Welcome Al Jazeera!

Welcome Al Jazeera!

What a treat it is to receive Al Jazeera English on the Tata Sky bouquet at last! Every time it comes on though, one is reminded of the hazards of too much balancing of the books. And also some of its perhaps unintended benefits.

 We have had two Reliances for a while now, the combined enterprise value of which is quite a bit bigger than the unbroken entity used to be. And it came about because the former monolithic entity was too restrictive for the ambitions and talents of two very admirable prime-movers.

And Al Jazeera , started in 1996 in the aftermath of the closure of the BBC’s Arabic Service, is now well established in its own right, in English, Arabic, and on the Internet. It echoes some of the BBC’s style, manned as it is with many of its ex-staffers, but some say it outperforms the original, despite the same DNA. This is possibly because of its robust and red blooded journalistic tone. And this, while the progenitor, some say the original, feels watery, wheezy and out of condition in comparison.

Mukesh Ambani’s alleged despotism after the demise of his legendary father Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani, apparently spawned the break-out by younger sibling Anil Ambani. And Mrs. Thatcher’s alleged hatchet job on “Aunty Beeb’s” finances begat Al Jazeera.  

Of course, in the early days of the nineties, Al Jazeera faced not a little dithering on the part of its originally Saudi backers who could not stomach a potentially critical programme on the Kingdom. And proportionate sagacity, courage and ambition on the part of the present ruler of  Qatar who picked up the gauntlet when the Saudis backed out.

The Emir of Qatar has in fact broken the mould on media freedom in the Middle East characterised by tame, often state-owned and run propagandist media, till Al Jazeera came of age with live coverage of the war in Afghanistan post 9/11. 

The interesting thing is that the channel does not do a CNN style potted and self conscious look tinged with expatriate brio, at Arabia, or India, or Afghanistan for that matter. On the contrary, it comments with great aplomb and considerable professionalism on the goings on all around the world. It is also not a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda or its radical Islamic offshoots, as some if its nervous competitors would have us believe, though it didn’t hesitate to give the late and unlamented Osama a fair amount of balanced play.

CNN, the original pathfinder for 24x7 global news and views from 1980,  grew weary along the way, somewhere after all that brilliant reporting and firework display visuals of the first Gulf War of 1991 in President Bush the Elder’s time. It changed and became middle-aged, particularly after its acquisition by forces such as Time Warner and AOL, “suits”, who were quite a bit different from the pioneering, visionary, maverick and entrepreneurial Ted Turner.

BBC meanwhile has now settled into antiquated dowagerism with its blanket spread over its knees style, a piece with the transitional licence fee fed radio-TV era, emanating whiffs of a British Empire mindset long gone.

The world has changed a great deal in cultural, political and point-of-view terms since the epoch of Britannia’s rule of the waves, its quixotic solar topeed dominance enforced by artillery, the Thin Red Line and the stiff upper lip. That sort of caricature poseurism has gone to the tome and coffee table books, available to nostalgia buffs and the current day fans of an outdated idea.

Imperialism, all the rage in the 18^th and 19^th centuries with its talk of “the White man’s burden”, and other constructs and Empires further back, has always been a pernicious idea. It was designed to beggar the imagination and exclude all that is inconvenient to its tentacular hubris. And on the ground, it has ruthlessly exploited most of its subject populations.

In comparison, it is indeed refreshing to hear about the fortunes of the Montpelier football team, one from a historic city in Southern France, and that of Paraguay in the Al Jazeera Sports News coverage. It comes replete with news of on-field scuffles just like the best of the best from Britain and Germany.

These sorts of countries and cities do not normally pass muster as worth talking about on most Western channels. With much that supported their eminence having fallen away, they still persist in an arrogant navel-gazing that defines the edges of their own world. Compared to this implicit racism and insularity, Al Jazeera, which literally means “The Island”, is a British-trained breath of fresh air set free by the Emir of Qatar and his people.

More than one reputable media watching analyst from the Western bastions has identified the channel for its quality. We may benefit, for example, from accessing our inputs on the second round of elections to select the French President or the ongoing and intensifying drama between Sudan and South Sudan from Al Jazeera. This, rather than BBC or CNN, let alone our own relatively under-funded channel feeds.  

America, for example, does not particularly cover South America, preferring to ignore an entire continent, except within a subtly derogatory frame of reference. The European media too follows a similar West-centric world view that tends to render the trials and tribulations, the hopes and fears of much of the rest of the world, somehow unimportant, even irrelevant.

A Middle Eastern base for a beacon of non-imperial journalism of high quality such as Al Jazeera is most useful in today’s world with its relentless shift of power. The power is moving towards BRICS, more particularly to China, and to a lesser extent, to India.

 India is often pressured to toe the US line as a major geopolitical presence in South Asia that cannot be permitted too much leeway. But Qatar is not strategically that important despite its substantial gas and petroleum assets proportionate to its tininess. It can therefore play the 24x7 Nightingale without some insomniac reaching for his rifle.

A current cameo, that of the blind Chinese dissident Chen, wimpishly handled with less than unwavering support by the US Embassy in China, is illustrative.  Chen walked out on his exploration of US asylum when his family on the outside in Chinese hands was threatened. The days of gun boat diplomacy are long gone. Today, the US, despite being the world’s indisputably preeminent military and economic power, cannot afford to annoy or embarrass China. It is Chinese cooperation in bilateral and multilateral contexts that has become crucial to America. See it all on the feisty channel from Qatar.

 (1,098 words)

May 3^rd, 2012

Gautam Mukherjee

Serving the Nation

Serving the Nation

It is not just that the Indian economy is drifting rudderless. And possibly towards the shoals where it could run aground. And this, a debacle from near iconic status as the second fastest growing economy in the world.

This drift in the ship of state is being attributed to “policy paralysis”, descriptive also of the lack of serious accountability in governance. But it is indeed a Government paralysed, in denial, immune to criticism, practising the “masterful inaction” much favoured by the father of reforms Mr. PV Narasimha Rao, cynically hanging on to power without discharging the function it was elected to perform. It seems to be at loggerheads with itself and its allies and unlikely to take any reformist initiatives till the general elections of 2014.

This has resulted in the slowing of growth in the GDP from 9 per cent to less than 7. And in the ebbing of optimism nationally and internationally with regard to the “India Story”.  

On top of this, there is inexplicably cheeseparing activity such as the proposed GAAR to trap those taking advantage of perfectly legitimate tax treaties with Mauritius, and even retrospective legislation to extract tax from multinationals and others for acquisition/sale of enterprise/India based entities. This is rightly seen as avoidable chicanery with a Stalinist streak. After all, entities such as Vodafone were well within their rights per the prevailing laws of the time, as clarified and upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

Some, like economist Mr. Ruchir Sharma suggest the India Story was a chimera in the first place, caused by the “rising of all boats” in the 2003 to 2007 period, when the world economy powered on, driven forward on a sea of liquidity. Till that is, it floundered against the Lehman Brothers icebergs of Wall Street in 2008.

That was the beginning of the end of the party of rank excess, and it will be a long decade or more before the rosiness returns to the financial hubs of the West.

Happily Mr. Sharma astutely also thinks that India is capable of changing gear to “break out” the soonest amongst all the emerging economies in the BRICS. The break out will have to shun complacency though, because the next time around is unlikely to be based on just global liquidity to propel us forward. Our policy makers and entrepreneurs alike will have to show real merit and initiative to make the difference.  

Mr. Sharma’s first observation is harsh hindsight, and may be something of the revisionism that has seized some observers. But even if one subscribes to this logic, it is clear that a national policy effort to indeed bring about an economic high-tide that raises all boats is a classic win-win formula. It has the added strength of being both non-doctrinaire and non-discriminatory.

As for the second break-out idea, Mr. Sharma knows and we know, that given the Indian context of gross indiscipline and the way our reactive democracy works, it will be riddled with ifs and buts. Getting India to move forward and let go of its hard wired self-image of poverty exploited by generations of politicians, its petty concerns at the expense of the big picture, and particularly to have it adhere to a consistent plan, is no easy task.

As a country poised on the edge of destiny despite itself, we will have to find a way. After all, it is debatable whether we arrived at our growth by design or default thus far. The obvious reality looking forward is that we need a lot more infrastructure and modernisation because we persist in living in several centuries at the same time.

But given the wherewithal, Indian intelligence, enterprise and ingenuity, much admired around the globe, will utilize the resultant opportunities on their own.  With the help of building block enablers, such as roads, rail, ports, airports, power, water, IT and so on, which many countries are fortunate to take for granted, we could have a very reasonable India story indeed.

Right now, most things are hopelessly antiquated, over-burdened and choked off because of avoidable policy lassitude. And this even as we have changed tremendously over 20 years since the reform process properly began in 1991. As an Indian, it is therefore only natural to be caught fuming in the logjam wondering how long it will be before we can become a developed nation.

However, the demand is there, and that is the main thing. Not only is it there, it is there domestically, in the urban and rural areas alike, from the middle classes and the rich, bigger in number than most national populations, and from the poor too, who are themselves twice as numerous. India does not particularly need the global market to grow, and that is a most advantageous position enjoyed by very few economies.

Potentially, as a consequence of our 1.2 billion people today, the demand projections do look rosy, as do the perceived aspirations, but the reality is disappointing. Much of the demand in every sector of the economy is inadequately, inefficiently and crudely serviced. Our slow downs are unnecessary. And our prosperity is tantalisingly within our reach if not our grasp. But very little political thought actually goes towards nurturing the economy.

Economic growth is seen as something that favours the rich become richer still. It is a message that can be twisted too easily by rivals at the hustings. Whereas freebies and give-aways, subsidies, loans and hand-outs to the poor are seen as politically productive, even as they help to further damage our economic health.

The international rating agencies, watching parameters such as the GDP, Capital formation and utilisation, the deficit, investment and so on, and the development banks, such as the IMF, the ADB and the World Bank too, are giving India the thumbs down presently. Somehow all the euphoria with regard to this country seems to have vanished.

All this, while inflation rages on, bloating the food bills of every man.  There is also the somewhat bizarre debate about the absurdly low per capita figures that rule the poverty line as defined by the Planning Commission.  In addition, The National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) data on household expenditure quoted by Left leader Mr. Sitaram Yechury recently, says over 60 per cent of the people in every state seem to be below even the Rs. 28 per head expenditure a day.

And this is cited as the level of income below which true penury begins, qualifying for Government relief programmes! There are about 360 million people below the Planning Commission poverty line, without going into the far larger numbers which the NSSO data suggests.

The political hot potato such poverty numbers suggest preoccupies the mind-space of every politician, but none seem able to dare break out of the vicious cycle of such poverty politics into the next stage of aspirations met and choices increased for the people. The tried and tested distribution of Government largesse, even if somewhat dog-eared with over use, is preferred to the uncharted territories of macro-level growth lest the trickle down effect is not thought to be effective enough. The lessons of the ill-fated “India Shining”  political campaign has not been lost on the polity.

Besides a good deal of our present woes are imported. Petroleum prices, not only at the pump but because of ever increasing demand, are boosting cost push inflation with every barrel of crude purchased. The Western economies are moribund after a very long innings of leveraged growth, but are nevertheless awash with speculative money at near zero percent interest. And this money, as in the earlier days of liquidity, is scouring the world economies and its commodities for a quick speculative buck.

The economic thinking behind this is that austerity will kill the West much faster than continued spending, albeit redirected and better harnessed than before. Sometimes it is even linked to security. As Vice President Mr. Joe Biden says as part of President Obama’s re-election bid this year: “Osama Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive”.

We are, of course, most adept at making problems for ourselves in addition to the macro challenges of a global economy in varying degrees of trouble. To wit, the Left thinks the wooing of the public-private partnership (PPP) model is the culprit and has resulted in the betrayal of the hopes of the poor. It thinks anything private just puts up the prices beyond their reach. And almost every political party tends to have to chime in with their own Leftist mantras in order to not be discarded by the electorate.

The pantheon of Indian business, industry and the multi-nationals however, are exasperated. They feel that almost none of the hoped for reforms or liberalisations have materialised during more than three years of the current Government. Things pending from UPA I are also left undone.

Interest rates are amongst the highest in the world at this juncture. Capital is scarce. Coalition pulls and tugs, plus differences of approach and emphasis between the Government and the ruling Party are making it very difficult to govern.

Besides the future too is undecided. General Secretary Rahul Gandhi is still searching for his political metier and traction. This has involved some old fashioned minority appeasement and socialism combined with a modern management approach, but is still very much a work in progress. Here too, there is very little emphasis on the revival of the economy.

So we slide from bad to worse with FII and FDI drying up alongside. And yet the longed for action to resolve our problems does not come. In fact, even as growth plummets, welfarism gains ground alongside a yawning fiscal deficit heading towards the unmanageability of stagflation.

India seems to be at a crossroads of its destiny because nothing is being done to keep both horses, that of growth and welfarism going strong. But at the crossroads we do face stark choices. One road will take us back into the mire. This is the way of reckless welfarism with scant regard for balancing the books. The bills and IOUs after all will be presented after the 2014 general elections, when all is already lost and won.

The focus of such largesse is to cater to a voting public far removed from the intelligentsia or the media, but spawned and reared on a culture of socialism over our first 40 years as an independent nation. It doesn’t work very well in 2012 or 2014, with its developmental aspirations, but there are many in powerful places who think it to be their best bet to retain power.

As for stimulating the economy, the jury seems to be out on the political dividend. The rich are not much good at voting and neither are they numerous. As for getting money from them for any purpose, it has never been difficult to do so for the political classes.

Hence the complicit policy paralysis, though nothing explains adequately why nothing to speak of was done in the three plus years already run through. But presently, no one wants to bell the cat before the general elections, not even the Opposition. Everyone is looking for vote catching stratagems. Nothing else really matters.

So Government is deaf to the learned arguments of international economists and inured to the criticisms of the Opposition who are themselves very keen to avoid being perceived as anti-people in any way.

And so the economy is held hostage to the imperatives of electoral politics. The good thing about all this is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong that can’t be taken up once the political battle is over. Let us just hope the collateral damage of inaction is not too great. This is, after all, the price we pay for our freedom and political system.

It’s good to know however, for the long run particularly, that most of our present predicament is self inflicted and we are not unable to fix it when we get around to finally wanting to.

(2,000 words)

1^st May 2012

Gautam Mukherjee


Published as Cover Story in The Sunday Pioneer in the AGENDA Section as "India no longer shining" on 13th May 2012

When they begin they begin

When they begin they begin

Is the Chief Minister of West Bengal a little touched? Perhaps she is, because she conducts herself like Idi Amin Lite addled by Banquo’s Ghost. Which in this instance is no apparition in armour, but stamped in red and coming for her with hammer and sickle at the ready. The resultant paranoia is overwhelming her common sense and the benighted people of Paschimbanga are paying the price. It appears as if the toxicity induced by the lengthy affair with Leftism in the State will take at least a generation or two to leach out.

Back at the national capital, the BJP has won all three sections of the trifurcated MCD and retained its hold on the municipality, as it did when it was one large, unwieldy entity. This repeat MCD win, added to the growing number of states run by the BJP and its limited set of allies, suggests it is time to change gears to prepare for the main prize in 2014.

But here you’ve got camps within the Sangh Parivar. The ideology camp says Hindutva brought the BJP and its like-minded allies such as the Shiv Sena, all the way from two seats in Parliament to Principal Opposition Party with a full turn in power at the Centre. And that’s without mentioning the MCD, the Mumbai Municipality, and the States under its stewardship.

The change wallahs say this is all very well, but Hindutva puts off a lot of potential voters and cannot take the BJP any further, particularly in the active absence of a charismatic and inclusive leader like AB Vajpayee. So even though Centrism is the mantra to this lot, the unexciting roll out of such a thing lacks traction. The issues and stances that might show the BJP as Centrist are difficult to turn into emotive voting issues. Besides, it is all mainly about economics.

In contrast, it is argued, what are the chances of a political party that lets go of its core beliefs for electoral gain? This counter argument is indeed emotive and chooses to ignore the twists and turns of all parties in power in the name of pragmatism, whether they professed one belief or another in their manifestos or at the hustings.

Nevertheless, what is clear for the looming general elections in 2014, is that the BJP must build alliances based on quid pro quos well before the elections. Otherwise, it is going to find itself about a 100 seats short of a shot at the brass ring.  To get beyond a somewhat wobbly alliance with the JDU and another with the Akalis, albeit reinvigorated by the recent win in Punjab, is an unavoidable requirement.

Many analysts have indeed been saying this, but it is a tiger changing its stripes conundrum. The worry is that it won’t work with the voting public. And what if even the loyalists and faithful mistake it for a Zebra, stripes still intact, but quite a different animal nonetheless.

The answer might lie, as it does for the rival UPA alliance, in the pampering, finessing and assuring of regional aspirations. For the BJP, it also means a blunting of anti-minority rhetoric, even a ramping up of minority candidates, which saw it to victory in Catholic South Goa recently.

It is a model that can work very well elsewhere, with Muslim BJP candidates in Muslim majority areas and so on. This, along with a studied silence on the Hindutva shibboleths and a gag order to the RSS, the Bajrang Dal, the sadhus and mahants et al to cease and desist till at least the national elections are done with.

Sure, such strategic silence might be interpreted as no more than a temporary abeyance, but it might prove to be a good enough platform for moderates and fence-sitters to climb on board. And a postponement of Hindutva war cries such as the temple at Ayodhya, and the revocation of Article 370 in Kashmir, may not necessarily be regarded as abandonment of core beliefs for the ideologues.  Even those that argue that the overwhelmingly Left-Liberal-Secular Media are not necessarily representative of the actual voting public. They too can also take comfort in the fact that this is exactly what the Vajpayee led NDA did to both form itself, and stay in power for the full term.

But who in the BJP can be credible in delivering this series of messages to a national public? The name that springs to mind immediately is the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Arun Jaitly. And reports state he has made up his mind to contest for a Lok Sabha seat at last. Mr. Jaitly certainly has the necessary articulation and could well be a Vajpayee-like consensus builder given his head.

And in a fragmented polity, a consensus builder is the crying need of the day whichever national formation one belongs to, lest both be held hostage by the regionals. They would then have no one to blame but themselves.

Other stalwarts in the Party, such as the redoubtable Mr. Narendra Modi, can be selectively deployed, along with Ms. Sushma Swaraj, Mr. Venkiah Naidu, veteran war horse Mr. LK Advani, Party President Mr. Nitin Gadkari, young firebrand Mr. Varun Gandhi. All of them and others can be tasked to manage various aspects of the consensus building and be committed to the need to not pull in different directions at once.

State satraps too can be very useful in building up this operation “Raft”. Amongst the allies, there is Mr. Nitish Kumar and the Badals and one time familiars to be wooed back such as Mr. Patnaik and Madame Jayalalithaa. The question of the PM’s gaddi can be left till after the elections are won and be arrived at by consensus too.

It may seem like a tall order given the demonstrated inability of the Sangh Parivar to work in unison after the retirement of AB Vajpayee from active politics. But if the DRDO can launch an ICBM with just three years of sustained effort led by a lady scientist, Ms. Tessy Thomas, dubbed the “Agniputri”; it is by no means impossible.

The peculiar lack of hunger for capturing power at the Centre that some of the fractiousness suggests however, is that perhaps many in the party are content as they are. They have power and influence while the UPA carries the can. It is a having one’s cake and eating it too stratagem. But for those of us who back the BJP and vote for it, we surely deserve better treatment by our leaders.

(1,094 words)

20^th April 2012

Gautam Mukherjee

A Central Banker's Vision

BOOK REVIEW

Book Title: Emerging India-Economics Politics & Reforms

Author: Bimal Jalan

Publisher: Penguin Viking, 2012

Price: Rs. 599/-

A Central Banker’s Vision

Every page of Bimal Jalan’s new book on the economy of a broadly reformist India underscores the vast potential of India. As a highly erudite central banker and top flight economist, Mr. Jalan’s narrative balances the accomplishments since the first tentative moves to unleash India’s economic destiny from its Socialist shackles. While this began in the mid-eighties and even earlier, the breathtaking possibilities waiting to be taken up even in 2012 are most compelling.

Whenever one reads a book of distinguished essays and speeches such as this, one is reminded of the extent to which independent India has erred on the side of caution if not inertia. And this, perhaps because it is very difficult for a political class weaned on the failed promise and rhetoric of Socialism to totally cast off its brain numbing effects. That policies based on the Socialist ethos delivered little beyond spiteful beggar-thy-rich stratagems and the stifling straightjacket of the infamous licence-permit Raj is now well accepted.

But today most parliamentarians are busy operating the leverages of coalition politics with its endless jockeying for narrow gain at the expense of the common weal.   Still, since policy must be made with the existent environment, India can only make progress by working within the bounds of coalition governments both at the Centre and quite often in the States as well. In addition, factionalism within parties is also part of the dynamic of democracy today as are the demands of regionalism.

Mr. Jalan covers a lot of ground in this compendium of various papers, speeches and essays and is consistently in favour of  liberalisation and reform. He rejects, quite unequivocally, the old and failed “command and control” policies copied from the Soviets. He also questions the efficacy of the elaborate five year plans in the absence of a dynamic “public delivery system” at the “Centre, state and district” levels.

Mr. Jalan plainly states: “Without strengthening the ability of  the government to do what it alone an do, and narrowing the focus of its activities to what matters most for the future development of the country-education, health, clean environment and a functioning infrastructure- India cannot adequately seize the opportunities that lie ahead.” He goes on to say, “No amount of macro-policy reforms by themselves will be sustainable or yield permanent results.”

This manifestation of government malfunction alluded to is evident to all, but while prescriptions on what can and should be done are plentiful if only in outline, he is unable to address the dilemma of narrow vested interest that define the success and tenor of implementation in this country. At best, India can take comfort in the trickle down effect of growth which tends to blunt the hungry competitiveness of disparate interests.

Mr. Jalan, as a former RBI Governor, is particularly refreshing in his comments on the future of central banking in India. He wants to see a further “strengthening of our prudential, provisioning and capitalisation norms” to “bring them in line with best international standards.” We may however, have to devise these for ourselves because the “international” ones have not exactly covered themselves with glory.

He also wants “maximum transparency, disclosure and accountability” and votes for “increase” in the “capitalisation” of banks “quite substantially”. This of course, cannot be faulted because our banking system is much too small to meet the requirements of high trajectory growth and development.

And he wants a legal system that delivers justice quickly as the present state of affairs is not “tenable,” but this, of course, calls for substantial legal reform.

Mr. Jalan is in favour of pragmatic action for managing currency and exchange rate fluctuations rather than the adoption of rigid policy stances either in terms of a complete  “free-float” or high levels of intervention. This too makes sense as it allows the Reserve Bank of India to react appropriately to varying situations, some far away from our own borders, on a case to case basis and over the medium term.

Mr. Jalan’s latest book has a broad-brush approach and a predominantly liberal stance, but since it is a collection of writings as opposed to a book in situ, it offers few detailed insights on the topics covered.

The problem with a discussion on India’s economy is that there are precious few items such as the IITs and IIMs, a clutch of core-sector industries, and a backbone such as the antiquated but yet impressive Indian Railways worth retaining from the past. For the rest, we have to look to a vision for the future which is a fresh construct arrived at by an inductive leap without the baggage of fear of exploitation or even that of progress. This is not such a book, but perhaps we can look forward to a path-breaking economic vision for the future when Mr. Jalan finds the time and inspiration to write it.

(807 words)

April 15^th 2012

Gautam Mukherjee

Published in The Sunday Pioneer on 22nd April 2012 as "Central banker's reformist vision" on the BOOKS page in the Agenda Section.Also online at www.dailypioneer.com and in The Pioneer ePaper.

The Age of Miracles

The Age of Miracles

Innocence and the miraculous somehow go together. Take out the one and the other wilts and fades. And along with receding innocence goes youth. And this can happen at any biological age. You can have 12 year old ravagees with “tombstones in their eyes” and 90 year olds with their impish inner-child intact.

Applied to the akhara of Indian politics, and indeed the international political landscape in all its varied hue, innocence would probably transform into idealism. And idealism is definitely in short supply in today’s world.

Idealism is ever denigrated as the dewy-eyed impracticality of school boys not fit for mature discourse in the thrust and parry of real politics. And where it rears its inconvenient head despite the almost universal attempt to scorn and shame it into decline, it is promptly corralled into a reservation of non-governmental activism. The suggestion is that idealism is not mainstream political activity, riddled with impracticality as it is. And thus, the baby goes out with the bathwater.

But if history and political theory is to be believed, it wasn’t always so. Great movements and struggles, we are told, were born out of lofty idealism. It was idealism that fired the imagination of people and received their commitment. It was the self- same that moved mountains of opposition and perceived injustice with its sheer motivational strength.

And yet, every once in a while, an act of political will cuts through the fog of cynicism and calibrated calculation that passes for political leadership. The bounty of $ 10 million announced for the head of brazen terrorist-at-large Hafiz Saeed by the US Government is one such clear-eyed act of idealism.

Hafiz Saeed, supported by the Pakistani Government and establishment, pretends to run a clutch of charitable organisations while preaching obscurantist hatred against the classic targets of Hinduism, Zionism and Christianity. It’s not that he doesn’t, but the charity is a cover.

But if Saeed Hafiz was just a rabid preacher and demagogue it would be bad enough. As it happens he is also a hands-on terrorist himself and a leading light of the infamous Lashkar-e-Taiba, which supports and trains killers and fanatics. They, in turn, go out and do its bidding and that of the Pakistani Government via the formidable Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI).

Everything Hafiz Saeed’s followers do thereafter can be cloaked in the garb of “non-governmental actors” for the “plausible deniability” the ploy offers. And the Pakistani establishment nurtures a number of very competent Saeed Hafizes, many of them highly trained ex-army or ex-ISI operatives, along with their hate spouting organisations.

 It is now universally recognised that Pakistan has refined the techniques of terrorism as an instrument of state policy like no other country around the world. It has been called “the most dangerous country in the world” on more than one occasion. Even the LTTE was not the Government of Sri Lanka but only a break-away movement in the cause of an elusive Tamil Eelam, and neither was it a nuclear power!

But in Pakistan, this could change at any time, creating the first non-governmental nuclear power in the world.  So the long awaited decision to put Saeed Hafiz in the cross hairs of US accusation is not a hollow thing. After an interminable delay since 26/11 which took place in 2008, it strikes a clear cut blow at the root of international hypocrisy and selectivism in terrorism targeting.

The global nightmare is that the Pakistani Government and its nuclear arsenal could fall to the institutionalised terrorists in the country grown terribly powerful over the years. It is also a truism of history that revolution, even if one were to characterise the jihadi mindset as righteous, tends to devour its own children. While that would be very sad, particularly for the more enlightened sections of Pakistani Civil Society, it would be catastrophic for the targets of Islamic terror around the world.

The facts that have come to light since the US went into Abbotabad and eliminated Osama Bin Laden, shows him living in different locations in Pakistan with the connivance of the Pakistani Government, for most of the over 11 years since 9/11. The bluster and denial, the leaning on Saudi diplomacy to reduce the pressure from America, the petulant threats at large from the Pakistani military that violations of its territorial sovereignty, including the routine US drone attacks, would be stoutly resisted, have not worked. Neither has the admirable articulation of its foreign office and media stalwarts.

Intelligence sources around the world are of the opinion that the strategic triangle on which Pakistani political thinking is built involves first, the backing from China, second, an anti-India policy as a justification to nurture an elaborate terrorist network designed to bleed it, and third, the blackmailing of the West, particularly the US, over Afghanistan for money and military hardware to run an otherwise bankrupt economy.

The problem, as with all Frankensteinish creations, is that each tends to take on a life of its own and refuses to follow the script. And so, the “death by a thousand cuts” strategy against India has been largely stymied by the strategic depth provided by a country teeming with over 1.2 billion people. It is difficult to judge whether Maoist violence in India, or Islamic terrorism, or indeed border and territorial tensions with China have primacy here.

The backing of China for Pakistan comes at the price of being reduced to a satellite and subordinate state. It is forced to serve China’s own geo-political ambitions in the Gulf, Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Indian Ocean littoral and in international fora.

The West is now coming around to the view-point that crippling Pakistan’s terrorist factory is essential to draw its poison teeth, and not just in terms of its projected withdrawal from Afghanistan.

That still leaves its nuclear arsenal intact of course, but hopefully it will continue be the responsibility of moderate and reasonable people in the political and military space in Pakistan. Besides, the West knows that the main proliferator in nuclear matters in recent times is China, with Pakistan and North Korea only playing supporting roles.

But is there idealism afoot here too? Is the US Government putting the finger on Hafiz Saeed in order to seek retributive justice? Was that at the root of the action to kill Osama Bin Laden not so long ago?  Some would say that it is, and marks yet another instance of how the true and straight-forward can indeed serve statecraft and make the world a safer place to live in.

(1,093 words)

April 4^th, 2012

Gautam Mukherjee


Published as Leader Edit on the Edit Page of The Pioneer as "Return to idealism" on 16th April 2012 and online at www.dailypioneer.com

Book Review: The Fall of Idi Amin

Book Review

Title: Culture of the Sepulchre-Idi Amin’s Monster Regime
Author: Madanjeet Singh
Publisher:Penguin Viking, 2012
Pages: 237.
Price: Rs. 499/-

The Fall of Idi Amin

In the tradition of the ICS Collectors of the 19^th century, a former Indian Ambassador to Uganda has written an engaging first-hand account of his experiences in Uganda during the latter part of Idi Amin’s rule. Such memoirs prove to be very useful accounts of a time and place when information on the inner workings and doings are not generally accessible.

 This book is a personalised account of the chaotic last days of Idi Amin’s blood-soaked regime through the recollections of then Indian Ambassador Madanjeet Singh. The Indian perspective from that time is important because Idi Amin triggered the largest Asian refugee exodus from Uganda to the UK, Canada, America, India and other places in the Seventies.

 In his zeal to blame these industrial and trading classes who had served to build the country for generations, Amin expelled all Asians without distinction. Amin labelled them disloyal and was angry with their perceived refusal to integrate with the native Ugandan, particularly by way of marriage.

Today it is seen that Uganda’s loss was the gain of all the countries that received the desperate refugees, including some neighbouring African countries such as Kenya and Tanzania. Many of these erstwhile exiles have proved to be highly successful, starting afresh from scratch in their new domiciles. And some have even gone back to their beloved Uganda.

The book makes for interesting reading today, three decades or more after the rule by terror, intimidation, torture, subterfuge, outright lies and assassination described in it. This precisely  because such tactics have not disappeared even today. Also in the annals of recent African history, Idi Amin’s brutal rule and tribal fratricide was not that atypical or exceptional.

Depicted as a buffoon in this and many other accounts, Idi Amin  may well have been underestimated. Witness that he died comfortably abed, decades after his fall from power, in luxurious exile in Saudi Arabia. He was granted asylum there with all the trappings and status of a former ruler, in recognition for his services towards the promotion of Wahabi Islam in Uganda.

Amin’s other notable friend and benefactor while in power, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, was himself hounded to death in his own country for a style of governance and  performance not unlike Amin’s. Colonel Gaddafi’s attraction for Amin was due to the latter’s vociferous support of the Organisation for African Unity. The OAU was and remains an elusive quantity, but nevertheless caught the imagination of the strong man of Libya as a desired bulwark against big power manipulation.

And of course, militant Islam, an off-shoot and possibly unintended consequence of state sponsored Islamisation, has a lot to answer for in our current era of continuous terrorism and retribution. Today it seems clear that the promotion of Islamism results in extremism overtaking the accepted norms of nationhood. And Idi Amin’s experiment in this regard not only opened up religious and tribal fissures at the time but also ended badly.

Idi Amin did very well for a semi-educated army cook risen to absolute power. He practiced classic British style divide and rule policies with considerable panache. Amin did this amongst his own supporters and Government appointees in his dictatorship. He exploited tribal and religious rivalries by playing one off against the other. He used the semi-foreign Nubians, originally from neighbouring Sudan, to carry out his suppressions and oppressions. He killed or exiled his perceived opponents or they jumped ship on their own to save their lives. And yet, his Opposition, both at home and abroad remained sorely divided amongst themselves.

In addition, Amin also exploited big power rivalries. He milked the Soviets for guns, troops and technicians by leaning towards “African Socialism” and by offering them a sphere of influence. He did the same with the Libyans and Saudis, obtaining money and armaments through or paid for by them, in exchange for his commitment against “Imperialism” and for “African Solidarity”.

And yet, Uganda’s greatest export and revenue earner, Coffee, was purchased largely by the Americans and Europeans. Ironically, it is when, to counter-balance Soviet influence, the US embargoed purchases from Uganda, that Amin’s hold on power began to unravel. Nevertheless, this proactive foreign policy worked for a very long time for Amin.

Madanjeet Singh has written his book in the form of a memoir, and this gives it authenticity, particularly as he peppers it with events from his own personal life. And remarkably, for a career diplomat, he demonstrates extraordinary courage. He refused to leave Kampala throughout the defeat of Amin’s forces by those from Nyerere’s Tanzania, the installation of the new government and all the instability and lawlessness that accompanied those dangerous days. But having said that, there is more than an occasional whiff of self promotion in the book which however can be forgiven in favour of the sincerity it exudes.

 (802 words)
20^th March 2012
Gautam Mukherjee

Published in The Sunday Pioneer and online at www.dailypioneer.com in the AGENDA Section BOOKS Page on       

The New National

The New National

The authors of the Indian Constitution provided for a quasi-federalism in order to separate so-called local issues from national and international ones. And, significantly, to subordinate the States to the Centre to make for greater cohesiveness and strength.

This worked after a fashion for the initial decades of one party rule, even though the States were often, and infamously, dealt with more imperiously than they might have been. The matrix of Union subjects, State subjects and Concurrent ones, conceived by the founding fathers, was, it is now seen, only adequate to meet the demands of a bygone era.

Also, as the time went on, the limitations of the old notion of exclusively State Subjects which include “public order and police”, became evident, given the rampaging externally instigated terrorism and Maoist violence that many regions are facing.

A graphic image to remember in this regard is the invasion of the Taj Mahal Hotel and Mumbai’s Jewish Chabad House on 26/11, by terrorists first and the NSG commandos later. That was in 2008, already a few years ago, and a lot more has happened, both before and since, to underline the new reality. And this, without the Republic of India properly coming to grips with the problem even to date as scores of innocents continue to be killed.

Law and order, as visualised at the state level, was meant to address simple security and crowd control issues. These, the local police are indeed trained and equipped to tackle. But the bigger challenges of politically motivated assassination attempts on politicians, kidnapping of prominent citizens or their relatives, subversion, bombings, planned sedition etc. call for national and international intelligence sharing and coordinated action, often involving several States, the Centre, and foreign governments. While this may be self evident, what has remained sadly unchanged is the attitude of a weakened Central Government nevertheless thinking it can impose its views on the States without consultation.

Still, having tasted the power of controlling their own security, albeit augmented by para-military, military, intelligence, investigative and other central forces, brought in on the State’s invitation, the States are now unwilling to have the Centre oversee or worse, overrule them in their own backyards. And this, crucially, because many of the States, not run by the ruling coalition at the Centre, are not beholden for their electoral success or standing to the Union Government.

Apart from security as in “public order”, another important State Subject, “Public Health,” is also woebegone and apathetically dealt with, almost from the start. This is because the States rarely have the funds themselves, or the wherewithal to properly administer central or foreign funds to conduct programmes, or create facilities to the standard necessary. And yet, the reform in this vital regard has not really been forthcoming.

One reason for this is because it enables the Centre to blame the States for poor public health administration rather than take responsibility for its betterment themselves.

“Education”, which is on the Concurrent List, does not fare much better, again because of divided responsibility and weakened accountability. The whole area of “Criminal Law and Procedure” and “Civil Procedure”, also on the Concurrent List suffers from the ravages of dual responsibility and local manipulation.

But the answer towards betterment in all this is probably not greater centralisation. Because, when it existed and prevailed through the long years of the Nehru and Indira Gandhi eras, it did not deliver the requisite results. It didn’t, probably because, combined with Socialism and its chronic shortages, and a GDP growth rate of between 1.8 to 2.2 per cent, there was very little money to throw at development, let alone those issues designed to modernise organisation and methods. Besides, there was no credible political Opposition, or even the kind of factionalism now rife, to threaten the ruling party. All this is now history as the recent results in the just concluded Assembly elections in four states have shown.

In 2012 also, the notion of quasi-federalism itself is facing spirited challenges. The authority of the Centre has been eroded steadily since the era of coalition politics settled in properly. Today, the definition of “national” and “regional” when applied to political parties too is undergoing a sea change. 

A National Party like the BJP for example, derives a great deal of its authority and presence at the Centre from the fact that it is running an increasing number of States. And likewise, regional parties such as the BSP, the SP and the TMC are no longer content to confine their electoral pitches only to their home states, and are winning seats in other state assemblies also.

In the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha too, it is the tail that wags the dog, more often than not, with coalition partners exercising near veto-like influence on the initiatives of the largest coalition partner in the ruling UPA.

And the Opposition BJP also often finds itself in the peculiar position of facing many of the problems of the Congress Party both at the Centre and in the States.  What we are witnessing is a weakening of the mooring bolts of our quasi-federation, and this fact has not been lost on the various regional parties.  To them, pushing for more power, both at the Centre and in the States, this is a welcome development.

Nor has the implications of this trend been unnoticed by the several powerful State Chief Ministers from both the principal national parties or their allies in their respective coalitions, who also happen to run some of the States. Some States in turn are even running local coalitions of their own. 

The Centre has undeniably been performing very poorly for several years now, stymied and conflicted about how to go forward. It has increasingly fallen back on old hat tactics such as populist soppery to buy votes or insulting divisiveness to garner minority support. The net result has been both a loss of credibility and face reflecting a new sophistication amongst voters that it has failed to gauge.

The inheritors of the power that has slipped away from the Centre are the regional parties, along with those national parties more able to make common cause with them, and the Governments across the political spectrum that are ensconced in the States.  It is they who will give new meaning to the Constitution and its provisions, and determine the future of India both at the Centre and in the States.

And it is also they who will determine and provide the future occupants of Race Course Road and Rashtrapati Bhavan as well as many of those on Raisina Hill.

(1,099 words)

7^th March 2012

Gautam Mukherjee

Published as Leader on Edit Page of The Pioneer on 8th March 2012 as "Power shifts to the States" and also online at www.dailypioneer.com