Middle East

Modi and calculus behind “no” on Jerusalem

(This is a reprint from NewsBred).

There’s been a disquiet in India’s public space over Modi government’s rejection of US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital in a United Nations General Assembly resolution recently.

This disquiet has grown to anger after Palestinian envoy in Islamabad was seen in the company of Mumbai attack mastermind and global terrorist Hafiz Saeed in Rawalpindi though a strong protest by India since then has led to envoy’s recall to home by the Palestinian Authority.

The erudite supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi are questioning why he would stand with the Palestinian cause and vote against US, and Israel,  having worked so hard to get both of them eating out of his hand lately.

Modi had become the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel in July 2017 and the latter’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to visit India in the first fortnight of the new year.

Israel’s support in the realm of technology, agriculture, security and defense has ramped up significantly in recent times and Trump misses no opportunity to gush over India and its leader.

The rabid supporters of BJP are aghast why their government would stand by “ungrateful” Muslims while it’s erudite patrons are questioning why New Delhi didn’t abstain from voting as 35 others had done.

Adding to the chill is US ambassador to UN Nikki Haley’s crude words “…this vote will make a difference…on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the UN.” Trump threatened to cut down funds to those who opposed him and Netanyahu called the UN a “a house of lies.”

The truth is, India did everything right on all three counts which should matter for the country: beneficial, practical and moral.

About 19 per cent of India’s total world trade is accounted for in the Middle East (as compared to nearly 1 per cent with Israel) which ought to halt in track the juggernaut of criticism. Such scales of benefit could only be denied by fools, if not blind.

The practical takeaways, if anything, are bigger. US has fallen flat on its face in West Asia and its strategy to sow discord and anarchy through Iraq invasion and conduits for the growth of Islamic State (IS) has been successfully reversed by Russia, in alliance with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. So much so that even a traditional US supporter Turkey is on the opposite side of the fence.

The vacuum of US in the Middle East would soon be filled up by Russia in alliance with China which is using its typical trade and infrastructure growth route to look for strategic stranglehold in the region. India would be foolish to be seen standing in opposition to the new Big Boys in the region. India can’t overlook the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) too which would encircle it in an iron clasp more so since China is parking itself on ports of Sri Lanka. Letting go of West Asia at this stage would be a suicide, no less.

By rejecting the Trump’s move on Jerusalem, India is also letting the world know of its independence lest it be seen as a US lackey. It would earn India respect and a sense among its friends that it’s a principled ally. Further, India can’t allow itself to be bound by Trump’s often hasty and boorish decisions.

Absentation would’ve been a paper umbrella—only giving the notion of protection against a downpour. It would still have earned a scorn from the free world, without quite endearing it to US or Israel. Worse, it could’ve emboldened them to see if they could kick around India in future.

India’s decision to stand on its moral compass would draw a host of lesser nations in its orbit. Forget criticism, Modi government’s move deserves a standing ovation.

To brush up history for the uninitiated, Israel has been controlling the eastern Jerusalem since the 1967 six-day war. It’s being sought by the Palestinians as the capital for its future state.

’57 Mutiny Day: It’s modern relevance

To this very day, May 11, 1857, Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar received a few hundreds of East Indian Company cavalrymen in Red Fort, Delhi who sought his blessing to throw out the yoke of British rule in India.

As a letter from one of the rebels’ leaders put it: “The English are people who overthrow all religions…As the English are the common enemy of both (Hindus and Muslims), we should unite in their slaughter…By this alone, will the lives and faiths of both be saved.”

This heralded the start of the greatest revolt against colonial powers, English or otherwise, of the 19th century. Practically everyone in the Bengal army turned against their British officers. Civilian unrest soon kicked in in support of the rebelling sepoys across the country.

The discontent had been building to a climax. The British, who arrived as traders in the 17th century, showed their true colours by the 18th. Britain wanted to dominate the world and be the sole global power in a new British century. Lord Wellesley, governor general of India from 1798-1805, vowed to remove any European or Muslim regime which became an obstacle to this dream.

So fervent was this ambition, the so-called Forward Policy, that Britain pulled out all stops to bring the “jewel” India under complete subjugation. Local laws were abolished. A massive drive began to turn the “godless natives” into Christians.

The building discontent had more than one dimension to it. Along with interference in local customs and evangelical drives, Indians resented the use of English in schools as well as the coercive powers of judicial- social interventionist methods.

Indian industries lay in ruins. Handicrafts and agriculture only caused indebtedness. The “gang” of money lenders, such as landlords and zamindars, had joined hands with the Britishers.

So insistent were British in bringing “sovereign” Muslim native rulers under its yoke that they manipulated and spread all kind of lies. In order to annex the flourishing Avadh region, they produced a “fake dossier” before parliament. It was so full of distortions and lies that one British officer, involved in the operation, termed it as “a fiction of official penmanship.” The locals though preferred the  “slandered regime” of the Nawab…to rose-coloured government of the company,” as the official put it.

This combustible situation needed a spark and it was provided by the greased cartridge affair. The revolt spread quickly, a tribute to the secrecy with which the uprising had been planned. British asserted its force by September, British forces attacked Delhi, already under the siege. The massacre included those of ordinary citizens. In one neighbourhood, Kucha Chelan, 1400 unarmed locals were hacked to death. Delhi was pillaged torched, completely ruined by the vengeful foreigners.

Emperor Zafar was trialed and hanged. He was slapped with an absurd charge: A Muslim conspiracy to subvert the entire British Empire, stretching from Mecca and Iran to Delhi. The fact that it was an uprising largely planned by Hindu sepoys was conveniently ignored.

The outcome is well-documented: The 1858 Government of India Act ensured that the control was passed on from East India Company into the hands of the British Empire. The make-up of military forces was dramatically altered. The rule was so heavy-handed that between 1858-1947, there were only 20 minor mutinies mounted by Indian regiments.  But coercive methods also sparked an awakening of Indian nationalism and the signs of an emerging modern India was everywhere—in schools, colleges, universities.

Britain couldn’t have afforded to let India go. It was a major destination of investment for traders and bankers. The high-growth sectors were rail, tea and cloth. The British was unwilling to allow India, the “great barracks whose taxpayers supported up to half of the British regular army” to slip out of its grasp.

As in now, there is striking similarity in West’s methods. Like today, the rulers blamed it on “Muslim fanaticism.” They termed their opponents as “incarnate fiends,” Their heavy-handedness bears a striking resemblance to the present tale in Middle East and elsewhere. The intrusion has radicalized the people against them, like it was in 1857.

Who’s doing the PR for Dolkun Isa?

Be ready to see from tomorrow our newspapers painted red with India’s “freedom” brigade outraged at the denial of visa to Dolkun Isa.

The first stone will be cast in the Indian Parliament–having just begun its session–where the issues of drought and natural disasters, jobs and economy will be cast aside as our elected representatives will fall over each other at the terrible “intolerance” of Modi government on Isa affair.

A few predictions: Barack Obama or Melinda Gates would express concern; British parliamentarians would plan to send a delegation on human rights to India; and European Union would worry over what has come over Gandhi’s land.  You already know who would “condemn,” “criticize” and “allege” against Modi in screaming headlines on front pages tomorrow on.

No one would bother to check a few basic points: (a) Isa has an Interpol alert against him; (b) his visa application had flouted the norms and (c) India could have been seen as supporting terrorism.

There’s no reason to bait China who has never pricked India with conferences of Maoists, Naxalites and northeast rebels in its cities.

And what’s such a big deal about blocking “Azhar” being termed a terrorist at the UN forum? UN has blacklisted many terrorist organizations but neither their funding nor recruitment has been affected.

More than symbolic gestures, it’s important to understand the geopolitical reality. China desperately needs Pakistan and its Gawadar port for secure supply of its energy resources from the Middle East. It has a legitimate ground on the Dalai Lama issue, if not the NorthEast border disputes. It hasn’t hosted our “rebels” or “Hurriyat” leaders.

There’s a lot to gain if India and China build bridges and align themselves on major issues to save Asia from imperialist designs which comes in the form of “free trade” these days. That China and India agree on the point of Isa is unacceptable to Western powers and its captive, servile media.

Want an evidence? Just google search on “Isa and denied Indian visa.” You would squirm with unease on lengthy stories in New York Times and big digital outposts such as The Wire. Most media “heavyweights” have not only written thousands of words on the matter but have also been able to dial Isa for his reactions.

Most media outlets, including Indian media, have been able to phone Isa and get his reaction. A great PR agency has clearly been working round the clock on behalf of Isa to international press. Who’s behind such well-oiled publicity machine is easy to guess.

That alone ought to tell you the jitters in the West at the slightest hint of India and China drawing closer to each other. The forums of BRICS and SCO is simply unpalatable to them. A great game is being played in Asia and at stake is the hegemony of the world’s superpower.

Silly me to have presumed that you already know about Dolkun Isa issue. Mr Isa, 48, is a leader of the World Uyghur Congress, a Munich-based group that wants independence for Xinjiang, a region of western China, home to a large population of Uyghurs, mostly Muslim ethnic minority. He now lives in Germany.  Isa feld China in 1994.

And here’s the punch: In all this chest-thumping and anguish on Isa, no newspaper has bothered to inform us about the exact nature of conference in Dharamshala. Well, here it is: it’s being organized by a Washington-based (sigh) NGO, “Initiatives for China,” which is run by Yang Jianli, Harvard mathematician and a prominent Chinese pro-democracy leader.

Do you see the connection? If not yet then start writing down the names of all those who hit out against the Modi government and whom you read from tomorrow on in our newspapers. These would be the politicians, academicians and journalists who are paid in cash or kind to subvert the nation.

Does Europe have a future?

Does Europe have a future?

The very question signifies a collective entity and in that sense, the answer is an emphatic NO.

The presumption that it also includes Russia and its borderlands—strictly Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan—was already a NO before the question was asked.

Physically, Russia and its borderlands are part of Europe but never considered such by Western Europe or for that matter United States. The subservient  mass media ensured it remained the “other” Europe.

Know your Europe, folks.

But this official Europe—defined as a unit by European Union (EU) and Euro—is finished. You could have a chance to offer a formal digital condolence in years to come though within your heart you know its dead.

This seed of destruction was sown in the hubris following the demise of Soviet Union in the 1990s. Both US and Europe wanted to run the world. Their democracy, institutions, trade rules, all stood vindicated. This model needed replicating. They thus sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.

This urge for prototypes led to the creation of European Union. Originally six countries had come together to produce and market steel and coal. But the Maastricht Treaty (1992) led to an overreach which now has 28 members in its fold. The creation of a single currency Euro followed before the 90s were out. The idea was to create a supranational entity with the vision of a political union somewhere in future.

This was the original mistake. European Union had been formed to ride over nationalism. But its new Eastern members had just been out of the Soviet Union umbrella. They wanted more of nationalism. Any decision could become victim of a single veto. Any progress was thus stalled from its very inception.

The EU bosses also hadn’t factored in the mood of citizens who could hold their governments in a bind. More than two-thirds of EU citizens were found by PEW Research Centre to distrust EU.  Nearly 70 percent Europeans believed their voices didn’t count in EU.

Tigers and sheeps have an existential issue inside a wall.  They never live in harmony, but for in Disney. Germany’s GDP is  hundreds of times bigger than that of a Malta. Sweden and Latvia are no match. The hierarchy—and thus the distrust—became obvious. The notion of equality was shown the first door.

The creation of Euro was an original sin. It’s basis was the vision of a future political union–It wasn’t an economic decision by far. All the bosses wanted was a solid integration of history’s “bad boy” Germany into the fold. They also wanted to match dollar.  But without political cohesion, it was a no-go from the start.

Ironically, the clever-by-half bosses felt a crisis could actually help forge the political union. They actually welcomed such a situation. Common banking and fiscal policies were thought to usher in a supra-central bank. They just believed a crisis would throw up a solution but had no idea what it could be.

Then came the 2008 financial meltdown. It’s been over seven years now. The deck is still on fire and attempt to douse it by papering over the Euro hasn’t worked. While they worked on saving the boat, a storm raged in not too far-away horizon of Middle East by way of wars and terrorism. Arab Springs, China, Russia, Syria all chipped away at the base. European capitals became unsafe, refugees came flooding in, paranoid and xenophobia bared its fangs.

The paralysis further eroded the confidence in Europe’s future. Germany first welcomed and then withdrew from the refugee problem. Hungary only wanted Christians. Fellow EU members (Croatia vs Hungary for instance) chirped away at each other.

This official Europe had further shot itself in foot on Ukraine. They offered moon to Ukraine but didn’t want to make allowance for Russia’s insecurity at its border. Ukraine almost has now turned into a failed state. As Henry Kissinger famously said: “both(East and West) want to make it an outpost for themselves—whereas it should’ve been a bridge”—or words similar to that effect.

Citizens again were in a disconnect on Ukraine. While Russia was drummed up as a threat, the polls showed that only 4 out of 10 Germans conformed to the viewpoint. And here’s the interesting bit: More than half in Germany, France and Italy believe NATO shouldn’t use weapons against Russia to defend other nations. As Stephen P Malt famously said: “It’s not a message you want to hear if you are an Estonian.”

Simply put, EU wants a European first and a French later. The public view is diametrically opposite. Schengen Visa, an admirable move, is in tatters. The demographic implosion is at hand. Europe’s population is declining at an alarming rate. So is the staggering 25 percent unemployment on average in Eastern and Southern Europe.

If another round of Greek crisis erupts in future—which it would given the austerity regime imposed on it—then all hell would break loose. If Greece quits, EU and Euro could unravel rather quickly.  Europe, as it is, is rather uneasy at United States’ “Pivot to Asia.” Not to forget their preoccupation with Syria and Middle East. Their big daddy United State is unhappy on its own part given how eager France and Germany are to sell military hardware to Beijing. The track record of NATO—with its debris in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya—hasn’t boosted the morale either.

The biggest challenge above all is Europeans’ complete distrust of their current rulers. There are no bright leaders like Europe had in Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle when Europe was trying to stand on its feet after World War II. The rise of far right parties like National Front of Marine le Pen in France could reach a critical mass.

Yes, Europe has an outstanding ability to reconstruct itself. But to do so, it self-destructs itself regularly.