary Clinton appointee to be cultivated exclusively by Islamabad is such a good thing after all.
Whether on Af-Pak, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is positioning himself to claim a substantive role in the Afghan Endgame with Washington’s support or disapproval is still unclear. He demands a role for his “assets” (Mullah Omar for one) in any future dispensation in Afghanistan and, ofcourse, a drastic curtailment of any Indian profile.
Gen. Kayani spoke with considerable candour at a recent press briefing. “We seek strategic depth in Afghanistan.” He clarified: “Strategic depth does not imply controlling Afghanistan”. Rather, “if Afghanistan is peaceful, stable and friendly, we have our strategic depth because our western border is secure – then we are not looking both ways.”
In other words, Islamabad, seeks a controlling role in the evolution of a possible outcome in Afghanistan, (“strategic depth”) so that its western flank is secure, enabling it to concentrate on the eastern front. Well, what can New Delhi do to assuage its fears on the “eastern front?” It is willing to travel reasonable lengths to minimize Pakistani fears provided Indian public opinion is not kept in a state of agitation by acts of terrorism traced to Pak territory.
At one stage Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf had agreed that acts of terror would not derail the “peace process” which was “irreversible”. But that was in circumstances when both sides saw the pursuit of peace as mutually beneficial.
The protracted Afghan war, with its costs to the Pakistani state itself with incremental acts of terror, wobbly civilian structure, has caused the Army to come out of the shadows as the ultimate protector of the Islamic Republic. To come on top, surmounting internal obstacles, the surest mantra for the army is to build up the ogre on the eastern front, the “Hamsaya dushman”, (enemy neighbour) and “Hindu India”, in drawing room murmur.
To negotiate current complexities, the Pak army finds this stance more tactical maneuver than a durable strategy. But a Pakistan without a long term strategy, towards India, among others, and holding onto the coat of the US (witness the March 25 US-Pak strategic dialogue) against whom its citizens are set in ever higher decibel levels, is clearly proceeding in a direction without reliable compasses.
How Pakistan emerges from the “current complexities” is itself as much of a puzzle as are the contours of the over analyzed Endgame.
A possible conclusion to the Afghan war came into unexpectedly sharp focus at the London conference on Afghanistan in January. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, saddled with an unpopular war on the eve of a very difficult election, pushed for reconciliation with the Taliban as the swiftest exit strategy. Who can blame Gen. Kayani for taking this as a signal for a rapid movement towards reconciliation with the Taliban Pakistan knows? In fact, the British position is at a variance from the political-military success sought by Washington as a pre cursor to dialogue.
Quite frankly, there is no conclusive policy, in Washington, or London. The internal situation in Pakistan is uncertain, as is the ground reality in Afghanistan.
Secretary General of UN Ban Ki Moon says the solution will have to be found by the Afghan people. This is in line with President Obama’s symbolic visit to Kabul which seemed to sanctify Hamid Karzai as the ultimate deliverer, even though the jury is still out on whether he has it in him to take the nation out of the thicket.
In brief, no endgame yet, only lots of people in frenetic activity. Yes, the only endgame on the horizon concerns President Zardari which is a pity only on one count: he was quite nice about India. The delay in his departure reflects on the uncertain course the Army has to traverse.
# # # # # # # # # #
Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 04.04.2010
The season is on for excessive analyses of the Endgame in Afghanistan which to me is nowhere in sight.
If the war in Afghanistan were nearing some sort of a conclusion, surely Washington would be in grasp of a script. This is not the impression I have after a recent visit to that capital.
Indeed, the “18 month deadline” for scaling down in Afghanistan is not true. That “may be” a notional date when an appraisal will be made of the situation on the ground to explore possible exit strategies.
So pre occupied has President Obama been with the Health Care Bill, that he has not been able to find time to address the foreign policy challenges facing the new administration.
One such challenge is the growing allegation by the administration’s critics, mostly Republicans, that Washington was causing anxieties among traditional allies – Israel and Japan for instance.
This is a sort of pre emptive murmuring campaign by the Republicans who should know that a combination of foreign policy debacles and the economic meltdown are a hold over from the Bush years. That is why neither Israel nor Japan, among others, is listening.
The “End of History” mood in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet Collapse is giving way to realism. Phrases like “full spectrum dominance”, an article of faith with the neo-cons, now cause derisive laughter.
Power is now circumscribed and Americans know it. So, whether they like it or not, the US base at Okinawa in Japan will have to the vacated soon. North Korea is obstinate on the nuclear issue, as is Iran. China is standing its ground on currency and trade.
Vice President Joe Biden is roundly snubbed by Israel which announces more settlements in Jerusalem, exactly the opposite of what the Vice President required to give Israel-Palestinian peace talks an impetus.
Nearer home, in Afghanistan, even President Hamid Karzai, who would wilt without American support, was able to withstand the Richard Holbrook – Peter Galbraith combined displeasure after irregularities were discovered in his election. Peter Galbraith has since resigned.
Why, India too has successfully thwarted the once all powerful Holbrook’s instinctive interest in the Indo-Pak-Kashmir theme. Although I am not so sure that allowing a powerful Hillary Clinton appointee to be cultivated exclusively by Islamabad is such a good thing after all.
Whether on Af-Pak, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is positioning himself to claim a substantive role in the Afghan Endgame with Washington’s support or disapproval is still unclear. He demands a role for his “assets” (Mullah Omar for one) in any future dispensation in Afghanistan and, ofcourse, a drastic curtailment of any Indian profile.
Gen. Kayani spoke with considerable candour at a recent press briefing. “We seek strategic depth in Afghanistan.” He clarified: “Strategic depth does not imply controlling Afghanistan”. Rather, “if Afghanistan is peaceful, stable and friendly, we have our strategic depth because our western border is secure – then we are not looking both ways.”
In other words, Islamabad, seeks a controlling role in the evolution of a possible outcome in Afghanistan, (“strategic depth”) so that its western flank is secure, enabling it to concentrate on the eastern front. Well, what can New Delhi do to assuage its fears on the “eastern front?” It is willing to travel reasonable lengths to minimize Pakistani fears provided Indian public opinion is not kept in a state of agitation by acts of terrorism traced to Pak territory.
At one stage Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf had agreed that acts of terror would not derail the “peace process” which was “irreversible”. But that was in circumstances when both sides saw the pursuit of peace as mutually beneficial.
The protracted Afghan war, with its costs to the Pakistani state itself with incremental acts of terror, wobbly civilian structure, has caused the Army to come out of the shadows as the ultimate protector of the Islamic Republic. To come on top, surmounting internal obstacles, the surest mantra for the army is to build up the ogre on the eastern front, the “Hamsaya dushman”, (enemy neighbour) and “Hindu India”, in drawing room murmur.
To negotiate current complexities, the Pak army finds this stance more tactical maneuver than a durable strategy. But a Pakistan without a long term strategy, towards India, among others, and holding onto the coat of the US (witness the March 25 US-Pak strategic dialogue) against whom its citizens are set in ever higher decibel levels, is clearly proceeding in a direction without reliable compasses.
How Pakistan emerges from the “current complexities” is itself as much of a puzzle as are the contours of the over analyzed Endgame.
A possible conclusion to the Afghan war came into unexpectedly sharp focus at the London conference on Afghanistan in January. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, saddled with an unpopular war on the eve of a very difficult election, pushed for reconciliation with the Taliban as the swiftest exit strategy. Who can blame Gen. Kayani for taking this as a signal for a rapid movement towards reconciliation with the Taliban Pakistan knows? In fact, the British position is at a variance from the political-military success sought by Washington as a pre cursor to dialogue.
Quite frankly, there is no conclusive policy, in Washington, or London. The internal situation in Pakistan is uncertain, as is the ground reality in Afghanistan.
Secretary General of UN Ban Ki Moon says the solution will have to be found by the Afghan people. This is in line with President Obama’s symbolic visit to Kabul which seemed to sanctify Hamid Karzai as the ultimate deliverer, even though the jury is still out on whether he has it in him to take the nation out of the thicket.
In brief, no endgame yet, only lots of people in frenetic activity. Yes, the only endgame on the horizon concerns President Zardari which is a pity only on one count: he was quite nice about India. The delay in his departure reflects on the uncertain course the Army has to traverse.
# # # # # # # # # #
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
When Art Exposes Evil
When Art Exposes Evil
Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 27.03.2010
When Jose Estevez serves his customers at the first floor Bar at Sardi’s, Broadway’s renowned Restaurant, in his direct line of vision are hoardings coming up at the theatre across the street: ENRON.
Sardi’s steady clientele of actors, directors and general theatre enthusiasts have all been casting a glance at ENRON with great curiosity.
“Al Pacino dropped in for a drink yesterday” says Jose “Who knows, he may be planning a film on ENRON.”
In April, New Yorkers will be able to watch this brilliant play by 29 year old Lucy Pebble which has already been captivating full houses at Noel Coward theatre at St. Martins Lane on London’s West End, which is where I saw it.
Quite frankly, I have not seen anything so riveting since Brecht’s Rise and Fall of Artutro Ui, a spoof on Hitler.
The spectacular collapse of the Energy giant Enron on December 2, 2001, the biggest bankruptcy in corporate history which “ripped open the catastrophic fault line of unchecked economic avarice, vanity, incompetence, lies and greed which leads to Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, HBOS, Icelandic banks and all the melt downs of this young century.”
Enron was America’s seventh largest corporation. It had grown from $10 billion of assets to $70 billion in 16 years. It went bankrupt in 24 days. Among Enron supporters were George Bush senior and George W Bush who, as Governor of Texas, was always willing to call up Washington to help his friend “Kenny Boy,” Kenneth Lay, Chairman and Founder of Enron.
The CEO of Enron, Jeffrey Skilling, admired for his “incomparable” brilliance, was in October 2006, sentenced to 24 years on multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy.
Kenneth Lay, looking at a 45 years’ sentence, died of a heart attack. Bush Senior attended the funeral.
Tim Bouquet, author of cold Steel, has summed up the sickness surrounding Lucy Pebble’s theme succinctly.
“Why wasn’t the fraud spotted sooner?” asks Bouquet.
“Enron is the story of synergistic corruption. There are supposed to be no checks and balances in the system. The lawyers are supposed to say no, the accountants are supposed to say no, the bankers are supposed to say no, but nobody who was supposed to say no said no. They all took their share of the money from the fraud and put it in their pockets.”
There are two lessons for me in the remarkable play I saw in London and which will jolt New York in April:
First, the greed and avarice inherent in what Ronald Reagan described as the “magic of the marketplace”. The meltdown of 2009 continue to reverberate.
The second lesson is the enormous reservoir of intellectual honesty available in western societies to balance the excesses of “Kenny Boy”. Pebble’s masterpiece is just one example.
Remember Rumsfeld when faced with press questions” on Abu Ghraib, threw up his hands and said when war breaks out, “stuff happens”. David Hare, exceptionally gifted playwright, immediately mounted a play at the West End. “Stuff Happens” became an insightful and prophetic spoof on the war games played by George W. Bush, Dick Cheyney, Rumsfeld and Condy Rice.
Even earlier in the same vein, off Broadway was drawing full houses on “Guantanamo Bay”.
The Late Michael Foot, gentlest of Labour Leaders, made film on British inaction in Bosnia.
The Oscar winning film Hurt Locker and an equally powerful, Green Zone, both rip open aspects of the US occupation of Iraq. Charlie Wilson’s war brings this flair for critical self examination nearer home, in the Af-Pak region. It is an American film about American callousness in Afghanistan.
Who in our society is taking up a giant size mirror in blinding light so that all our warts show?
Husain in Ivy League
M.F. Hussain’s exile itself could yield a thought provoking script.
My last meeting with Hussain was at the Nehru Centre London some years ago. I was therefore quite thrilled to find an exhibition of Hussain’s early masterpieces from 1950s – 70s at the Brown University.
The exhibition is part of the year of India at Brown. The list is almost interminable. In fact it is the private collection of Brown alumna, Amrita Jhaveri.
Considering that no other Indian artist has done two complete series of paintings on the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, it hurts that his devotional exuberance, his adoration of a goddess or Radha unrobed, has been profaned by the bazaar brigade.
One such painting adorns the wall at the David Winton Bell gallery at Brown!
# # # # # # # #
Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 27.03.2010
When Jose Estevez serves his customers at the first floor Bar at Sardi’s, Broadway’s renowned Restaurant, in his direct line of vision are hoardings coming up at the theatre across the street: ENRON.
Sardi’s steady clientele of actors, directors and general theatre enthusiasts have all been casting a glance at ENRON with great curiosity.
“Al Pacino dropped in for a drink yesterday” says Jose “Who knows, he may be planning a film on ENRON.”
In April, New Yorkers will be able to watch this brilliant play by 29 year old Lucy Pebble which has already been captivating full houses at Noel Coward theatre at St. Martins Lane on London’s West End, which is where I saw it.
Quite frankly, I have not seen anything so riveting since Brecht’s Rise and Fall of Artutro Ui, a spoof on Hitler.
The spectacular collapse of the Energy giant Enron on December 2, 2001, the biggest bankruptcy in corporate history which “ripped open the catastrophic fault line of unchecked economic avarice, vanity, incompetence, lies and greed which leads to Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, HBOS, Icelandic banks and all the melt downs of this young century.”
Enron was America’s seventh largest corporation. It had grown from $10 billion of assets to $70 billion in 16 years. It went bankrupt in 24 days. Among Enron supporters were George Bush senior and George W Bush who, as Governor of Texas, was always willing to call up Washington to help his friend “Kenny Boy,” Kenneth Lay, Chairman and Founder of Enron.
The CEO of Enron, Jeffrey Skilling, admired for his “incomparable” brilliance, was in October 2006, sentenced to 24 years on multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy.
Kenneth Lay, looking at a 45 years’ sentence, died of a heart attack. Bush Senior attended the funeral.
Tim Bouquet, author of cold Steel, has summed up the sickness surrounding Lucy Pebble’s theme succinctly.
“Why wasn’t the fraud spotted sooner?” asks Bouquet.
“Enron is the story of synergistic corruption. There are supposed to be no checks and balances in the system. The lawyers are supposed to say no, the accountants are supposed to say no, the bankers are supposed to say no, but nobody who was supposed to say no said no. They all took their share of the money from the fraud and put it in their pockets.”
There are two lessons for me in the remarkable play I saw in London and which will jolt New York in April:
First, the greed and avarice inherent in what Ronald Reagan described as the “magic of the marketplace”. The meltdown of 2009 continue to reverberate.
The second lesson is the enormous reservoir of intellectual honesty available in western societies to balance the excesses of “Kenny Boy”. Pebble’s masterpiece is just one example.
Remember Rumsfeld when faced with press questions” on Abu Ghraib, threw up his hands and said when war breaks out, “stuff happens”. David Hare, exceptionally gifted playwright, immediately mounted a play at the West End. “Stuff Happens” became an insightful and prophetic spoof on the war games played by George W. Bush, Dick Cheyney, Rumsfeld and Condy Rice.
Even earlier in the same vein, off Broadway was drawing full houses on “Guantanamo Bay”.
The Late Michael Foot, gentlest of Labour Leaders, made film on British inaction in Bosnia.
The Oscar winning film Hurt Locker and an equally powerful, Green Zone, both rip open aspects of the US occupation of Iraq. Charlie Wilson’s war brings this flair for critical self examination nearer home, in the Af-Pak region. It is an American film about American callousness in Afghanistan.
Who in our society is taking up a giant size mirror in blinding light so that all our warts show?
Husain in Ivy League
M.F. Hussain’s exile itself could yield a thought provoking script.
My last meeting with Hussain was at the Nehru Centre London some years ago. I was therefore quite thrilled to find an exhibition of Hussain’s early masterpieces from 1950s – 70s at the Brown University.
The exhibition is part of the year of India at Brown. The list is almost interminable. In fact it is the private collection of Brown alumna, Amrita Jhaveri.
Considering that no other Indian artist has done two complete series of paintings on the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, it hurts that his devotional exuberance, his adoration of a goddess or Radha unrobed, has been profaned by the bazaar brigade.
One such painting adorns the wall at the David Winton Bell gallery at Brown!
# # # # # # # #
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Pakistan: “Too Nuclear to Fail”
Pakistan: “Too Nuclear to Fail”
Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 21.03.2010
An impression is gaining ground that talks with Islamabad, at the official level as of now, may help take the sting out of Pakistan’s propaganda that India was being difficult but in reality these cannot achieve much. Just the fact of a transparent “contact” between the two countries is, for the time being, an end in itself because it will help avert possibly disastrous misunderstandings.
If the two Prime Ministers meet on the margins of SAARC summit in Bhutan at the end of April, the occasion will produce positive photo ops but nothing much of substance.
Call it realism or pessimism, but it is rooted in the reality that there really is no “durable” civilian authority in Pakistan with whom business can be done.
The scene for a near breakthrough in Indo-Pak relations was set when Atal Behari Vajpayee was Prime Minister. Since he had evolved from the Hindu nationalist RSS, he could, with a wave of the hand, ask the Hindutva brigade to pipe down. The allegation of a “sell-out” could never attach to him.
Prime Minister Manmohan carried forward this policy with sincerity I am all too personally familiar with.
It remains his dream to improve Indo-Pak relations, to visit Gah the village where he went to school. But he is handicapped by traumatic events like Mumbai terror attacks at a time when the BJP sits in the opposition minus Vajpayee who is ailing.
On the Pakistan side, there was Gen. Pervez Musharraf, author of Kargil (so no one could accuse him of a sell-out either), but mellowed with extended authority. He could match steps with both Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh.
For President Bush, he was a “reliable ally”, so reliable in fact the US looked the other way even as Musharraf played both sides of the street in the war on terror. The Lal Masjid, after all, was an extremist facility under the noses of both Musharraf and the Americans.
With the 2008 elections approaching in the US, and the seven year old war in Afghanistan showing no results, pressure on Musharraf was stepped up.
When Taleban fleeing Afghanistan were checked at the AF-Pak border, Karzai and Musharraf harmonized with each. But remember there were spells when Karzai and Musharraf were not even on talking terms. Whatever the level of enthusiasm with which Musharraf was in the war, the blowback from the war was severe for him and the Army.
To protect Musharraf (“great ally”) from taking the flak singly, it was decided that the severity of the blowback would be distributed three ways – the Presidency, Army and the Prime Minister. Benazir Bhutto prevailed on Washington and London that she would not only fight the war to the finish but also handover A.Q. Khan to the Americans for interrogation.
Musharraf, feeling the heat from Washington, blundered into sacking the Chief Justice causing the lawyers agitation. He was shown the door and Benazir was assassinated soon upon arrival.
With the US Congress eager to deliver a democracy in Pakistan in the absence of a victory in Afghanistan, a half baked election brought Zardari to power, even though Nawaz Sharif emerged the more popular among the people largely because he did not carry the odium of being a US nominee.
Zardari, Mr. 10 percent, inept administratively, corrupt, is possibly the most unpopular leader Pakistan has had. Sooner or later, he is on his way out.
So, who does New Delhi talk to. If another election brings in Nawaz Sharif the Americans should be pleased to the extent that, not being a US nominee, Nawaz will be popular and by that token be able to check rampaging Anti Americanism.
But on India he will operate under the double constraints of competitive politics and the Red Line which the army will draw.
Sad, but the emerging conventional wisdom in New Delhi seems to be that the only coherent and durable institution in Pakistan is the Army. What then does New Delhi do? It cannot be seen to be undermining Pakistan’s democracy. And yet there is this creeping realization that in the ultimate analysis power rests with the Army which repeatedly declares itself as “India centered”. Where does one go from here?
Situation is even more complicated because the US does not seem to have a long term strategy for AF-Pak, only tactical moves.
“Reduction of Indian presence in Afghanistan” would relieve pressure on Pakistan and they would therefore be more focused on the war on terror; give them $8 billion every year; they need laser guided bombs; soften up their eastern front……. and so on. The bottomline is that “Pakistan is too nuclear” to fail!
All of this has caused the skeptics in the New Delhi establishment to wonder if placing all the eggs in one basket was such a good thing. The torrid love affair during those years of nuclear debate is turning cold. Some of the eggs are now being distributed to other baskets as well.
Americans must know, of course, that the Indo-US strategic partnership does not hinge merely on inconveniences on AF-Pak. The two are comprehensively enmeshed on several vital issues – nuclear, military, space technology, intelligence; business and so on. Not to forget the sons and daughters of a vast section of the Indian establishment parked in US campuses, with many of them looking for permanent residence and Green cards, recession or no recession.
This confidence in Washington that a testy statement here and there by Holbrook or Gen. McChrystal, the centrality of Pakistan to the US, none of these can derail the “comprehensive Indo-US” relations, must, occasionally, leave Indian policy makers feeling somewhat stranded.
# # # # # # # #
Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 21.03.2010
An impression is gaining ground that talks with Islamabad, at the official level as of now, may help take the sting out of Pakistan’s propaganda that India was being difficult but in reality these cannot achieve much. Just the fact of a transparent “contact” between the two countries is, for the time being, an end in itself because it will help avert possibly disastrous misunderstandings.
If the two Prime Ministers meet on the margins of SAARC summit in Bhutan at the end of April, the occasion will produce positive photo ops but nothing much of substance.
Call it realism or pessimism, but it is rooted in the reality that there really is no “durable” civilian authority in Pakistan with whom business can be done.
The scene for a near breakthrough in Indo-Pak relations was set when Atal Behari Vajpayee was Prime Minister. Since he had evolved from the Hindu nationalist RSS, he could, with a wave of the hand, ask the Hindutva brigade to pipe down. The allegation of a “sell-out” could never attach to him.
Prime Minister Manmohan carried forward this policy with sincerity I am all too personally familiar with.
It remains his dream to improve Indo-Pak relations, to visit Gah the village where he went to school. But he is handicapped by traumatic events like Mumbai terror attacks at a time when the BJP sits in the opposition minus Vajpayee who is ailing.
On the Pakistan side, there was Gen. Pervez Musharraf, author of Kargil (so no one could accuse him of a sell-out either), but mellowed with extended authority. He could match steps with both Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh.
For President Bush, he was a “reliable ally”, so reliable in fact the US looked the other way even as Musharraf played both sides of the street in the war on terror. The Lal Masjid, after all, was an extremist facility under the noses of both Musharraf and the Americans.
With the 2008 elections approaching in the US, and the seven year old war in Afghanistan showing no results, pressure on Musharraf was stepped up.
When Taleban fleeing Afghanistan were checked at the AF-Pak border, Karzai and Musharraf harmonized with each. But remember there were spells when Karzai and Musharraf were not even on talking terms. Whatever the level of enthusiasm with which Musharraf was in the war, the blowback from the war was severe for him and the Army.
To protect Musharraf (“great ally”) from taking the flak singly, it was decided that the severity of the blowback would be distributed three ways – the Presidency, Army and the Prime Minister. Benazir Bhutto prevailed on Washington and London that she would not only fight the war to the finish but also handover A.Q. Khan to the Americans for interrogation.
Musharraf, feeling the heat from Washington, blundered into sacking the Chief Justice causing the lawyers agitation. He was shown the door and Benazir was assassinated soon upon arrival.
With the US Congress eager to deliver a democracy in Pakistan in the absence of a victory in Afghanistan, a half baked election brought Zardari to power, even though Nawaz Sharif emerged the more popular among the people largely because he did not carry the odium of being a US nominee.
Zardari, Mr. 10 percent, inept administratively, corrupt, is possibly the most unpopular leader Pakistan has had. Sooner or later, he is on his way out.
So, who does New Delhi talk to. If another election brings in Nawaz Sharif the Americans should be pleased to the extent that, not being a US nominee, Nawaz will be popular and by that token be able to check rampaging Anti Americanism.
But on India he will operate under the double constraints of competitive politics and the Red Line which the army will draw.
Sad, but the emerging conventional wisdom in New Delhi seems to be that the only coherent and durable institution in Pakistan is the Army. What then does New Delhi do? It cannot be seen to be undermining Pakistan’s democracy. And yet there is this creeping realization that in the ultimate analysis power rests with the Army which repeatedly declares itself as “India centered”. Where does one go from here?
Situation is even more complicated because the US does not seem to have a long term strategy for AF-Pak, only tactical moves.
“Reduction of Indian presence in Afghanistan” would relieve pressure on Pakistan and they would therefore be more focused on the war on terror; give them $8 billion every year; they need laser guided bombs; soften up their eastern front……. and so on. The bottomline is that “Pakistan is too nuclear” to fail!
All of this has caused the skeptics in the New Delhi establishment to wonder if placing all the eggs in one basket was such a good thing. The torrid love affair during those years of nuclear debate is turning cold. Some of the eggs are now being distributed to other baskets as well.
Americans must know, of course, that the Indo-US strategic partnership does not hinge merely on inconveniences on AF-Pak. The two are comprehensively enmeshed on several vital issues – nuclear, military, space technology, intelligence; business and so on. Not to forget the sons and daughters of a vast section of the Indian establishment parked in US campuses, with many of them looking for permanent residence and Green cards, recession or no recession.
This confidence in Washington that a testy statement here and there by Holbrook or Gen. McChrystal, the centrality of Pakistan to the US, none of these can derail the “comprehensive Indo-US” relations, must, occasionally, leave Indian policy makers feeling somewhat stranded.
# # # # # # # #
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Women’s Bill: Liberal measure, illiberal politics
Women’s Bill: Liberal measure, illiberal politics
By Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 13.03.2010
I was surprised by the sympathy for the opposition among educated Muslims in my UP village on the Womens’ Reservation Bill. The drift of their argument was that most of the 182 seats being reserved for women in Lok Sabha of 545, will be cornered by women attached to the “political class”.
That the Yadavs also constitute the political class is a fact but in this instance neutralized by the backward environment in which women of intermediate castes live. But this is not the only reason why the JDU and Samajwadi parties are opposing the Bill. Their primary game is elsewhere. By this opposition they emerge as champions of the Muslims who have no “political class” at all only groups and individuals in certain pockets. After all, in a House of 545 there are only 29 Muslim MPs, the lowest representation since independence. This downward slide will be aggravated by the Bill, they said.
If you add 122 seats reserved for SC,ST, there is very little left in the kitty to be distributed.
Basically, Muslims are seeing the Sachar Committee report, Ranganath Mishra Commission and the Women’s Reservation Bill in one sequence.
The Sachar Committee, a historic breakthrough in shedding light on the socio economic condition of Muslims, has established that in 60 years Muslims are down to the level of Dalits without having the facility of reservations.
The Ranganath Mishra Commission, which recommends steps to redress the gloomy picture painted by Sachar, is shrouded in arcane percentages. If OBCs have 27% reservation and Muslims are to get 15% reservation, it will work out to 4% of the total when they constitute 14% of the population.
In brief, the Women’s Bill leaves the Congress vulnerable on account of the Muslim vote, particularly in UP where Rahul Gandhi has pitched his tents for the 2012 assembly. What if Mayawati calls for election in 2011?
That the Left is supporting the bill does not appear anywhere in the frame. Their’s is a sideshow, keeping Mamta Bannerjee out of any floor co-ordination in the course of which she may have supported a quota for Muslims in the Bill. What emerges in bold relief is the Congress joining hands with the BJP to have the Bill passed. Remember, Mulayam Singh’s embrace of Kalyan Singh for the 2009 poll had a considerable political cost attached to it!
Another vulnerability the Congress exposes itself to is that with Yadavs opting out, it would barely survive with a seat or two ahead of the 272 absolute majority mark. This would expose it to blackmail on countless issues for the next four years.
Logic, most of my friends in the village felt, must dictate the Congress approach. After all, 50% of humanity are women. But that is not the quantum of reservation proposed. If 33 % is an arbitrary figure, why not accommodate the Yadav’s on a figure they were willing to accept.
Also, if the party is sensitive to the evolving socio-economic picture as the Sachar initiative suggested, it must not lose its sense of proportion in redressing one centuries old bias at the cost of other biases which have plagued us for millennia.
Of all the disabilities society suffers from there is none more glaring than the acute backwardness of Muslim women. I do not see how Muslim women will in the near future make an appearance in Parliament in excess of two or three at the very most. The picture in the state legislatures is worse. That the village gentry had cogent views on the Bill proves one thing: Muslims may be down and out but they have their ears close to the ground on issues of interest to them.
If affirmative action as a principle is acceptable, surely some consistency must be demonstrated for the Muslims as well. And yet, it must be admitted that quotas for Muslims is, in any case, extremely tricky for more reasons than one.
For example, historically an overwhelming majority of those who converted to Islam came from the lowest rung of the social order – SCs. But the quest for pedigree among Muslims has caused most of them to deny their SC roots.
Thus, 31% of Sikhs and 9% of Christians have accepted their SC roots but only 0.5% of Muslims. Over 39% have preferred to characterise themselves as OBCs. They are, of course, 60% in the general category.
Instead of proceeded one by one from Sachar to Ranganath Mishra, the Congress by promoting the Womens’ Bill, has taken a social leap but may have risked reviving the Mandal politics which, by its very nature, invites, Hindu consolidation and communalism.
Token gestures like a Minority Affairs Ministry and Haj subsidies irritates a section of the majority community without doing a jot for the minorities.
The person who should give these informed rural lot a hearing is Rahul Gandhi. He is seen in a positive light but Congress – BJP camaraderie is not. “Ever since Mandal upturned the established social structure, it has been the dream of the upper castes and the corporate sector to have the BJP and Congress establish a closer relationship”, said a journalist now settled in his village home. “Is this the beginning of that process?” if so, the backlash should not surprise us. Indeed, it should be anticipated. A disturbing thought in the context of an unstable neighbourhood.
Yes, globally and among the urban elite the message will go out of India taking a giant leap towards modernity. But the applause will obscure harsh social realities. Only, 70% of Muslims from ages of 6 to 17 are literate, bringing them at par with Dalits. And this is just one of a hundred such examples.
The navigation of the Bill in the Lok Sabha will be watched with interest and concern, depending on the viewers’ social strata.
# # # # # # # #
By Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 13.03.2010
I was surprised by the sympathy for the opposition among educated Muslims in my UP village on the Womens’ Reservation Bill. The drift of their argument was that most of the 182 seats being reserved for women in Lok Sabha of 545, will be cornered by women attached to the “political class”.
That the Yadavs also constitute the political class is a fact but in this instance neutralized by the backward environment in which women of intermediate castes live. But this is not the only reason why the JDU and Samajwadi parties are opposing the Bill. Their primary game is elsewhere. By this opposition they emerge as champions of the Muslims who have no “political class” at all only groups and individuals in certain pockets. After all, in a House of 545 there are only 29 Muslim MPs, the lowest representation since independence. This downward slide will be aggravated by the Bill, they said.
If you add 122 seats reserved for SC,ST, there is very little left in the kitty to be distributed.
Basically, Muslims are seeing the Sachar Committee report, Ranganath Mishra Commission and the Women’s Reservation Bill in one sequence.
The Sachar Committee, a historic breakthrough in shedding light on the socio economic condition of Muslims, has established that in 60 years Muslims are down to the level of Dalits without having the facility of reservations.
The Ranganath Mishra Commission, which recommends steps to redress the gloomy picture painted by Sachar, is shrouded in arcane percentages. If OBCs have 27% reservation and Muslims are to get 15% reservation, it will work out to 4% of the total when they constitute 14% of the population.
In brief, the Women’s Bill leaves the Congress vulnerable on account of the Muslim vote, particularly in UP where Rahul Gandhi has pitched his tents for the 2012 assembly. What if Mayawati calls for election in 2011?
That the Left is supporting the bill does not appear anywhere in the frame. Their’s is a sideshow, keeping Mamta Bannerjee out of any floor co-ordination in the course of which she may have supported a quota for Muslims in the Bill. What emerges in bold relief is the Congress joining hands with the BJP to have the Bill passed. Remember, Mulayam Singh’s embrace of Kalyan Singh for the 2009 poll had a considerable political cost attached to it!
Another vulnerability the Congress exposes itself to is that with Yadavs opting out, it would barely survive with a seat or two ahead of the 272 absolute majority mark. This would expose it to blackmail on countless issues for the next four years.
Logic, most of my friends in the village felt, must dictate the Congress approach. After all, 50% of humanity are women. But that is not the quantum of reservation proposed. If 33 % is an arbitrary figure, why not accommodate the Yadav’s on a figure they were willing to accept.
Also, if the party is sensitive to the evolving socio-economic picture as the Sachar initiative suggested, it must not lose its sense of proportion in redressing one centuries old bias at the cost of other biases which have plagued us for millennia.
Of all the disabilities society suffers from there is none more glaring than the acute backwardness of Muslim women. I do not see how Muslim women will in the near future make an appearance in Parliament in excess of two or three at the very most. The picture in the state legislatures is worse. That the village gentry had cogent views on the Bill proves one thing: Muslims may be down and out but they have their ears close to the ground on issues of interest to them.
If affirmative action as a principle is acceptable, surely some consistency must be demonstrated for the Muslims as well. And yet, it must be admitted that quotas for Muslims is, in any case, extremely tricky for more reasons than one.
For example, historically an overwhelming majority of those who converted to Islam came from the lowest rung of the social order – SCs. But the quest for pedigree among Muslims has caused most of them to deny their SC roots.
Thus, 31% of Sikhs and 9% of Christians have accepted their SC roots but only 0.5% of Muslims. Over 39% have preferred to characterise themselves as OBCs. They are, of course, 60% in the general category.
Instead of proceeded one by one from Sachar to Ranganath Mishra, the Congress by promoting the Womens’ Bill, has taken a social leap but may have risked reviving the Mandal politics which, by its very nature, invites, Hindu consolidation and communalism.
Token gestures like a Minority Affairs Ministry and Haj subsidies irritates a section of the majority community without doing a jot for the minorities.
The person who should give these informed rural lot a hearing is Rahul Gandhi. He is seen in a positive light but Congress – BJP camaraderie is not. “Ever since Mandal upturned the established social structure, it has been the dream of the upper castes and the corporate sector to have the BJP and Congress establish a closer relationship”, said a journalist now settled in his village home. “Is this the beginning of that process?” if so, the backlash should not surprise us. Indeed, it should be anticipated. A disturbing thought in the context of an unstable neighbourhood.
Yes, globally and among the urban elite the message will go out of India taking a giant leap towards modernity. But the applause will obscure harsh social realities. Only, 70% of Muslims from ages of 6 to 17 are literate, bringing them at par with Dalits. And this is just one of a hundred such examples.
The navigation of the Bill in the Lok Sabha will be watched with interest and concern, depending on the viewers’ social strata.
# # # # # # # #
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Prince as a Statesman
The Prince as a Statesman
By Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 05.03.2010
My line of business takes me frequently to West Asia where among the people I almost compulsively seek out for cool headed appraisal of events is Prince Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan. This time too he was his cerebral, candid self, though a little more anxious than I have ever seem him before.
Intelligence agencies in the region were suggesting that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was “imminent”. This did not make sense to him for several reasons. “With ongoing operations in Afghanistan are they going to open another front in Iran?”
Moreover, US secretary of Defence Robert Gates was on record that Iran would not be able to manufacture nuclear weapons until 2013 at the earliest. The diplomatic route had not yet been exhausted. “Don’t forget this entire region has nightmares about the nuclear capabilities whether of Israel or of Iran.”
He was disappointed that “Tony Blair, European Foreign Minister and Senator Mitchell come and go without giving any evidence of being in possession of any framework or strategy for Israeli-Palestinian peace.”
You can’t focus on “Iraq today Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iran tomorrow and hope to arrive at a solution”. There has to be a comprehensive vision of the entire West Asian region.”
The issue of Palestinian refugees, Iraqi migration, stateless people are all problems that cannot be shut out by “walling yourself in”, as Israel has done. “Something will have to give”.
And yet he realized that the present Israeli coalition, the most right wing government in Israeli history, was the least capable of proceeding on a path for peace. Because even minimal adjustments, or compromise which entail “concessions” would cause the extremist coalition partners to bring down the government.
Meanwhile there were no signs that the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority was anywhere near resolving their differences.
On Iraq he thought the federal arrangement, “however tenuous”, must be maintained. “Even the Kurds know that any talk of more autonomy would be resisted by Turkey”.
He gave the example of Kosovo. “Remember Spain refused to recognize its independence” because Spain faced secession in the Basque region. “Likewise how can Syria accept” Kurdistan because it has Kurds living in contiguous territory.
He was disturbed by another possibility looming on the horizon: that Israel would be accommodated in OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).
This detail seemed to fit in with his larger thesis that a new class system was being reinforced. The rich would wall themselves in and the poor would dream of a transnational Caliphate. This is one of the explanations for the global spread of political Islam.
Unless a holistic view is taken of the entire region, “unless you stabilize the hinterland people living next to oil from the Caucasus to the Middle East”, the region will remain destabilized.
He recommended a conference of all the countries of the region to spell out what “the Mid-East peace plan is and how it should proceed”. This could be the beginning of a quest for harmony in the entire region.
With his considerable sense of history, Prince Hassan saw the conflict in Yemen against the backdrop of traditional “Imperial interests”. He referred to the report in 1907 by Campbell-Bannerman (former Prime Minister of Britain) when the former colonial powers came together to look at the future of waterways and strategic materials. The report concluded that “the best way to safeguard colonial interests was for neighbouring peoples to remain poor and divided”. In the three way conflict going on in Yemen, “the Al Qaeda also raises its head and becomes a rallying call for the military-industrial complex and their supporters”.
It was a pity that India had not recognized the big role in West Asia “history has bestowed on it”. After all, when the British left India, they did not give up British India’s control on the Gulf States until 1961.
What did he think of the Shia arc the media was playing up?
According to him the issue had no saliency before the US occupation of Iraq. In fact when the US talked of the “Lebanonization” of Iraq at the very outset of the occupation, ears were cocked. In Lebanon, the power structure is divided between the Shias, Sunnis, Christians and Druze. It was only when these kinds of hierarchies were sought to be created in Iraq that Shia-Sunni violence broke out in the South. Before the occupation, Iraq had a tradtion of Sunni-Shia harmony.
Differences sought to be made between Ajam and Arab or between Iranian and non Iranian Shias were even more divisive. This kind of talk frightens the Gulf States. “Little wonder they invited Iranian Foreign Minister, Manoucher Mottaki to their summit at Manama, capital of Bahrain.”
He even had a comment or two on Bolly wood. “Time has come to go beyond Slumdog Millionaire opening and move onto more cerebral films, because otherwise China seems to be winning awards at international film festivals.”
# # # # # # # #
By Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 05.03.2010
My line of business takes me frequently to West Asia where among the people I almost compulsively seek out for cool headed appraisal of events is Prince Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan. This time too he was his cerebral, candid self, though a little more anxious than I have ever seem him before.
Intelligence agencies in the region were suggesting that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was “imminent”. This did not make sense to him for several reasons. “With ongoing operations in Afghanistan are they going to open another front in Iran?”
Moreover, US secretary of Defence Robert Gates was on record that Iran would not be able to manufacture nuclear weapons until 2013 at the earliest. The diplomatic route had not yet been exhausted. “Don’t forget this entire region has nightmares about the nuclear capabilities whether of Israel or of Iran.”
He was disappointed that “Tony Blair, European Foreign Minister and Senator Mitchell come and go without giving any evidence of being in possession of any framework or strategy for Israeli-Palestinian peace.”
You can’t focus on “Iraq today Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iran tomorrow and hope to arrive at a solution”. There has to be a comprehensive vision of the entire West Asian region.”
The issue of Palestinian refugees, Iraqi migration, stateless people are all problems that cannot be shut out by “walling yourself in”, as Israel has done. “Something will have to give”.
And yet he realized that the present Israeli coalition, the most right wing government in Israeli history, was the least capable of proceeding on a path for peace. Because even minimal adjustments, or compromise which entail “concessions” would cause the extremist coalition partners to bring down the government.
Meanwhile there were no signs that the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority was anywhere near resolving their differences.
On Iraq he thought the federal arrangement, “however tenuous”, must be maintained. “Even the Kurds know that any talk of more autonomy would be resisted by Turkey”.
He gave the example of Kosovo. “Remember Spain refused to recognize its independence” because Spain faced secession in the Basque region. “Likewise how can Syria accept” Kurdistan because it has Kurds living in contiguous territory.
He was disturbed by another possibility looming on the horizon: that Israel would be accommodated in OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).
This detail seemed to fit in with his larger thesis that a new class system was being reinforced. The rich would wall themselves in and the poor would dream of a transnational Caliphate. This is one of the explanations for the global spread of political Islam.
Unless a holistic view is taken of the entire region, “unless you stabilize the hinterland people living next to oil from the Caucasus to the Middle East”, the region will remain destabilized.
He recommended a conference of all the countries of the region to spell out what “the Mid-East peace plan is and how it should proceed”. This could be the beginning of a quest for harmony in the entire region.
With his considerable sense of history, Prince Hassan saw the conflict in Yemen against the backdrop of traditional “Imperial interests”. He referred to the report in 1907 by Campbell-Bannerman (former Prime Minister of Britain) when the former colonial powers came together to look at the future of waterways and strategic materials. The report concluded that “the best way to safeguard colonial interests was for neighbouring peoples to remain poor and divided”. In the three way conflict going on in Yemen, “the Al Qaeda also raises its head and becomes a rallying call for the military-industrial complex and their supporters”.
It was a pity that India had not recognized the big role in West Asia “history has bestowed on it”. After all, when the British left India, they did not give up British India’s control on the Gulf States until 1961.
What did he think of the Shia arc the media was playing up?
According to him the issue had no saliency before the US occupation of Iraq. In fact when the US talked of the “Lebanonization” of Iraq at the very outset of the occupation, ears were cocked. In Lebanon, the power structure is divided between the Shias, Sunnis, Christians and Druze. It was only when these kinds of hierarchies were sought to be created in Iraq that Shia-Sunni violence broke out in the South. Before the occupation, Iraq had a tradtion of Sunni-Shia harmony.
Differences sought to be made between Ajam and Arab or between Iranian and non Iranian Shias were even more divisive. This kind of talk frightens the Gulf States. “Little wonder they invited Iranian Foreign Minister, Manoucher Mottaki to their summit at Manama, capital of Bahrain.”
He even had a comment or two on Bolly wood. “Time has come to go beyond Slumdog Millionaire opening and move onto more cerebral films, because otherwise China seems to be winning awards at international film festivals.”
# # # # # # # #
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Sauce for the goose but not for the Gander
Sauce for the goose but not for the Gander
By Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 25.02.2010
The burgeoning global media, the very beacon of the free world, has not been very forthcoming on a bill before the US congress threatening action against media in the Middle East critical of US policies.
As in all such measures, the language is couched in caution.
For instance, section 1 of the Anti-American Incitement to Violence in the Middle East, Bill reads:
“Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression are the foundations of free and prosperous societies worldwide, and with the freedom of expression comes the responsibility to repudiate purveyors of incitement to violence.” (Freedoms are only for prosperous societies?)
Further:
“Television channels that broadcast incitement to violence against Americans, the United States, and others, have demonstrated the ability to shift their operations to different countries and their transmissions to different satellite providers in order to continue broadcasting and to evade accountability.” Goodbye to off-shore telecasting?
The bill names some channels which give the game away.
“Television channels such as Al-Manar, Al-Aqsa, Al-Zawra and others that broadcast incitement to violence against the United Sates and Americans, aid Foreign Terrorist Organizations in the key functions of recruitment, fundraising and propaganda”, are all liable to be punished.
Therefore, “it shall be a policy of the United States” to:
“Designate as Specially Designated Global Terrorists those satellite providers that knowingly and willingly contract with entities designated as specially Designated Global Terrorists”.
The Bill threatens other, unspecified “punitive measures” against satellite providers that transmit Al-Aqsa, Al-Manar and Al-Zawra channels………….”
This bill “requires the President to transmit a report to Congress that must include a country-by-country list and description of media outlets that engage in anti-American incitement”.
Also, American level of assistance to a country will be determined by the extent to which the country in question shuns anti American propaganda.
By this criteria, Pakistan should be stone broke because there is hardly a country in the world which has a more hysterical, anti American media!
Ah! There’s the catch. The bill names countries only of the Middle East. These are: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The Bill specifies these as the most worrisome area as far as anti Americanism (and hatred for its allies) is concerned. This lengthy Arab list is actually a camouflage for the real culprits, the ones who are a thorn on Israel’s side.
Let us consider the list of TV stations the Bill names. Al-Manar, for instance. The entire Middle East knows that it is the official channel of Hezbollah.
According to Wikipedia “The Israeli Air Force bombed Al-Manar building on July 13”, during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. “Despite the attack, the station remained on air, broadcasting from other undisclosed stations”.
The other TV station named in the Bill is Al-Aqsa TV. Wikipedia says it is a Hamas run television. Among other programmes, the station airs TV shows for children, some of which have been accused of promoting “anti Semitic views”.
The station began broadcasting in the Gaza strip in January 2006 after Hamas won a sweeping victory in Palestinian Parliamentary elections.
Celebrations in Gaza were galling for the Palestinian authority in Ramallah as well as for Jerusalem. In this instance Ramallah acted as the cat’s paw.
On January 22, 2006, The Palestinian Public Prosecutor, Ahmad Maghni, decided to close down the TV station because “it did not have the necessary broadcast license.” Hamas refused to enforce the decision.
On December 29, 2008, during the 2008-09 Israel-Gaza conflict, Israeli aircraft bombed the offices of Al-Aqsa TV. The building has been completely destroyed. But, says Wikipedia, the station continued to broadcast from a mobile TV unit.
Wikipedia, better watch out for recording subversive truths!
Likewise, Al-Zawra TV is Iraqi satellite channel which was known for airing insurgent attacks on US-led coalition Forces.
There is no point arguing against the wise US congressmen who have drafted this piece of legislation. One is speechless. Showing images of attacks on US soldiers in Iraq is a crime? In what category do we then place, the complete destruction of what was once Mesopotamia, one of the world’s earliest civilizations; organized looting of its museum; killing of a million innocent Iraqis; the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Are the wise Congressmen sunk, in the deepest levels of thought on legislation that will banish such inhumanity in some distant future?
“Mister Obama, on the morning of November 4, 2008, some of our friends assembled at the crack of dawn (for that is when US presidential election results were to be announced in India) to celebrate not so much your victory as the capacity of the American people to renew themselves and their nation, the nation we all salute. How do you think does this kind of illiberal legislation register with those who celebrated that morning?
Ofcourse, there are organizations you and your allies would consider recalcitrant. Well, handle them politically, or in any other way that does not embarrass the vision of freedom your founding fathers outlined for all humanity. Mark my word, implicit in the Bill is the spirit which leads to banning of books!
Even in this instance, it is the American people who will thwart this deletion of other people’s freedoms. After all it was one of your own journalistic stars who alerted us to the mischief afoot. Like him, a hundred voices will rise in your land and elsewhere. Let us hope, the standard bearers of press freedom in India will not shame us with their silence.”
# # # # # #
By Saeed Naqvi
Dated: 25.02.2010
The burgeoning global media, the very beacon of the free world, has not been very forthcoming on a bill before the US congress threatening action against media in the Middle East critical of US policies.
As in all such measures, the language is couched in caution.
For instance, section 1 of the Anti-American Incitement to Violence in the Middle East, Bill reads:
“Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression are the foundations of free and prosperous societies worldwide, and with the freedom of expression comes the responsibility to repudiate purveyors of incitement to violence.” (Freedoms are only for prosperous societies?)
Further:
“Television channels that broadcast incitement to violence against Americans, the United States, and others, have demonstrated the ability to shift their operations to different countries and their transmissions to different satellite providers in order to continue broadcasting and to evade accountability.” Goodbye to off-shore telecasting?
The bill names some channels which give the game away.
“Television channels such as Al-Manar, Al-Aqsa, Al-Zawra and others that broadcast incitement to violence against the United Sates and Americans, aid Foreign Terrorist Organizations in the key functions of recruitment, fundraising and propaganda”, are all liable to be punished.
Therefore, “it shall be a policy of the United States” to:
“Designate as Specially Designated Global Terrorists those satellite providers that knowingly and willingly contract with entities designated as specially Designated Global Terrorists”.
The Bill threatens other, unspecified “punitive measures” against satellite providers that transmit Al-Aqsa, Al-Manar and Al-Zawra channels………….”
This bill “requires the President to transmit a report to Congress that must include a country-by-country list and description of media outlets that engage in anti-American incitement”.
Also, American level of assistance to a country will be determined by the extent to which the country in question shuns anti American propaganda.
By this criteria, Pakistan should be stone broke because there is hardly a country in the world which has a more hysterical, anti American media!
Ah! There’s the catch. The bill names countries only of the Middle East. These are: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The Bill specifies these as the most worrisome area as far as anti Americanism (and hatred for its allies) is concerned. This lengthy Arab list is actually a camouflage for the real culprits, the ones who are a thorn on Israel’s side.
Let us consider the list of TV stations the Bill names. Al-Manar, for instance. The entire Middle East knows that it is the official channel of Hezbollah.
According to Wikipedia “The Israeli Air Force bombed Al-Manar building on July 13”, during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. “Despite the attack, the station remained on air, broadcasting from other undisclosed stations”.
The other TV station named in the Bill is Al-Aqsa TV. Wikipedia says it is a Hamas run television. Among other programmes, the station airs TV shows for children, some of which have been accused of promoting “anti Semitic views”.
The station began broadcasting in the Gaza strip in January 2006 after Hamas won a sweeping victory in Palestinian Parliamentary elections.
Celebrations in Gaza were galling for the Palestinian authority in Ramallah as well as for Jerusalem. In this instance Ramallah acted as the cat’s paw.
On January 22, 2006, The Palestinian Public Prosecutor, Ahmad Maghni, decided to close down the TV station because “it did not have the necessary broadcast license.” Hamas refused to enforce the decision.
On December 29, 2008, during the 2008-09 Israel-Gaza conflict, Israeli aircraft bombed the offices of Al-Aqsa TV. The building has been completely destroyed. But, says Wikipedia, the station continued to broadcast from a mobile TV unit.
Wikipedia, better watch out for recording subversive truths!
Likewise, Al-Zawra TV is Iraqi satellite channel which was known for airing insurgent attacks on US-led coalition Forces.
There is no point arguing against the wise US congressmen who have drafted this piece of legislation. One is speechless. Showing images of attacks on US soldiers in Iraq is a crime? In what category do we then place, the complete destruction of what was once Mesopotamia, one of the world’s earliest civilizations; organized looting of its museum; killing of a million innocent Iraqis; the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Are the wise Congressmen sunk, in the deepest levels of thought on legislation that will banish such inhumanity in some distant future?
“Mister Obama, on the morning of November 4, 2008, some of our friends assembled at the crack of dawn (for that is when US presidential election results were to be announced in India) to celebrate not so much your victory as the capacity of the American people to renew themselves and their nation, the nation we all salute. How do you think does this kind of illiberal legislation register with those who celebrated that morning?
Ofcourse, there are organizations you and your allies would consider recalcitrant. Well, handle them politically, or in any other way that does not embarrass the vision of freedom your founding fathers outlined for all humanity. Mark my word, implicit in the Bill is the spirit which leads to banning of books!
Even in this instance, it is the American people who will thwart this deletion of other people’s freedoms. After all it was one of your own journalistic stars who alerted us to the mischief afoot. Like him, a hundred voices will rise in your land and elsewhere. Let us hope, the standard bearers of press freedom in India will not shame us with their silence.”
# # # # # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)