My Response to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq's An open letter to the people of India

To the People of India,

India’s elections have begun and you are exercising your votes to choose your new political representatives. Whoever you end up electing will be momentously placed to exercise real leadership and take the difficult decisions that are needed to shape a better course for the future of India and for peace in South Asia.

Sir, till the time you use this pronoun “You”, we will not able to recognize “you”.  Peace in south Asia is important for all of us and we cannot agree with you more, however the use of this pronoun “YOU” is a roadblock and right in the beginning brings a dark cloud.

In this regard, there are two clear paths ahead, each with very different outcomes. Your newly elected representatives (those in power and those in opposition) could collectively resolve to take a bold and visionary break from the past and could work together to pursue a serious political and diplomatic effort to resolve the Kashmir issue. Alternatively, they could relinquish their collective leadership responsibilities and choose to follow the same old default policy approach that has allowed the Kashmir issue to fester for more than six decades now, placing the region on the dangerous trajectory that it is currently heading towards. Ultimately, the direction that the next elected leadership of India will take vis-à-vis the Kashmir issue largely depends on all of you — the people of India — and on how effectively you can influence and support your political leaders to do what is both possible and necessary for peace.

I agree with you on your idea of new policy and fresh approach to resolve the issue; however it is “WE – people of India include Kashmiris” who have to solve it. I would like to bring two points right in the beginning – first, when we are talking about Kashmir issue we are not referring to a landmass or geographical boundary, it is about people of J&K. Thus Kashmir issue is people problem and not a geography problem and thus any solution would need solving for people – all of us not for a group of individuals or defined landmass!  Second, we have to be very clear that any solution has to be based on the premise of unified India and the moment anyone brings an option of exclusion, he/she is talking about and invidious choice.

Not an isolated issue

We urge you to recognise that the Kashmir issue is not a peripheral or isolated one. You must understand and become seized of this important matter. In the past we made many attempts to reach out to you personally and apprise you of the Kashmir issue and the grim situation on the ground, but all these efforts were thwarted by the use of brute force and hooliganism, and on many occasions we were manhandled. The Kashmir issue continues to destroy life and obliterate the rights and aspirations of our people in Kashmir who desire only to live free, peaceful and dignified lives. The continuation of this tragic conflict is also a direct threat to your interests and well-being as a people. In one way or another, this tragic conflict directly affects all the other issues that are currently being discussed and debated in the election season in India. You have a direct stake in seeing that a just and lasting resolution of the Kashmir issue is reached. The conflict is not only a threat to millions of Kashmiris, it is a serious hazard for the one billion-plus population of India and for the population of the entire region. There is no better time than now to press your representatives to exercise their leadership to resolve the Kashmir issue.

Sir, with all due respect it seems that you consider yourself the only and sole representative of entire J&K. J&K comprises of Kashmir, Jammu and Laddakh region. When I was in Ladakh few years back I asked some locals about separatist movement in J&K and unfortunately 3 out of 4 people I talked did not recognize your name. Under these circumstances calling yourself that “you” reached out to government of unified India to resolve the problem can at best be described as your best intention and not a voice of the region. People of India is clear on this – separatist leaders alone do not represent the region. When you say “our people” you seem to be making too big a claim sir. It is difficult to agree when we see that the so called self-proclaimed representative of Kashmir “All party Huriyat Conference” has no unity and all of Huriyat’s individual parties have their own vested interest.  Under these circumstances it is more likely that you are worried more about your own interests – like Afgan lords- than our brothers and sisters from the region. I agree that you represent  a section of people but only sections of people and not the region, thus where we respect your voice and suggestion we cannot go by what you say. You still have to prove your credibility even as a serious and sincere representative of the people.  

A peaceful solution to the Kashmir issue would unleash immense prosperity and economic benefits for India and for the entire South Asia Region. Unfortunately, rather than pursuing a political solution in Kashmir, successive governments in New Delhi have continued to waste your taxes and precious economic resources to pursue a militaristic policy on Kashmir. At huge economic and human cost, this approach represents a failed policy. It has only ended up deepening the conflict. Today, it should be a matter of great concern to all of you that India ranks 136 in the UN Human Development Index (HDI), but has distinguished itself as the world’s largest importer of arms by a huge margin. While India’s economic growth has slowed in the last few years, arms imports have increased by a phenomenal 111 per cent in the past five years. This is draining your economy, while filling the coffers of other countries that are benefiting as arms exporters.

Indeed, the Kashmir conflict is a direct threat to your prosperity. With more than 800 million people in India still living on less than $2 (Rs. 120) a day, surely the estimated $37-47 billion a year that goes as military expenditure (which is 2 to 2.5 per cent of GDP) could be put to much better use towards initiatives to lift more and more people out of poverty. If the Kashmir issue is resolved, not only would this costly arms race come to an end, it would open up the multipliers of economic cooperation and trade. Certainly, ensuring lasting peace and stability is the greatest foundation for your future prosperity, economic growth and development.

Sir, here you are making important and relevant points. I agree that diversion of funds and money to buy arms in not well thought policy, however you seem to be mistaken by the fact that it is Kashmir which is the sole reason of this diversion of fund. As a matter of fact sir, your subtle reference to Pakistan’s interest in the region is relevant but only as much. I do not think an average Indian today even think of Pakistan as a potential threat – honestly it does not even appear in our discussion. Pakistan for us is just a nuisance and not a threat. We have far stronger neighbours to be careful of than Pakistan and thus this arm’s strength is necessary. You can see from recent Crimea example, a country without military and economic might cannot be protected even by the biggest powers if a neighbor is far stronger. As far as Pakistan is concerned, we are worried about two front wars – till the time it remains on one front, trust us sir, we are least bothered.  So the investment on arms would continue, however we must develop our own industry to produce arms and reduce our dependency on imports and I agree with you on that point.

As far as Human Development Index is concerned, yes we are pathetic and we are ashamed of that. Our corrupt politicians and bureaucrats have exploited the system for their advantage but to correlate it with arms import is nothing but a hollow rhetoric.

As far as few US$ 35 – 37 billion dollar of funds are considered, sir India is an economy of $4.962 trillion (PPP terms, Source CIA). Do you really think it is this amount which is causing the problem or it is the will of our politicians and policymakers? Let’s not even talk about few billion dollars sir – they are not even 1% of the economy. The real problem is the will and attitude of our politicians and not arms import. Though as an Indian your concern is genuine and we all share the same concern but mixing that with Indian people of people J& K is not relevant.

You must ask your leaders why after so many decades, military approaches have failed to resolve the Kashmir issue. Today, this conflict is a direct threat to the security and stability of the entire region. It is the main driver of militarisation and regional instability, and there is every possibility that the situation could escalate and worsen in the coming years. If the Government of India continues to avoid a political solution to the conflict, if it insists on the continuation of the same unjust and hegemonic approaches, it will spell disaster for the region. This beaten path has already proved to be a policy failure long back. Delaying a political solution has made the situation more insecure and unstable, and the conflict has only become more dangerous with time.

I agree with you. Yes, peace is important and a political solution is necessary, but it seems to me no one – including Huriyat is serious about peace as conflict is the reason for their relevance. It is very much like why NATO would never like to see complete peace in Europe and GCC would never like to see peace in Middle East as that would mean its irrelevance and end of its existence. So I think, it would be better first we all come clean on our intention. People like you are obsessed with the idea of J&K as a geographical region while the solution lies with the fact that a landmass is not more important than people inhabiting it. The day we all would understand this, we would proceed on the right path!

 Today, Kashmir stands as a potential nuclear flashpoint which could consume the lives of millions of people in an instant. 

I do not think this is true. This is just rhetoric. No one is going to use nuclear bomb for war. You are talking like a saint while you are just thinking like another Machiavellian character sir.  

Engaging in a costly nuclear and conventional arms race with Pakistan and continuing to pursue militaristic approaches in Kashmir will only add to these dangers. You must ask your leaders whether these approaches are truly serving your interests. Allowing a dangerous political conflict like Kashmir to fester is no way to ensure the security of the Indian people, nor can it be a path to a stable future for the region. The Kashmir issue continues to keep all the parties bogged down in a state of perpetual hostility and distrust. In this way, conflict has become the biggest security threat to the region.

Do you really seriously think that Pakistan is in a position to fight any war with India! People of J&K are our brothers and sisters and we would not like to see them under any pain. Even today, their pain hurts us all. While, certainly war is not a good thing but not having a war because it is not good is nonsense! India which includes people of J&K may prefer bad thing over nonsense!

Not only is the continuation of the Kashmir issue a direct threat to your economic prosperity and security, we believe that you have a real moral stake in not letting your government continue to pursue what is a failed and unjust policy towards Kashmir. Kashmiris have legitimate rights and aspirations. Attempting to suppress the emotions and aspirations of millions of people by force is no way to address a political conflict. Widespread human rights abuses have taken place and grave injustices have been carried out against our people. Crushing the democratic right to protest and express political dissent, restricting free speech, persecuting entire sections of the population, foisting black laws and continuing to keep hundreds of thousands of military forces deployed for decades on end in Kashmir – surely this represents both a moral and political failure. There has to be an end to all of this.

You seem to threatening people of J&K only sir. We do not have moral stake sir – we have real stake as they are our family members! Unfortunately you cannot see that.  Aspirations and emotions of the family members should not and cannot be suppressed. We are completely against Special Acts being used by military but we have to recognize that everyone is guilty except the people of Kashmir. Huriyat is as big a culprit as terrorist organizations operating from PoK. Why don’t you fight election, form a government, bring peace and ask the army to leave the state – you will find every Indian rallying behind you and supporting you. But no Indian which includes people of J&K will be happy to support you unless you come clean on your record. By sheer rhetoric, we fail to get impressed.

Please put yourselves in the shoes of our people and try to see the conflict through their eyes. Talk to any common Kashmiri and he or she can share with you the direct pain, injustice and indignity that people continue to suffer as a result of the conflict. Surely, you have a direct moral stake in ensuring that your government takes the higher road on Kashmir towards peace. Kashmir is a human issue and it requires a political solution.

Sir I have talked to Kashmiris – Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist - all! Pain is there, no doubt about it but unfortunately they are being used by all sides for their advantage e.g in this case you are using! Everyone in this world has some pain to share, only when we think that our pain is bigger than others we commit a mistake of hasty judgment. Our Muslim brothers and sisters are at least in their state, but think of our Kashmiri Pandits – they are living like refugee in their own country! Pain is there on every side so let’s try to put balm and not salt by comparing pain!    

Path of statesmanship

For the sake of our children, we urgently need to resolve this dispute. Instead of a festering quagmire, we should hand over to our youth a chance to shape a peaceful, hopeful and prosperous future — for all parties concerned — for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, India, and Pakistan. We believe that every party must put forward serious efforts to resolve the conflict. For peace, many barriers and obstacles will have to be overcome. Furthermore, any lasting solution must be a just one, and that necessarily means recognising and upholding the Kashmiri people’s aspirations and right to self-determination. In this regard, we are seeking only what is due to the people of Jammu and Kashmir as a matter of legal, moral, and historical right. The solution will have to be acceptable to all parties – India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

I agree with everything but your idea of self-determination. Unfortunately, your reading of history is limited in time sir else you would not have taken refuse under history. History of Kashmir goes back to several centuries BC and it was Ashoka the great who built Srinagar! But as we say, history never resolves a problem it only creates problems so forget it.

Right to self-determination has a legitimate restriction else, tomorrow you would like to form a separate “Mirwaiz – Kasmir”. The idea of self-determination will not take us anywhere as self-determination is relevant when it is about a landmass not when it is about people. We are not like Sudan! We are Indians and we have a civilization to take inspiration from. Throughout the history India has remained a concept – it was never a land mass. Unfortunately the idea of self determination in the UN was developed for geographical boundaries and not for us! We have to live together and help each other. We have to prosper together. We must work jointly; pressurize our leaders to find a common solution.

For long, we have hoped that India’s leaders would tread precisely this type of an approach — the path of statesmanship. We expected that your Prime Ministers would take bold decisions that would go against conventional thinking to break the status quo and resolve the Kashmir issue.

At various moments, both Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave us some reason to believe that an honourable and lasting solution could be achieved. 

It was Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee who went to Lahore and declared from the base of Minar-e-Pakistan: “It is my dream and wish to resolve the Kashmir issue.” It was also Mr. Vajpayee who spoke of holding unconditional talks under the ambit of Insaniyat and vowed that India "shall not traverse solely on the beaten track of the past.” He proclaimed that India’s leadership would act as “bold and innovative designers of a future architecture of peace and prosperity for the entire South Asian region." Similarly, on many occasions, in 2004 and again in 2006 from Amritsar, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh talked quite boldly about engaging in an irreversible process of dialogue to reach a political solution on Kashmir.

If you think, a bold step would be acceding to your demand of self-determination then sorry! They have taken bold decisions – what could have been bolder than a BJP’s prime minister going to Pakistan and promise to help in return he was gifted with Kargil! We need to be little mature sir. We cannot talk like children. This is a serious matter and let’s be serious about what we are talking here.

Period of uncertainty

Unfortunately, these visions could not materialise and the attempts were not sustained. For the people of Jammu and Kashmir, the first decade and a half of this century has only been one of continued uncertainty, human misery, unfulfilled promises, false hopes and failed efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue. Failure has bred cynicism and destroyed hope in Kashmir. The good intentions of your Prime Ministers aside, we regret that the peace initiatives proved to be too fragile and the process too vulnerable. Ultimately, these attempts were reversible. They failed to yield visible results and no progress was achieved towards addressing the underlying realities of the Kashmir issue. As a result, many in Kashmir have concluded that the Government of India is not sincere and has no desire to resolve the Kashmir issue. Today, many people are questioning whether the political path of dialogue and negotiation is the best way to seek their rights and ensure justice.

The Kashmir issue is where it has always been – unresolved and causing great harm, suffering and cost to all. Today, all of us continue to be held hostage to the past. In this regard, we must accept the fact that domestic politics in India has played a disabling role. It has held back leadership and statesmanship in India.

Whenever parties find themselves out of power and in opposition they have tended to take hardline approaches on Kashmir. When ruling governments face domestic opposition, they become unable or unwilling to do what is necessary for peace. 

Worse still, sitting governments even take hardline actions themselves that worsen the situation.

You are raising too many questions at the same time. Let’s stick to practical problems and find out the solutions. Bringing philosophical questions around human misery and pain have limited relevance in this case – though they would look appealing to many people. If I may ask you, who has not suffered in the last six decades! The whole mankind has suffered, Africa has suffered, Asia has Suffered, America has suffered but a lasting solution has been delivered only when people were united and not divided. I do not need to give you examples. Local and domestic politics has taken people and policies hostage everywhere even in the most advanced European countries – so what is so different about it! I am not justifying the point that local politics should highjack larger ambitions or aspirations. I am not saying that the points you have made here are not valid – rather they are very much valid but they are mere statements, where we need insight sir. An insight, which would provide light and not put off the already simmering flickering lights. I think we are blaming government little too much! Huriyat has also bowed down to Pakistani pressure – don’t they betray the people they claim to represent there! People who are serious about the issue and want solution should focus on what can be done rather than pinpointing one’s mistakes. 

     

Observing all this, Kashmiris have now realised that it is not at all possible to expect any sitting Prime Minister in India (irrespective of the party they come from) to pursue peace on their own. Individual political will and personal determination have not been enough to move the process forward. Therefore, in order to resolve the Kashmir issue, your elected Prime Ministers need the consistent support of the opposition parties and they also need active support from all of you – the people of India.

How could you even imagine that an individual’s wish would be accepted by all – no matter who he/she is! India is a democracy and any decision has to be taken through democratic means. If a question is being raised which in any way affect the integrity and stability of the country, no one individual or group of individuals should be and can be allowed to run the whip. Yes, our leaders which include J &K leaders as well and which include people of Kashmir as well.

Therefore, as citizens of India you have a vital role to play for peace in the region. Ultimately, visionary leadership and statesmanship in India will be enabled by your public wisdom and from your active support for peace. Whoever you vote for and whoever ends up forming the next government or sitting in the opposition, you must hold them accountable on the Kashmir issue. You must convince your elected leaders that the time has come to develop a peace process on Kashmir that is immune to domestic politics and power tussles.

Yes. We all are responsible for what happens. We all want peaceful resolution of the issue. We all would like to see that aspirations and requirements of everyone is met which optimizes the benefits for all.

The entire region is waiting for India to come forward for peace. There is already a broad political consensus in Jammu and Kashmir and in Pakistan that the Kashmir issue must be amicably resolved. Similarly, you must ask your leaders to develop a political consensus to resolve the issue. Let finding a solution to the Kashmir issue become a goal of all the parties to it.

In this direction, it is our sincere hope that you will raise your voices. You must press the elected leadership to rise above domestic politics and work towards India’s strategic and moral interests. Through your resounding support for safeguarding India’s interests in peace, prosperity and security and through your vocal support for justice, you can make a real impact.

We would appreciate your points here. I think, we all should try and focus on resolving the grievances of people and work towards optimal satisfaction, however we must appreciate that we as a country are struggling with many problems – economic, social, insurgency, terrorism,  naxalism etc. We would like all problems to be resolved. However, we must understand that for people of India issues related to tribals in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand or issues to insurgency in North East are equally important. We should not try to look at Kashmir issue as a separate issue. For all of US – Indians – Kashmir is an integral part of the country and if our brothers and sisters from the region are facing any problem we must strive to solve the problem – an Indian problem for Indian people by Indian people.       

 We hope that after the current election, those who are elected to power and those who are in opposition will all act in greater unison to move forward towards resolving the Kashmir issue. 

There must be a serious, result-oriented and time-bound process of dialogue between the leadership of India and Pakistan, and of Jammu and Kashmir.

We are a part of a family. Kashmir is not a diplomatic issue of land mass – not at all! It is about people of J&K and thus we must look at it as people problem rather than geographical problem and solving people is neither easy nor a science. Let’s focus on solving people problem one by one and not all at once – that would lead to more chaos! 

Let this process start sooner rather than later. Over an intensive period of one year, let all of the parties engage actively with one another. Let each party seriously consider whether they can find partners to end this conflict once and for all. We must all try our best and exhaust the possibilities to seek a peaceful solution. Perhaps together we will be able to find some way to take a historic step forward towards a real peace process.

We remain ready and willing to contribute positively and constructively towards this achievement.

Remember a best solution is an optimal solution! Amen!

Media - Elite Nexus

For the last few days the news around Mr. Ramdev’s declared fast to fight against corruption has gathered so much of attention that you switch to any so called News Channel you will see some coverage.
I have been watching this for last few days and interesting this episode has highlighted the rotten soles of few people who use so much of artificial perfume to suppress the stinking smell that otherwise would come straight from their rotten soles.
I have noticed how few people are trying to change the discourse of the discussion from the issue of corruption and governance to the anatomy of individual’s character. I am not a supporter of Mr Ramdev, rather I have several reservations against his approach, however I believe his declared fight against corruption can’t be and rather should not be looked through the assembly of character surgery equipments.
I saw someone speaking on CNN – IBN, about the accumulation of wealth by Mr Ramdev. According to the lady speaker, he has acquired wealth worth 11,000 crore in last 5 years, which, she is sure, comes from Hawala. I saw Mr Janta party president speaking “here is a Baba comes by his personal Jet”. There are many comments – mostly English speaking class – you can hear on the so called news channels primarily CNN – IBN.
I do not want to defend Mr Ramdev simply because I have no facts at hands to defend him. The points I am trying to highlight is the rotten scheme of things, which is like a nexus where media is a conniving party.
Let me help you understand my point. A war broke out between India and any other country in 2016. The war has come to point where India needs to use its newly acquired fighter jets worth over US$ 12 billion. Suddenly a “major activist” finds out that these jets were acquired by giving billions as commissions to few top brasses of military and the government. Now some are demanding that first have thorough investigation of the arms deal before applying the jets.
Let’s think this from another angle a sex worker from Delhi is contesting in assembly election against a persona with criminal background. Will you vote for the criminal against the sex worker if the criminal says that his opponent is a sex worker.
The point is who the hell these so called so called pseudo intellectuals are “a guy who is in every debate”, “a super model lady who comments on everything”. Someone on NDTV told that Ramdev does not represent civil society.
Hell with this civil society! I am from a small town – I don’t know what the hell this civil society is. I and 90% of my small town friends do not give a damn to English Speaking civil society. What we care is ‘right cause” no matter who brings it up.
Media is sold – sold to the advertisers – who are sold to politicians!
Rather than discussing the right issue they are discussing – “where did baba get money from”, “how is he spending money”, “whether he is teaching right yoga practices”!
Holy crap! Set up CBI enquiry for all these but for God’s sake do not highjack the issue. We in small towns – vernacular language people- feel the pain of corruption more than you all sitting in the TV studio and speaking in English. Please do not sabotage this issue of nationa importance. We small town people do not give damn to these so called pseudo activists, who talk big without doing anything.

My thought

when people try be cynical, the best way to reply is to talk fundamentals..
not to prove counter argument but to remind the basics...

Indian insurance Industry: “Success lies on the other side”

Anything and everything is growing in India. You open any market report and it will talk about how a particular industry is growing in India. Growth rate for any industry (except few) will be high enough to attract your attention. One such industry is Insurance. Insurance industry is fairly stagnant in mature markets. This industry has hardly ever produced exceptional return for investors, still it attracts investors – because it is “insurance”.
Insurance industry in India is growing at far higher rate than most of the other markets. Penetration is low – in non life it is very low-, which is an indictor that it will take years before the market reaches maturity. Growing economy and large population provide robust macro environment for the bright future of this industry.
However, behind this rosy scenario lies a chaotic reality. Indian insurance players are lost in the “labyrinth of numbers”. Every player is trying to expand in terms of size. However, most of these players are completely out of sync.
1. Why the hell you are wasting resource on winning competition: Indian players are competing against each other! They are wasting their energy in competition. Competition is inherent to any business without monopoly. However what Indian insurance carriers (both Life and Non Life) need is growth, which does not necessarily require competitive edge. Driven by mature market case studies and advisory firms, which are misguiding Indian insurance players by comparing apples to oranges, Indian companies are building their strategy focused on wining competition. In reality, in this market a carrier with sensible and focused business plan can grow at far greater rate for at least next 10 years.
What insurance companies in India need is two pronged strategy – business plan to access existing market and sound strategic model to tap latent market going forward. Indian insurers do not need to compete against each other to grow – they all can grow together.
They should dump this “fraud of competitive strategy” created by international advisory/ consulting companies and rather should focus on targeted products for untapped and existing market.
2. Isn’t it a fish market: Yes Indian insurance players are operating like fish market. Internal systems of the players are worse than even small grocery shop. One customer receives tens of calls from the same carrier – you receive call from the carrier to buy car insurance, you have already bought car insurance from. Internal process management such as customer acquisition and distribution is complete chaos. They are wasting their money like anything. Rather than wasting money on redundant processes and steps they can pass on the saving to customer through reduced pricing and can win customers.
Underwriting is archaic. Insurance is one of the few industries in India, which is still like third world industry. They hardly use any advanced methods of underwriting and renewals management.
3. Where are the right products: Indian players are not at all in sync with Indian value system. They are working on business model suited for fairly homogenous individualistic societies. Even China is not comparable to India for this industry. Majority of Chinese are Hun Chinese and use mandarin. India is far more diverse and value system differs dramatically across different sections. No one product will work in India. On top of that market that represents homogeneity is already captured by LIC driven by years of monopoly in Life Insurance market.
What insurance players require is products for heterogeneous sections of the society – they are still almost untouched. To bring such products they have to first segment the target group. In Insurance, Indian players should segment customers keeping different value systems in mind. This requires two level of thinking – how to make homogenous (upto the extent possible) groups and how can you approach these customers. Thus, this structure is far more complex than one can imagine. It can be certainly done be but that needs some expertise (I will not write on that).
The people who make strategy for Insurance players do not know 80% of India. Had it been other industry, one could have managed as 20% of India would capture more than 80% of value, but unfortunately Insurance works not on value but more on volume. Law of large numbers does not favor your lady luck if you are stuck with 20%.
4. Fabricated myths to cover lack of skills : “awareness level is low”, “people do not understand”, “most of them are illiterate”, “regulations are not favorable”. These are all fables! They have statistics to prove it, but in reality they are not just smart enough to think beyond traditional ideas. More than 600 mobile phones are there in India. Do you think all of these mobile users know how to read and write? Some people will argue that insurance is far more complex, but that proves my point even more. Insurance is so complex that it will work like a leveler. Most of the people – with or without higher education – are on the same level. What Insurance industry needs is many Intelligent and visionary leaders – not from Ivy League but people who know a small part of India.
More females voted in Bihar than male for the first time in last assembly elections. Illiteracy is far higher for females in Bihar. You need to know how to suit the value system, which requires simple but appropriate planning.
Players supported by advisory firms are taking refuse under statistics, but the real success lies outside statistics.

I have talked very generic and quite abstract in this article – not because specific steps are not known, but that’s with me and other people who do not take refuse under numbers.

Who want Peace in The Middle East?

Who want Peace in The Middle East?

Arguably, the most dangerous place to live on the Earth is Palestine. There is no “common noun” for this place on the Earth. What will you call – country, state, occupied territory or something else? It’s a place where people (can I write citizen), live in constant fear, trauma, uncertainty and chaos. Above all, its own people live in refugee camp. I remember from Steven Spielberg’s Munich – “how do you feel when you live like a refugee in your own country”. The statement said by a Palestine to an Israeli must have left indelible remark on the mind of people across globe. People are suffering, they are angry, they want to live like others in other countries, but it is just not possible.

All the countries across the world say that they want peace in the region, but peace is becoming more elusive for this part of the world which you can’t even see on the small sized globe. I would mention in the very beginning that Israeli claim of the land is not completely baseless (please refer the last part of this article where I have discussed early history in brief).

Palestine is not represented by its own people. Hamas, the most popular group in Palestine, is considered a terrorist organization. Fatah, the group accepted by West as genuine representative lacks credibility on ground. There is hardly any strong leader after Yasir Arafat, who himself lacked popular support during last few years of his career. However, Arafat can be said the only leader Palestine ever had. Current Fatah leader and president Mohamud Abbas is considered liberal and progressive but he lacks popular support. Hamas, too has distributed leadership (its top leadership was killed by Israel). But is lack of true leadership is the cause of Palestine pain – no.

Who are main culprits behind Palestine sufferings? The most obvious answer is Israel, but a closer analysis and understanding of the region and historical development in the region give a different picture. The main culprits are the so called main guardians – the United States, Arab world and Europe. Many analysts have already pointed this out earlier, but they have emphasized more on the United States. I believe the biggest culprit is the so called main savior – Arab world.

Arab nations proclaim to have been fighting for Palestine. They have created propaganda that they are the true voice for Palestine and the only well wisher, however in my opinion they are the one who have ruined Palestine. Arabian hypocrisy since late 40s has brought Palestine under such a situation from where only Prophet himself can save them.

I will deal with history in another section. Here, I will talk from the context of Palestine options. In 1947, United States passed resolution 181 which proposed the partition with two states, Jewish and Arab, with the Jewish state receiving about 56.47 percent of the land, the Arab state about 43.53 percent (Source United nations Website). Arab nations opposed this idea vehemently. Arabs were more in number, but Jews were getting bigger part of land and on this ground Arab countries were opposed to this division. At the first place Arab nations, never wanted a Jewish state, at best they thought of allowing Jews to stay inside Palestine as minority. But this was clearly against the doctrine of “Independent state for Jews” and as a result of Second World War, every country, accepted the idea of a sovereign state for Jews, at least in principle or out of sympathy. However, on technical ground it was derived from Balfour declaration. Balfour declaration was a British Mandate (Palestine was under British Rule after First World War). Balfour declarations had mandated for an independent state for Jews in the region. Arabs rejected this mandate on the ground that it was done by an occupying power and did not reflect Arabs opinion. This was valid upto certain extent, but what was the options available. It is very unlikely that Arab did not understand that not allowing Jews to have an independent state was not possible, also at a time when all major power of that time was in Jews support. Even the people across globe had sympathy for Jews. Yet, Arabs opposed the idea of separate Jews state. In 1948, Israel declared independence. War broke out between Arabs and Israel, and Israel captured 77 percent of the land, including large part of Jerusalem. The war resulted into mass exodus of Palestinian people.

Arab nations had attacked Israel, however it remains controversial who started the war. Whosoever started it, but it resulted into loss for Palestinian people. After the war, Egypt and Jordan occupied the rest of the area. In my opinion, it was obvious that Israelis would not have allowed so many Arabs to live inside Israel (in fact Arabs were outnumbering Jews), as this would not have served the very purpose of having an independent Jewish state. I don’t say what Jews did was right. It was cruel and inhuman – killing innocent people and forcing them to leave the country, however at the same time if I look from Jews perspective I get a different picture. Jews did it to secure their future, they were scared, and they had known that any place where Jews would not be the massive majority their future would be insecure even if they controlled the nation. Their experience during the Second World War had taught them this lesson. I believe, Arabs also would have known this. If they would have thought of Palestinian people, they would have first asked Palestinian Arabs to come to the area which was allocated to them by the United Nations. Arab nations should have helped Palestinian people to get assembled into their given territory and should have avoided any direct confrontation till the time they were completely sure about their position inside UN allocated Palestine for Arab. Arab nations fought for their pride and showed complete lack of vision and least bothered for Palestinian Arabs. In fact there was no consensus among Arab countries, which resulted into half a million Arabs leaving Jews occupied Palestine. The United States was in full support to Jews for obvious reasons. It was a time when, Arab nations should have shown vision, shrewdness and smart resilience, but they showed complete lack of vision and hardly thought of Palestinian people. A visionary leader would have grabbed what he could get, consolidated its position there and then would have fought for rest, the way China has done during last 60 years. In fact, after reading war history of 1948 between Israel and Arab (mainly Egypt, Jordan and Syria), it become clear that continued war could have given Arab Palestinians significant advantage and in the end they could have been in advantageous position to negotiate. Israel was not in a position to fight for sustained period, specifically if Egypt, Jordan and Syria would have coordinated well. However, Arab nations accepted cease fire at a time when Israel had acquired 78% of total Palestine and more than half a million Palestinian Arabs were rendered homeless. The point to note it, Arab nations fought in the name of Palestine but ended up destroying what was there for Palestine after UN resolution. Israel had consented to accept the division with some reservations; Arab nations rejected the division and in the end remained with less than 25% of Area and all refugees. Another point to notice, Israel had no friend country in the region and it was easier for Arab to fight. They lost the land in war; three armies fighting together could not defeat a fragmented, newly born small Jewish state. Because, even at that time there was no united front from Arab side and there was no strategic thinking and Israel took advantage of Arab’s internal chaos. Why should Palestinian trust Arab for help!

After first Arab- Israel war, Egypt held Gaza Strip and Jordan West Bank. At least 22% of land was under direct Arab control. Egypt began to improve its relation with Israel, however they soon realized Israeli intention and another war broke out in 1956. It was a diplomatic and strategic error on the part of Arab nations specifically Egypt, which resulted in another defeat thought not so direct and major. Israel had colluded with European powers and isolated Egypt. However, here I believe there was another angle also; UK and France used Israel for their advantage, which upset the United States, which led to Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, an Egyptian territory. Israel received guarantee for uninterrupted movement of Israeli ships, but I believe that Israel could have got this assurance even without going for war through US support and diplomacy. In my opinion this was a mistake on the part of Israel.

After 1956, Egypt started building its military platform with the help of former USSR. It had built, supposedly, regions’ most powerful Air-force. Many other Arab nations were also enhancing its military power. Israel launched pre emptive strike in 1967. It is famously known as Six day war. Egypt, Syria and Jordan were fighting directly against Israel. The war turned out to be the biggest humiliation and defeat for Arab nations. So called mighty air force of the region (Egypt) could not even take off! A defeat in war has no excuse. Many historians and analysts say that Israel had shown aggression. There are some records showing that even some high ranked Israeli did not believe that Egypt was in a position to attack Israel, but I find it difficult to digest that Egypt was building the biggest military power jut to show case them in the museum. Egyptian president was giving provocative statements. Arab nations had instituted economic embargo against Israel. They were humiliated twice. More and more Arab nations were signing defense pacts. Considering all the circumstances, it appears that Pre emptive strike was one of the most important military judgments ever taken by country which ensured Israel’s dominance and existence. This war left an indelible remark on the minds of Arabs, which I believe would remain till eternity. It is same like, we Indians can’t forget our humiliating defeat in 1962 by Chinese. If you read the history of Indo Chinese war, one thing is clear; there is no excuse for defeat in war. India had some advantage because of its vast mountain range, which prompted Chinese to return voluntarily, however in Middle East no country has this advantage of having difficult geographic terrain. A militarily poorer force had defeated advanced force, fighting simultaneously around the border. Did Arabs still believe that they would get something to Palestinian! Again, Arab countries started giving excuses. If you read the war history, it becomes obvious why Israel could defeat Arab nations so easily. Many analysts believe that Arab nations, specifically Egypt did not real war. Here also, Arab nations were trying to score over each other in the name of Palestine. Israeli military was no where near to Arab armies; still Israel defeated them all in 6 days. Arabs had shown again that they had no strategy, no unity and no vision. Many Arabs believe that US support to Israel resulted in their defeat, but they could not get USSR support, this was their failure – not an excuse.

Israel occupied entire Palestine after Six Days War; in fact it acquired part of Egypt (Sinai) and Syria (Golan Heights) also. Various plans and settlement schemes were prepared and proposed but nothing could provide any concrete success. Here also, no Arab nation was thinking for Palestine. They all were fighting for their own cause. Little consideration was paid to Palestinian cause.

The Six Days War had inadvertently done something good to Palestine. The entire Palestine had come under Israeli occupation and now it was easier for Palestine Arabs to push for their demand. They no more required formal approval from Arab Nations. This was the time when PLO came into action. Yasser Arafat had become popular as PLO’s chairman. PLO was regarded as terrorist organization by Israel; however it was recognized by Arab nations.

In October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel. Israelis were caught unprepared. The high mindedness and under estimation of Egyptian army led to major initial setbacks for Israel. Although, Israel could win its positions in the end, but initial success had given major relief to Egypt. It could regain part of its glory and made Israel believe that Israel was not invincible. The war can be said first strategically thought out plan by an Arab nation. The credit goes to Anwar Sadat, the then Egyptian president. This war was followed by Oil embargo led by Saudi Arabia countries that supported Israel in the war, mainly the United States and the Netherland. Oil prices increased by almost 400%! However, intense negotiations ended the oil crisis. Yasser Arafat was allowed to address the United Nations general assembly and PLO was granted an observer status. First time, something was done for Palestine due to Arabian efforts. However, Jordan had expelled PLO from its territory in 1970 as PLO was considered threat to the King. There were major differences on the issue of PLO between Syria, Jordan and other Arab nations. It was these differences and lack of vision and strategy that led to Lebanon crisis.

In 1979, Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin signed final peace treaty brokered by the United States. Egypt recognized state of Israel and Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. A country, which had been presenting itself as true savior of Palestinian cause, had signed the peace agreement without thinking of other Arab nations. He was given Nobel Prize for Peace in 1978 and he accepted it. Anwar Sadat was assassinated by an Egyptian army member in 1981. Here, most of the Arab nations condemned Anwar Sadat for his action; however I believe that he had taken a step which can be considered the most important in recent Egyptian history. He could realize that boycotting and denying Israeli existence was not going to serve any purpose. He could bargain with Israel. Israel had respected the peace treaty since then with Egypt. Sadat had used the United States as broker as no other country could have ensured that Israel would respect the accord. However, if we consider Sadat’s action from Palestinian perspective it appears that he least cared for Palestine. He definitely did a great thing for Egypt, but he forgot the fact that it was Egypt which had raised wars against Egypt on previous occasions in the name of Palestinian Arabs. Again, the point is where was Arab unity!. Who cared for Palestine!

During these years PLO had become very active. The infamous killing of Israeli Athletes in Germany was executed by PLO (however there exists controversy on this). PLO was initially operating from Jordan, where it had built powerful army of Palestinian refugees. King Husain of Jordan considered Arafat threat to his power and expelled PLO from Jordan. Later on PLO shifted its base to Lebanon. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon on the pretext of PLO threat. The invasion was followed by mass killing. Several thousands Lebanese left home. Israel army had committed war crimes, Israel accepts these facts but in parts. Lebanese invasion did more harm to Israeli reputation and probably for the first time popular sympathy moved away from Israel. Israeli defense minister was indicted by an Israeli commission and had to resign. However, it was a military victory and PLO was expelled from Lebanon. No Arab nation intervened directly; in fact there was fractured effort on the side of Arab nations. Arab nations could not secure anything; as a matter of fact a group which was fighting for Palestine was devastated by Israeli army. Saudi Arabia, brokered peace and international army was called to bring order in Lebanon. US created the propaganda that they were friends of Lebanon and trying to free Lebanon from Syrian dominance. However, reality was totally different. It hardly mattered to US, who dominated Lebanon till US interests was served. Saudi Arabia used it as an opportunity to strengthen its ties with US and increase its Arab prestige. Plethora of materials has been written on this invasion and anyone interested can read those views. But what happened to Palestine and Palestinian cause? PLO was fighting for Palestine, was there any effort to give something to Palestine – no (at least nothing noticeable). Saudi Arabia welcomed, Western forces in the region, but it was against Israeli occupation of Palestine!
Palestine continued to suffer till 1987, when finally they decided to take their destiny in their hand. First Intifada broke out in 1987 and a mass uprising against Israeli forces began. Palestinians had nothing to fight with but stones and some primitive weapons, if you compared them against Israeli weapons. This protest ran till 1991. Israeli suppression of uprising generated worldwide condemnation; of course most of the condemnation came from civil societies. The stone throwing scenes drew massive attention both in West and East. Although it was not exactly like Civil disobedience – Mahatma Gandhi Style- but it did leave an indelible remark on the minds of people – David fighting Goliath. The sympathy moved towards David (Palestinians) and finally Israel agreed to start peace process.
Israel agreed to talk to PLO and the Palestinian Authority was formed. PA was given power and recognition to negotiate on the behalf of its people. The Oslo Peace accord was signed by Israel and PA. Israel agreed to withdraw its forces (it never implemented the plan fully). It was the first achievement for Palestinian since 1948 and this was achieved by Palestinian themselves. The movement had given a clear message that the future of Palestine was in the hands of their own people.
The peace accord failed. There are so many reasons why the Oslo accord did not work. The reason of failure can be attributed both to Israel and Palestine; however Israel’s contribution was significantly higher. Hamas did not support the peace process on Palestinian side and there were many right wingers in Israel who did not even consider the treaty a legitimate one. Israel never withdrew from Palestinian territories (agreed upon) and Arafat also could not control violence. Here again, internal feud and differences of Arab nations did not allow Arafat to take full command. Many Arab nations did not like Arafat. Arafat had supported Saddam Husain on the issue of Kuwaiti Invasion and this had created major rift. Had all Arab nations acted jointly using their influence on the United States, the situation would have been much better after Oslo accord. I believe that the accord was a starting point to push their further. But there was clear lack of trust among Arabs. Even Arafat, was confused. He changed his positions so often, and this did more harm to his image as true Palestinian Leader. In fact, close analysis of the events during 1993- 2000, brings a question again – what was the core issue - was it existence of Palestinian state or non existence of Israel? Many people would say that these two aspects are interlinked but still there has to be one governing theme which would drive any movement. Some Arab countries were threatening to eradicate Israel and at the same time other Arab states were negotiating with Israel. Syria was negotiating with Israel on Golan Heights not for any Palestinian cause! Iran was helping (and still helping) Hamas, at the same time Some Arab states were with US on Iran issue as they perceived Iran as a threat.

Couple of years back, I had met an Iranian professor from Tehran University and had long discussion with her on Iran and Hamas issue. I remember the way she described Yasir Arafat “We feel sad for POOR Arafat. He does not know, he is being used. He used to be brilliant but he is confused now. Iran supports Hamas, as Iran has no other choice.” After reading various articles from different sources (and also some primary conversations with some people from Muslim world both Arab and non Arab), I could sense that there is no consensus among Arab world on Palestine issue and it is not clear whether they really want an amicable end to this conflict in favor of Palestine.

Second Intifada broke out in 2000, which was followed several discussions by different sections. One of the important events was Saudi Peace Plan in 2002. It was probably first of its kind and had some merits as it accepted the two nation theory in principle and it has so called baking of Arab League. However, it has failed to generate any result so far.

Yasir Arafat passed away in November 2004 and with him ended an era of Palestinian struggle. There is no leader of Arafat stature, although Arafat was also lack of popular support towards the fag end of his life, who can represent Palestine. Hamas has gained more popularity since then and controls Gaza. It is more popular than official PA president Mahmoud Abbas, who is considered liberal. Israel does not recognize Hamas and calls it a terrorist organization. This has resulted into catch-22 situation and Israel has been using this weakness of Palestinian and Arabs to wage war and atrocities against Palestinian people.

In 2008, Israel started massive offensive operation against Palestine, on the pretext of Hamas terrorist activities. Israel had full support of the United States. Israeli operation was condemned by several states around the world; however the condemnation lacked the intensity. The most important thing to notice was Arabs complacent attitude towards Israel. Some Arab nations were directly or indirectly (Some Arab national were saying this on TV), accusing Hamas for the catastrophe. Egypt deliberately distanced itself from Hamas till the offensive ended; however it started mediating later on. There was no unanimous voice from Arab World. Iran has been threatening Israel as if it would really eradicate Israel from globe. Israel conducted its full operation and killed many Palestinian civilians, the whole world was watching. Why didn’t Arab did something like major lobbying around or some financial muscle to Isolate Israel?

Actually, general Arabs were protesting vociferously, however their government were showing pusillanimity. This war showed clearly that the government in Arab nations and Arab nationals do not share same view on Palestine- Israel issue. It was clear that the Governments were acting considering their interest, and when I say their it means few vested interest of the ruling class not their national interest.

Arab League had established PLO in 1964 with an objective of destroying Israel through Arms struggle. When Israel defeated them in 1967 the whole equation changed and the country which was instrumental in establishing PLO, Egypt, signed peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Arab League suspended Egypt’s membership; however they failed to teach any lesson to Egypt. Yasir Arafat supported Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and in turn Kuwait expelled around 400,000 Palestinians living in Kuwait. Arab nations rather than teaching a lesson to Arafat, allowed innocent Palestinians suffer. At that time Arab world was divided on Arafat being true representative of Palestine. In 1994 Jordan, another country which supposedly always fought for Palestine and against Israel signed peace treaty with Israel without making any reference to Palestine. On the one hand most Arab states have been saying that PLO is the true representative of Palestinian people, but they did nothing to avoid Hamas victory in 2006. They could neither support Hamas nor oppose it simply because there was no unanimity. Iran has been openly supporting Hamas along with Syria. Since the demise of Yasir Arafat, Arab states, specifically, Saudi Arabia is busy bringing peace between the two Palestinian parties which has not given any positive result except some image building for Saudi Arabia in the West.

Recent time also saw new players taking center stage in Middle East like Qatar and for obvious reasons traditional powers like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria are not very happy with this. The United States and Israel would more than happy to have more mouths as it makes their task easier.

I believe the reason why Arab states acted so differently is the way these Arab states are ruled and the way resources are controlled. Almost all the governments in Arab world are running with American patronage – directly or indirectly. I always believed that Arab states at least controlled the price of Oil – the most important resource on the Earth- however I could see, that is just a perception. Arab nations hardly have any bargain power in reality. The cartel hardly works coherently, as every country in the cartel has its own limitations. They are mostly dependent on US even for their oil price!

Arab governments hardly reflect the will of its people. They are ruling as they control the means of production which have allowed them to control military. US want democracy everywhere except in the Middle East. RAND Corporation says, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman (almost all except Iran and few other countries) are friends of the United States. Saudi Arabia did not even allow human rights organization inside its territory till few years back. It is difficult for me to find any name which is worse than Saudi Arabia (don’t consider African nations) on freedom, human rights, rights for women, natural justice system etc. Kuwait has parliament but no political party and in reality there is no democracy and very limited press freedom. There is no press freedom in any Arab states (few have but not significant in comparison to Europe and Asia). Surprisingly, US want better government in Iran which is the most democratic among all Arab nations! The United States is fine with all these countries, but it has major problem with Chinese Tibet policy, Russian Chechnya policy and in fact it is concerned for Indian J&K, as it believes that human rights are being violated in these regions!
Actually, most of these Arabian rulers know that they are there because they have backing from West, specifically the United States. They can’t afford to disappoint the United States and the United States in turn can not disappoint Israel. Till the world was by polar the Arab rulers had some kind o backing at least some sort of unilateral action was not possible, however since the dismemberment of USSR, there has been significant shift in Arab policy towards the United States. It is fairly interesting to know that the United States sell arms to both Israel and Saudi Arabia (in fact to most Arab nations).

Obama could speak on everything when he was the president elect except on Israeli action in Palestine, as it was a state issue!
The biggest Arabian drama was recently created when Arab countries decided to gives billions of Dollars to rebuild Gaza, however the recent events made the intra regional differences even more obvious. In the name of Gaza, both Saudi Arabia and Egypt were trying to project its big brotherly role in the Middle East, which has received some threats from some smaller players like Qatar. The donor countries have decided to give billions of dollars to rebuild Gaza, but they won’t let this money go to Hamas. Mind it Hamas is the ruling party in Gaza. The question that comes to my mind is how can Hamas exist without Arabian support. It is not possible for Hamas to do anything without Arab support and Arab countries have no democracy where people can ignore will of the government at least on such matters. I believe, Arabs intention may be right at this time but their approach is again without any vision. They will again fail as they have failed on earlier occasion.
Many of you would have been wondering why I have not blamed United States or other Western countries, the reason for that is US and West has no brotherly affection. They are there with vested interest. With Arab world it is different. The United States and West will try for peace genuinely only when it fits their strategic goal otherwise they will not and all Arab States know this. The onus falls on Arab states o bring peace by whatever means. They have failed because they are divided, they have no vision, they have no leader of great charisma and the last but the most important they are not fighting for Palestinian peace they are fighting for their own existence- existence of the rulers.
The peace for Palestine will come only if they get a visionary leader of their own, who would act on the behalf of Palestinian people rather than a puppet in the hands of Arabs rulers. At the same time, I also believe that future of Palestine is tied to democracy in the Middle East and both appear elusive.

Note: this article is still being edited, so you are welcome for feedbacks.
Disclaimer: Everything written is my personal view and in no way related to the organizations I have been related to ever. I have not mentioned any source, as there is no unanimity of anything except the dates of events. I have used my own judgments based on the facts and analysis I have done.

Early History
The problem starts with “claim on land” in principle at least. Present day Israel and Palestine border with Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon (this is just for the reference so that you can imagine where it is). Whose land is this? At the time of Palestine independence and Israel formation, Arabs (Muslims) were in majority. However, Jews have established their claim on the area based on the 3000 years of historical account. Jews claim that Kind David and Solomon conquered the land in 1000 BC and Jews ruled the land intermittently till 586 BC (the exact period of Jews rule during 1250BC- 586 BC is not agreed upon). Thus Jews call themselves original owner of the land (if you remember Islam was not even in scene for almost another thousands years). However, Arabs refute this argument by saying that Jews were not the first settlers on that land. Prior to Jews victory, Cannanite civilization was in existence during 3000 BC to 1100 BC in the present day Israel, parts of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (the exact region is debatable). According to Arabs (also confirmed by independent historians and not completely refuted by Jews), original inhabitant were Cannanites (which is factual and not refuted by Jew either). But there are counter argument to Arabian logic (and I agree to it), Cannantes were mixed, heterogeneous society and didn’t represent any particular community which direct lineage we can trace (I don’t know any Cannaite who claims that Israel is his/her land!). In all possibility, Jews were the first people who established their rule on the land and exist in purity till today. So Jews historical claim is not flawed (at least on the ground of “first to come”). Again, just for reference- if we accept Arabs logic, Aryans from India will have to go back to their original land (if you believe that Aryan invasion theory of India is correct).

Does the eligible claim of first occupation makes Jews case strong enough to take possession of the land? After the fall of Judah (the last surviving kingdom of Jews till 586 BC), Babylonian rule was established. Babylonian expelled Jews and destroyed Solomon’ temple (Babylon was roughly present day Iraq). However, Babylonian rule was short lived (at this point), Cyrus the great (great Persian emperor) conquered Babylon and later allowed Jews to come back. This was the period of great many changes. Alexander the great conquered the land (331 BC). The history at this point is important but not so relevant in the context of Arab Israel conflict. The history becomes relevant in 70AD, when Roman emperor Titus, destroyed the second temple (first one was destroyed by Babylonians). At this point of time Jews started leaving their so called “promised land”. However, Jews came back and revolted in 133 AD (probably the biggest mistake). This time the then Roman king completely destroyed the city of Jerusalem and Jews were taken as slaves. Roman Empire ended and then Byzantine took over. Jews left the place to protect themselves. In 7th century AD, Muslims entered into the region. Again, history is interesting at this point but not so relevant in our context. Overall the region remained under Muslim rule. In 16th century Ottoman Empire conquered Palestine came (this included current day Israel). This was an important event from Jews perspective, as Ottomans were Turks not Arab. Thus, the Arabian claim to represent Palestine is brought under question by Jews, as Ottoman Empire ruled the region till its fall in the 20th century. However, this Jewish claim has few buyers. Even after Ottoman conquest of the area the region remained Arab by all means (except the nationality of the King). However, we Indians may have different perspective, as our claim to J&K is somewhat based on Jewish logic (the King raja Hari Sigh was Hindu who had signed the treaty). This is just to add another angle to analysis; it does not hold an analogy to the Arab- Palestine case as the context and background were totally different.

This was the overall background. Till the end of 19th century there was hardly any thing like Jewish state (at least on significant scale). It was Theodor Herzl who in his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) propounded the idea of Jewish state. The important point o note here is, Jews had already started coming to Palestine since 1880, and however there was no such thing as “Independent Jewish State” at least in public. I would Quote the BBC historical record

“The Congress issued the Basle Programme to establish a "home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured by public law" …. By 1903 there were some 25,000 of them, … lived alongside about half a million Arab residents …..then part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. A second wave of about 40,000 immigrants arrived in the region between 1904 and 1914.”

Beyond Roman Empire when Jews were expelled. History moves without much reference to Jews. There are few important points, though, Ottoman were not Arabs, Prophet Mohammed never visited Palestine, this is contested by Arabs, however the event quoted by Arabs regarding Prophet’s visit looks little too religious. During this period, the population was Arab, and there were very few Jews at any point of time. However, the scene changed in 18th century when under Ottoman Empire, emigrant Jews and Jews community started buying land in Palestine. Later on, there were some changes in the law that made it more difficult to for Jews to buy land (there is enough details and controversy on this), however Jews kept on buying land by other means.
Disclaimer: Everything written is my personal view and in no way related to the organizations I have been related to ever. I have not mentioned any source, as there is no unanimity of anything except the dates of events. I have used my own judgments based on the facts and analysis I have done.

Terrorism, Pakistan and Complexity

Indians will remember 26th November 2008 for next many years for obvious reasons. At least right now I can write “for obvious reasons”, as Indians (I don’t know much about other nationalities) don’t remember bad things long. Although it’s a different issue that their memory for good events are even shorter. For example, if I ask weren’t 30th January 1948 or 13th April 1919 more important, many Indians would find themselves puzzled. If we think the dates are too archaic to remember, can we guess why 22nd October 2008 is so significant. I bet most of us would not be able to answer with confidence.

All of us have been witnessing the media frenzy, mass hysteria and roaring slogans since 26th November 2008. This massacre took many lives, affected even more families and left an indelible remark on the minds of some Indians. The point of concern is not the cost but cost of bringing a mechanism which would avoid further such tragedy. However, there are things which we must think and analyze while we take next steps. I know, I can talk like this because I am not a direct sufferer; however I believe all of us have had our share of sufferings at some point of time in our life without exception.

There are many problems in the world and all of these are important. Every time someone raises an issue general mass backed up by media or vice versa demand solution. We always say that we know the problem well enough, provide us with practical workable solution. In most of the cases, it is true also. However, the point is if do we really understand the problem or it is just that we perceive that we understand it. In general, problems get manifested in some acts, impact or influence and it is these manifestations that we understand not the problem per se. Many people would not agree to it and they have valid reasons for the same. I don’t disagree either. There are people who understand but there are many more who perceive that they understand.

On the issue of Mumbai terror attack, the jury is out. Entire media and so called exerts claim to have identified the problem. Pakistan is the root cause so fix Pakistan and all other related issues will be sorted out. Public protests fueled by electronic media activism are saying “enough is enough” and they need concrete action. Politicians are under pressure to do something and so they are doing “something”. India went to the UNSC for ban on a group in Pakistan and they got it! Is everything so simple and straight? Do we really understand the complexity of the issue?

There is no doubt that lives are precious and people must feel safe and secure, but do we really know why we are unsafe? Wasn’t the attack in Mumbai (I hate using attack on Mumbai) the manifestation of the problems like all earlier attacks? I have been listening to the debates and opinion of the public, the high profile dignitaries, the ministers and the experts and it seems that fixing Pakistan would provide a panacea to this problem of terrorism at least in India. This time the United States, the UK and almost all western countries are with us. They all are asking Pakistan to act and this provides vindication to what we have been telling to the world for more than a decade! But why suddenly so much sympathy or support for India? Were lives in Mumbai so close to the heart of the US, the UK and other western countries? Is it because for the first time their citizens were targeted outside their home countries with such sophistication? There is no clear answer, at least I don’t know.

To know all this probably we will have to look into Pakistan. On the one hand, India says that civilian government in Pakistan has no real power, ISI is not under the civilian government, on the other hand we demand strong action against terrorist establishments in Pakistan from the civilian government. We say, these terrorists have supports from Pakistani military establishments, and the civilian government has no control over military establishment, then how come failure on the part of civilian government provides us with enough legitimacy to take action against Pakistan. And, the most interesting and noticeable point is the fact that the US shares our views on this. The point that haunts is, is this our view or the US’s view, and we are just a medium of expression. Some analysts say, any tension between India and Pakistan will weaken the civilian government in Pakistan and strengthen military establishment and extremist groups, which would turn out to be even bigger problem for India in the long run. Also, any real, potential or perceived problem on military front in Pakistan will jeopardize the anti Taliban movement on Afgan border. The point is, does not the US know all these equations. If they know, which everyone knows, they know, why they are allowing this tension to grow so far. Why the approach is so different than what it was in 2002 when the Indian Parliament was attacked. If we observe the recent developments, the US has given enough legitimacy to India to take any action by saying 26/11 been India’s 9/11. We all know, the United States can force the civilian government in Pakistan at the same time it has enough clutches in hand to make Pakistani military or even ISI to act. Can’t US influence IMF, can’t US stop arms supply to Pakistan. Can’t it take any action in the name of international threat if Pakistan’s nuclear capability goes in the wrong hand? I believe all of these are possible and part of several viable options. However, the approach is very different this time.

There are another aspect also, the Arab world have sympathy for Pakistan. In the Arab world (barring few countries) the jury has given verdict that the US, the UK, Israel and India (!) were responsible for the Mumbai attack. Many would find it difficult to digest that the US would annoy its allies in the Arab world at this juncture, when they are planning to leave Iraq at the earliest and that also for a reason which directly has no relation with American war in Afghanistan rather would be detrimental to their efforts in Afghanistan.

I believe the issue is not as simple and straight as we think. There is something serious and deeper inside. If we look at American diplomacy and historical records, they have not shown real friendship (here I mean long term) to any country except Israel, which is like a younger brother to the US, not even to the United Kingdom. If ever they have supported a country, there always have been strong American interests in the back. I strongly believe, America is not doing all this favor just for the sake of its words on global war against terror. American just can’t do it. The timing is another factor to look at; Obama will be taking over next month who has said that Al Qaeda will be the priority!

It seems that, America wants the civilian government to fail in Pakistan. This time they want this to be proven on factual ground and nothing can be better than the case at hand “Mumbai attack”, where a terrorist is still alive! The US know the public sentiment in India, the government is under tremendous pressure to act, act against Pakistan. Any other terrorist activity at this point would seal the fate of all major political parties in India, yes not just the Congress. Indian government knows another terror activity- major or minor- would happen, certainly happen and they want to act before that. They have already taken popular decisions at home by introducing new bills in the parliament, which got support from opposition parties. India has started showing its teeth and this time they threaten to bite. They have enough liberty both at home and from international community which factually have become just the United States. But, the point is, don’t Indian think tanks know the consequences of any military strike. Yes, they do know but there are larger things at stake. The US will allow this tension to grow at a point where, the civilian government would be declared ineffective and military takes over citing national security as a reason. However, this time it would not be a coup like it happened during Nawaz Sharif. America can’t repeat the mistake of allowing any strong man to take charge in Pakistan. This time it would be puppet, backed by the US government, which would allow full fledged American military operation inside Pakistan. America has learnt over last few years, “if you have to catch Saddam, you have to enter into Iraq”. But the question is what India will get out all these. Remember it’s the question which happens to be complicated not the answer. For India, anyone who can control Pakistani military and ISI would be better and they know no one except the US can do this.

The whole scenario might be even more complicated. But that just brings another point; let’s think well before giving verdict. I am not making any point for war or against war. The point that I am trying to drive at is things are not as simple as it seems. No matter what let’s take an informed and well calculated and prepared decision and for this there is nothing new to discover, we should just remember what has happened in the past. That would provide us with enough jurisprudence and ideas to form an opinion and arrive at a conclusion.

Feedback welcomed.

Indo US Nuclear Deal – Domestic Implications; Hurry up Congress

Indo US Nuclear Deal – Domestic Implications; Hurry up Congress

The India-US civil nuclear deal is finally close to completion with the US Senate giving a resounding 86-13 approval to the historic agreement. The deal was already passed by the House of Representative last week with a decisive margin. This brings a technical end to the process that had started on 18th July 2005, when The Indian prime minister and U.S. President announced an agreement opening up new avenues for bilateral activities and commerce in space, civil nuclear energy, and dual-use technology.

The deal also 123 agreement has been a subject to constant scrutiny by analysts, all out criticism by deal opponents and open praise by supporters. Probably the first time in the history of Independent India a government decision with regard to the foreign policy has been discussed and debated so much inside country (Panchsheel agreement can be an exception). It is not that before 123 agreement foreign policies were not debated and discussed but it always remained in the ambit of intellectuals, bureaucrats, government officials, political parties and over and above this, the debate and discussion on such policies hardly ever crossed the boundaries of big cities in India. Thanks to hyper active Indian media, electronic in particular, political parties specifically CPI and CPM and growing awareness of Indian middle class that the issue was debated on village tea stalls, small gatherings in towns, cabs of IT and non- IT companies in big cities apart from the usual places of discussion. Once my cab driver asked me “sir ye nuclear deal ka kya chakkar hai, ye government sahi nahi kar rahi hai lagta hai”! He was reading the news related to nuclear deal in a local Kannada news paper. I don’t say everyone has done that but certainly, and we don’t need statistics for that, there are many who have followed and discussed this. The most important part is that they are the genuine stakeholders who will be affected in the end.

I am not discussing the merit or demerit of this agreement, the point I am trying to make is, this deal will have long lasting and strategic impact not only on the International politics and India’s foreign policy but also the way these issues are understood and considered in the context of Indian democracy and vote bank politics where majority is still incapable of understanding even very basic implications of this deal.

The regional press and electronic media have given ample space and time to this issue to get it noticed by India’s more than one billion population. This issue is certainly not as big as higher inflation, terrorism and religious fundamentalism when considered as a parameter on the basis of which these people are going to vote in the coming election but will certainly act as a strong catalyst in deciding the final outcome. The reason for this is not the fact that this deal is very important and it has far reaching implications on India and Indian nationals, but the sheer form in which it has reached the masses. The way it has been presented and construed by the majority is completely different from what it originally stands for.

This can be a perfect example of, if analyzed properly by some able analysts, hazard of unregulated proliferation of mass media. As a result of uninformed commentators, news reporters, specifically related to these so called news channels, so called writers -ever ready to comment on everything, have spoiled the very spirit this India- US civil nuclear deal should have been analyzed in. It has been distorted and misrepresented in such a way that it has become an issue of jingoist vs anti nationals, capitalist vs communist, US vs Iran and much more something like these. Muslims (not all) are in opposition because the other party in the deal is the US and the US is considered anti Islam. Some Hindus are in favor of deal because Muslims are in opposition. Once a person told me that this deal was being signed because Sonia Gandhi was not an Indian! A section is supporting the deal because this will make India a superpower and one is opposing it because this will be the breach of trust with Iran. Brajesh Mishra, former national security adviser to Vajpayee government said to Karan Thapar in an interview that the deal was very good and probably the best that India could have got, however opposition would find faults because they were in opposition! This idea of supporting or opposing the deal on irrelevant points has taken precedence over the real issues that should have been noticed and discerned by the general public.

This has made the issue even more complicated and enigmatic for all the political parties. The main challenge for the parties is who manages the regional media better as these are the sources that influence the large voting population rather than the newspapers like The Hindu and The Indian Express. The deal has its support from urban middle class, which reflects and is getting reflected in the general reports on almost all news channels and in the newspapers, except few like The Hindu. Even criticism or skepticism for the deal has some positive and supporting flavor in English media. But as I said earlier power lies in the hand of regional press as they will have maximum impact. There is no clear trend emerging out of regional and local press but there is very little time is left for all the parties if they want to take any advantage out of this deal. The congress party is going to project it as a major achievement in the next general election but their poor hold on local press especially in North India can cost them dearly. They must learn from last BJP government whose euphoria over Forex Reserve did reach to rural India but their lack of experience in managing local media made that forex boon into bane for the party.

If Congress has to take any mileage out of this they should immediately pay attention to local and regional media where its oppositions have already made significant impact. In the end this deal is the best that India, considering its current position in the world, could have bargained for.