Guns, Generals and Cable TV

A few weeks ago President Musharaff declared emergency in Pakistan citing vague reasons. This declaration, in itself, was perhaps nothing surprising in a country that has become accustomed to emergency rule over the many decades. Pretty soon, the media was reeling off statistics and comparing the latest emergency to the ones in the past. Leaders around the world were suitably outraged, but none too seriously. They called for a swift return to democracy and proclaimed their solidarity with the people of Pakistan. How utterly boring. I suppose a declaration of emergency in Pakistan is as newsworthy as a declaration of bankruptcy by one of the major US airlines. Been there, done that. At any rate, all this has been reported ad nauseam.

The President, who has since given up his army uniform, initiated a set of predictable steps. Get rid of pesky judges, clamp down the media. Most of the cable channels in Pakistan, which have mushroomed in the last few years, were taken off air. Some were allowed to continue, but were subject to censorship. There was a "first" in this emergency, however. Most private news channels were off the air in Pakistan. But at least one channel, Geo TV, continued its broadcast from its Dubai center. Its reporters were speaking of events unfolding in Pakistan, but the citizens of Pakistan were not privy to it all. Some Indian news channels quickly took their regularly scheduled programming and began airing Pakistani news as told by Pakistani channels!

I am sure whoever thought of the idea received a healthy bonus! He/she is surely entitled to it. I was in India at the time, watching TV. When channel surfing I came across a news being read by unfamiliar anchors in an unfamiliar studio. One of the anchors had a decidedly American accent, and looked desi. Hmm, odd, I thought. Some Indian anchors may try to fake an accent, or at least, speak in - an - exagerrated - tone. Let us blame it on Prannoy Roy. It took me a while to realize that it was not an Indian channel after all. It was strangely reassuring to know that news channels in Pakistan tend to be obnoxiously repetitive!

The wheels keep turning round and round ...

To say that the proposed Indo-US nuclear deal has gone through its fair share of ups and downs is an understatement. In July '05, the leaders of the two countries took a revolutionary step when they announced the broad terms of the proposed nuclear co-operation agreement. Cameras clicked, people smiled (some with disbelief), and the wheels of legal machinery began creaking forward. In a world where even the incremental, evolutionary changes are contested, it should come as no surprise that this revolutionary deal would face severe challenges in the months and years ahead.

Briefly, the agreement promised India access to nuclear fuel/technology that has long been denied to her chiefly, because of (a) refusal to join NPT and (b) conducting the nuclear tests in 1998. In return, 14 of the 22 nuclear reactors in India would be placed under international safeguards in perpetuity. You can read more about the deal here and here.

As early as the end of '05, some US lawmakers like Sen. Richard Lugar raised their doubts, which could seriously jeopardize the deal. In his prepared comments, he made it clear that he did not like that the Congress had not been consulted prior to the deal. The subtext of his remarks was that he did not trust the Indians' offering of "voluntary" compliances. He sought US control over any technology/fuel that was being considered. Moreover, he wanted more, i.e., all nuclear reactors in India under safeguards.

Then in early '06, the New York times gave a two thumbs down to the deal, before Bush's visit to India. Other hoped that the President's visit would in part, nudge the deal along. Around the same time, noted Indian scientists like Dr. Kakodkar, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and Dr. Banerjee, director of BARC issued their support to the deal. This was echoed by several policy experts in the US and abroad like Stephen Cohen at the Brookings Institution, Walter Andersen at JHU, Frank Wisner and William Clark, former US ambassadors to India and importantly, Dr. El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA.

Within a couple of months after President Bush's India visit, the Indian Americans began galvanizing support for the deal. This was perhaps one of the first times that the community had managed to organize itself to the extent it did. Irrespective of the fate of the deal, one hopes that the Indian-American community will strengthen its newly-found confidence and voice.

By the middle of that year, some in the Indian scientific community voiced their opposition to the deal amidst calls of India becoming subservient to the US. At the same time, India's Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran was jetting around winning support for the deal. Within the end of the year, countries like UK and Italy would offer support even though Australia dilly-dallied. China, as expected, did not welcome the proposed agreement.

In October '06, North Korea rocked the boat by testing a nuclear bomb. And the shadow of the mushroom cloud threatened to engulf the Indo-US deal. That did not happen.

That brings us to the present year. 2007. The discussion in some sections of the Indian media, notably the Indian Express, got very detailed. Experts started analyzing the deal with a fine comb. Amazingly, the no-nonsense, technical discussion thrived in the newspaper. And this, in a country, where printing titillating pictures in the Times of India passes for journalism!

Prakash Karat, the articulate communist in India, issued his shrill opposition to the deal. For a while the left party opposition led by Karat threatened the survival of the Singh administration. That fear seems to have abated even as cooler heads prevailed on the left end of the spectrum. Notably, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee the West Bengal Chief Minister and Jyoti Basu, its former CM unequivocally expressed their support for the deal. Amidst this hooplah, Prime Minister Singh made a an astonishing statement -- one that could come from either a visionary or one who had nothing to lose. Rubbishing Karat's stand, the Prime Minister said that history would judge the deal favorably. Now that takes some courage!

Just as the left worries were starting to subside in India and the Indian administration soldiered on with their business, the next step was launching into discussions with the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG).

And in what can only be described as deja vu, some lawmakers in the US (this time, the House) and the New York Times upped their ante and have come out against the deal. The House issued a non-binding resolution, which essentially seeks to do exactly what Karat wanted. Throw a spanner into the machinery, jam the wheels and bring it to a halt.

Dr. El Baradei will be in India on a 3-day visit shortly. But the officials are tight-lipped about the NSG discussions -- whether indeed, there will be any discussions. The Left parties are meeting around the same time. Oh, the drama! But it is difficult to imagine that Dr. El Baradei will go all the way just to shake hands and see the sights.

The picture is the US is shaping up more unfavorably. The next few weeks are sure to be taken up in talking about the President's veto of the SCHIP act and the Congress' attempt to override the veto. And of course, there is the Iraq war. Along with the immigration battle, the proposed deal may simply be passed on to the next President. As far as the nuclear deal goes, passing the buck would effectively kill the deal.

About time!

Finally! Someone had the "courage" to point out that the proverbial emperor isn't wearing any clothes! A leaked British report says that Pakistan, through its intelligence agency ISI, has been supporting terrorism and extremism; that it has been supporting Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Leak highlights a complex relationship

During their visit to Washington a couple of days ago, there was no love lost between Pak's General Musharaff and Afghanistan's President Karzai. Karzai did a diplomatic smack-down by not shaking hands with Musharaff in front of the clicking cameras.

Train bombings

Unless you were hiding under a rock, you probably heard about the series of bombings in Mumbai, India. Events surrounding it and following it have been so expected that it hardly qualifies as an 'event'. No, I am not trying to be cynical. But everything about it is so gut-wrenchingly familiar that people are almost used to it.

This type of attack goes back to at least 1993 when more than a dozen bombs rocked the city - in the Bombay stock exchange, even. What happened? The city dusted itself off and life moved on. The stock markets rallied. The people stepped back on those Crowded (yes, crowded with a capital 'C') trains to chase their hopes and dreams.

This time around as well, the city that is always in a hurry, will wipes off its tears and go back to business as usual in a day or two.

The Indian government will make the usual statements. Mumbai police will detain hundreds and arrest a few. Some will face justice. But the real murderers? I wouldn't bet on them being caught. After all, Dawood Ibrahim, the mastermind behind the '93 attacks, enjoys Pakistani patronage even today.

Terrorists do the same thing over and over again. The government reacts the same way over and over again. Nothing unfamiliar. No events here.

But look at Israel. Today, we heard about their strikes on Lebanon. After a few strikes, Beirut's airport resembled the surface of moon- all three runways rendered inoperable. Why all the bombing? Hezbollah militants who are holed up in Lebanon apparently kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others. Then came the no-nonsense reaction from Israel.

Look at India and her response to all the militants holed up in Pakistan. You have to wonder, will India shed its path of remarkable restraint?

Psst ... "inside" info on the India-US nuclear deal

At the University today, DESI and US India Business Council had organized a panel discussion on the recent India-US civilian nuclear deal. My dear readers, you get the scoop - even before Chidanand Rajghatta of the Times of India can write about it!
The panelists Vikram Misri (Indian Embassy), Prof. Walter Andersen (a South Asia expert) and Ron Somers (President, USIBC, formerly with Cogentrix) made a strong case for the proposed civilian nuclear co-operation agreement. I won't belabor the much-talked about points like:

It's good for India because of energy needs, brought into world order, etc.

It's good for the US because of reduced energy dependence, strategic objectives (without the China angle), US business interests, etc.

Some interesting points:
I raised the question: "During the debate, the Indian left parties objected to the deal, saying it is a sell-out to the Americans; and the likes of Strobe Talbott believed that the US got a lousy bargain. Clearly, both can't be right. Who is more right?"

In response, Dr. Andersen made two points:

Although Talbott is pro-India, he "genuinely believes" that this agreement is dangerous and counterproductive to the disarmament cause. This is the view -- in substance, at least -- of President Jimmy Carter as well. Dr. Andersen disagreed with this line of thinking during his opening remarks.

He added that India had agreed to bring 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors under international safeguards "in perpetuity". Given that the US has only ONE of its 100+ reactors under IAEA safeguards, the UK has none and China has 3 (the extent of which is questionable); one could argue that India made significant concessions.

Talbott, by the way, was Jaswant Singh's counterpart in the talks after the Pokhran tests. The series of talks has had a tremendously positive effect on the relationship between the two countries in recent years. Anyone with even a passing interest in this dynamics should read his book "Engaging India." It's a fascinating look at history, politics and personalities. With that background about Talbott, we can safely assume that he is not pushing anyone's agenda when he opposes the present civilian nuclear deal. Rather, he has genuine concerns -- misplaced, but genuine nonetheless.

Misri, the Indian on the panel, was eloquent about India's track record in the nuclear business. He began his remarks with a landmark that I was not aware of. As early as 1944, Bhabha who is the founder of Indian nuclear program, submitted a proposal to set up a nuclear research institute. This led to the creation of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) in December 1945. The Atomic Energy Act was passed in 1948 and the construction of India's first nuclear reactor Apsara began in 1955. Apsara went critical in August 1957 (56?) becoming the first reactor in Asia. In other words, as we know, the Indian nuclear program is not new.

As an aside, when I came across Ron Somers' name in the announcement, I was pleasantly surprised. If you are from Karnataka, you will probably recognize his name -- he was with the controversial Cogentrix project. That was the power project that got embroiled in controversy and politics involving Maneka Gandhi, Deve Gowda, etc. I won't go in to the messy politics. But suffice it to say that at some point, there was a legal battle that the company and Somers personally was drawn into. They were accused of bribery. Needless to say, that was a politically motivated lawsuit that was cleared up as soon as Somers left the country.

I was struck by the humility of the man in spite of those nasty attacks. He had nothing but kind words for the people of Mangalore and their support. More, he holds a special place for India in his heart since he essentially built his career there.

With some hesitation, he spoke about the business angle to the proposed deal. If the business community makes a forceful case, they might be seen as greedy, he said. Hence the measured and somewhat delayed tone. In the coming days, however, the business community will make a more compelling case. If the proposed India civilian nuclear deal goes through, there is the potential for creation of 3 million jobs -- some of that will benefit France, Russia and the UK, but the US will benefit to a large extent.

With allies like Somers, Andersen and spokesmen like Misri, we can move forward with assured confidence.

Nuclear separation scenarios

More on the nuclear reactor separation plan. Here's the numbers game in yesterday's Hindu.

The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Nuclear separation scenarios

Good Nukes, Bad Nukes

Ignatius gets it right - almost. The nuclear issue seems to dominate President Bush's visit to India that begins today. The bottom line is that if the negotiator can reach a workable agreement on India's nuclear status, it will mean an end to decades of isolation of the Indian nuclear energy establishment. It opens up much-needed sources of fuel for the Indian civilian reactors. Going by reports in the media, there seems to be intense ongoing diplomacy promising a photo finish by the end of the President's visit.

The latest numbers doing the rounds is a 65:35 split, i.e., 65% of the reactors will come under international safeguards. That will mean NSG (nuclear suppliers group) countries can supply fuel to those reactors and take away spent fuel for reprocessed. The remaining 35% will be military reactors that fall outside the purview of the agreement. India will continue to exercise complete control over those. This number is an improvement over the 70:30 split that the previous BJP-led government had almost agreed to. There seems to be some unanswered questions about the fate of future (yet-to-be built) reactors. And the hyped Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) may be kept out for now.

India needed that push to demystify - to some extent - its nuclear energy and weapons programs. It was a logical next step after heralding its status to the world a few years ago. Of course, this won't happen overnight. It is heartening to know that the process has been hastened.

Now, to the Ignatius article in today's Post: he distinguishes between the nuclear ambitions and programs of India and Iran using 'good nukes' and 'bad nukes' - a' la Bush's 'good vs. evil' argument, one wonders.

Incidentally the New York times has come strongly against the proposed deal crying its hypocritical to de facto admit India into the nuclear club while lecturing countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and South Korea against pursuing nuclear ambitions. It is like saying, if you are sneaky enough, if you are patient enough, we'll let you into this elite club.

Ignatius, without referring to NYT, agrees with the hypocrisy argument. But it is enlightened hyprocrisy. The world, we all know is fueled by pragmatism and not idealism. In that spirit, it makes sense to recognize India's responsible behavior with the proposed agreement.

Why do I say Ignatius gets it almost right?
The Indian foreign policy establishment has long strived to de-hyphenate India and Pakistan in the eyes of the world. It has had much success in that regard. But I can see them wincing at the end of paragraph in Ignatius' piece:

The world is ready to accept India as a nuclear power because its actions have given other nations confidence that it seeks to play a stabilizing role. A world where behavior matters gets the incentives right: It forces Iran to demonstrate its reliability so that, over time, it can be seen in the same league as India and Pakistan.

Good Nukes, Bad Nukes

Kristof: India v. China

This is bound to raise a eyebrows. Kristof, writing in his column today, compares India and China. I know, I know. So does everybody else these days. Must be the season of the 'other'. There's talk about outsourcing to the back offices in India; laments about loss of manufacturing jobs to China; praises for the gay themed movies (Brokeback mountain won the big prize at Golden Globes yesterday!).

Kristof gets many things right: Indian emphasis on education, a Prime Minister who knows what needs to be done. In characteristic style, he is blunt: "And while China has been exceptionally shrewd in upgrading its infrastructure, India has been pathetic. India's economic future is marred by its third-rate roads and ports.... The bottom line is that the once-great nation of India is reawakening from several centuries of torpor, and facing less risk of a political cataclysm than China. India is poised to again be a great world power. But over all, my bet is that China will still grow faster and win the race of the century. I'm going to tell my kids to keep studying Chinese, rather than switch to Hindi. "

Hah, we don't like you.

As Dr. Singh's administration continues to establish itself, there have been a few hiccups. Lobbying for ministries from coalition partners, changing economic policies, creating and adding ministries and the list goes on. And its just the first week in office! Foreign minister Natwar Singh and National Security Advisor J.N. Dixit, keeping in line with the vintage Congress position, are adopting an anti-US line.

But Amnesty's report pigeon-holes US and Indian policies in an unflattering, scathing attack. Apart from the "detention in legal limbo", "police brutality", "sexual abuse", "allegations of (prisoner) torture", the US came under severe criticism for its wanton use of the death penalty. Since 1976 (when the Supreme Court lifted the moratorium), 885 people (including 65 in 2003) have been put to death. India was heavily criticized for the Gujarat riots, communal tension, unchecked abuse of power by security forces, the anti-terrorism POTA act.

Perhaps one favorable change in the new Indian government policy is putting the brakes on an unabashed pro-Israeli stance.

Indian elections

For a few days now, I have been toying with the idea of starting a blog. I suppose its mostly out of a bloated sense of self-importance! At any rate, the recent Indian elections seemed like a good excuse to web-ify my rants from time to time. So here goes ...

The dance of democracy in India has certainly thrown up more than its fair share of surprises. Firstly, the defeat of the BJP-led coalition shocked and surprised most political pundits. The I-told-you-so'ers like Swaminathan Aiyar in the Times of India were a minority. Whether people had an issue with BJP's policies or not, everybody was sad to see Mr. Vajpayee leave. His holding out the olive branch to Pakistan, in spite of Musharaf's backstabbing etc., will probably be his crowning achievement in the history books to come. Jim Hoagland, in his column in the Washington Post thinks the increasing closeness of Vajpayee administration with the US cost the incumbents dearly. Likening Brajesh Mishra, the national security advisor, to Star Wars' Yoda, Hoagland bemoans the defeat of the NDA government.

Congress, under Sonia Gandhi seems to have gone the Madonna way - by reinventing itself. Rather, it has gone back to its time-tested campaign tactics - the dynasty and food, water, power slogan. In one of her speeches, Ms. Gandhi says it was time "to do something for the poor". How wonderfully vague! What's more, it seems to satisfy the Indian voter! It was certain that Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin would become an issue now that she had a real shot at the top job.

The communist parties (yup, they're still around!) were suddenly thrust into the national limelight. With the support of the Left a necessity for minority Congress to survive in the Parliament, people had to take notice of what the Left parties had to say. And boy, they fired some serious shots at the business community. Demolish the privatization ministry, they said. The issue Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin and now the left parties' shenanigans. This one-two punch was too much for the markets and the indices tumbled. Brokers must've been saying, 'gravity sucks!' And then began a day or two of "will she? won't she?" suspense. Will Sonia Gandhi lead the next Indian government? Many of the major newspaper editorials pooh-poohing BJP's criticism's of the foreign issue used big words like inclusiveness, plural ethos etc. in supporting Ms. Gandhi's bid. Some like the Pioneer didn't share those sentiments. Finally, following her "inner voice," she declined the PM post. The die-hard Congress loyalists were aghast. Many others breathed a collective sigh of relief. And a few like Mike Marqusee in the Guardian cannot resist using the "R" word. He thinks Indian Hindus are racists. Hmm.. I wonder black men and women Britain or the United States has elected to serve in the highest offices?! That might be too much to ask for, given that in America's centuries old democratic traditions, the first Catholic President was JFK!

As the dust settles down, Dr. Manmohan Singh, best known for starting the economic reforms in '91, is set to take over as the Prime Minister. Like Mr. Vajpayee, Dr. Singh is well-respected man both in India and abroad. Congratulations, Mr. Prime Minister!

On a related note, in the Andhra Pradesh (AP) assembly elections, the cyber savvy Chief Minister, Chandrababu Naidu was voted out of office. George Manbiot, in his column in the Guardian has an interesting note about it. According to him, Naidu's defeat amounts to Tony Blair's defeat since all those programs that were so doggedly pursued in AP were planned out by the US consultancy agency, McKinsey and financed partly by Blair's government.