Google Games

An interesting fact from the google pages - as this article shows, Google shows Arunachal as Chinese to users in China; Indian to the users in India; and disputed to the rest of the world.

I thought I'd check it for myself at the maps.google.com instead. Here's what I see: All of J&K is shown as disputed, all of AP is. However Tibet is shown as Chinese and Taiwan is left to interpretation as it is not on mainland, hence no contiguous boundary. As it happens, google maps don't show international maritime boundaries. So there is no way of knowing.

Tomorrow if India were to claim Bhutan as it's own, would it be seen as disputed by Google? After all, one sovereign nation, India, thinks Bhutan is her's.

Another case: Srinagar is shown as India, Gilgit as Pakistan; and funnily enough, Siachen too is shown as Pakistan!

Further afield, in Palestine, the land between the '49 Armistice and the '74 Ceasefire line is shown under Israel, and not as disputed. It is occupied by Israel.

So, what to make of it all? Siachen is occupied by India, but is shown as Pakistan. But Ein Zivan, for instance is occupied by Israel but not shown as Syria.

Clearly, there is evidence to show that Google it towing the US line - it is in alignment with the overt and covert US foreign policy. It cannot be termed as business sense; it is anything but that. It is jingoistic.

So why can't India, a country that has some clout, not make it difficult for Google? China has. Israel has. Why should India be seen as pusillanimous? I'm all for making it tough for companies like Google - companies who, in the military parlance, are nothing more than mercenaries; ronin.

They should be treated as one.

India's 'new' military doctrine

This article by Dr. Maleeha Lodhi raises some interesting points.

The summary of the thesis is that India has over-reached and has aspirations that it cannot possibly meet in the future. This has been translated as a show of arrogance and misplaced self-importance.

There is merit to this argument. It is not for the first time that Indian foreign policy has been discussed  by people who should know better and by people who ought to be discreet. Our FO mandarins have never shied away from bombast. Pity! It does not behoove a country of India's pedigree to allow such loose talk from its elite.

It would have been far more effective to not discuss the specifics at this stage and to bend all the powers of the mind, statecraft and the military to achieving the vision.

However, let's examine the main points of the new strategy. First the cold-start doctrine. It's been in place since 2004. This doctrine is totally Pak-centric. And that is my first objection. When we sat down to craft a Pak-centric strategy, why did we not at the same time sit to design a China-centric strategy? Surely we have the thinkers in this country and enough experts in geo-politics and military strategies? It seems inconcievable that the only foe which has defeated us does not figure in our primary strategy. Well, perhaps the think-tank is and has a strategy; maybe it is chary of revealing it. If it is so, then kudos, well done!

The cold-start strategy itself has its pros and cons. The ultimate idea of creating smaller and more mobile 'Integrated Battle Groups' (IBG), capable of being deployed on the western front within 96 hours is a laudable one. Since it is being seen as an integrated exercise, the Navy and the Air Force will also bring their respective strengths on board. Whether or not we will even exercise this option and attack Pakistan is very moot. Perhaps a combination of political and tactical events may make it necessary - example: another Paliament-like/Mumbai-like attack by Jihadis and with Al Qaida being chased on Pakistan's western borders, India might think it is the right time to do large-scale damage to specific targets in Punjab or Sindh.

However, I doubt if we would ever think of a controlled strike as a strategy to retaliate against the game of attrition being played in the Kashmir vale - as this article from Walter Ladwig suggests. That game has become far too complicated.

Second, to the articulation of a 'two-front war' - Ms. Lodhi has a pathogenic dislike to anything that the Indians might want to say about themselves that throws them in good light. Is the 'two-front war' only a rhetoric meant to boast about our military prowess of handling two formidable foes at the same time? Is it not a reality for India that there could be a situation in the future where China and Pakistan gang-up on us? Is that too outre? I don't think so. In which case, is it not a smart thing to be prepared for that eventuality? If Raja Mohan is to be believed, the strategic think-tank has not been too active in making these plans. In fact, he raises a far more disturbing point: that under the current political dispensation we have lost at least two opportunities to stake our leadership in this region.

Either way, if there is a move to articulate our defence and offence strategy for the northern border it ought to be welcomed. One only wishes that not too much is divulged - or only misleading bits are divulged. We need to be far more crafty in dealing with China - we need to believe in Chanakyaneeti. The buff and raucous way that we behave in dealing with such matters needs to change, or it needs to be part of a brilliant side-stepping strategy to pull several fast ones. If the latter is true then even as I write and as we speak, we are being out-flanked by the FO mandarins. In which case, FO guys (and gals), Good show!

The only way to figure what is the reality would come from mapping the strategy to the purchases and from the recruitment and from the slow and invisible changes in the command-structure. I'll post something about this later - at the moment I don't even have the starting data. Readers are welcome to direct my attention to links and web resources.

Another angle to the Edwina-Nehru saga

Last week I read Pamela Mountbatten's interview and tried to map it to the generally-held view of the Jawahar-Edwina relationship. The general view is that it was an affair, kept under wraps, but plain for all to see including Edwina's husband. A film was almost made - and it may well be made in the future - about this torrid romance carried out in the heat and haze of Delhi.

Why would Pamela Mountbatten disagree with this version of truth and insist that it was not a sexual relationship but one brimming with love and friendship? For one, it may well be true. As in, really, really true. (Check this scene in Bend it Like Beckham, 2 mins into this youtube).

It is not a secret that there have been reports of Pandit Nehru having had gay leanings, at least while at school. Wolpert has written about it and many in India made a big deal out of it. Seen from that light, the Jawahar-Edwina relationship can be very well understood as that of a gay man and his fag-hag. It would have all the ingredients that Pamela has talked about - it would be intimate without being steamy, it would be deeply emotional, it would be physical as in hugs, and kisses and touches - but entirely without a tremor in the nether regions of either. It explains the equanimity of Lord Mountbatten, a handsome dasher if there ever was one, and an alpha male; casting an indulgent eye on the lady being frivolous with another good-looking man.

No one knows what the truth was. (Nor is it anybody's business, really. But it makes for interesting conjecture). I think it is sweet to imagine two grown-up people who are in love in the way that most people cannot imagine them to be, the fact that their friendship was 'more innocent' than what people thought it to be, and the fact that it probably suited the two (and the hubby) to let it be seen that way.

I wonder if a film will get made with this as the angle? To silence the critics who say it was sexual and to show how 'pure' the friendship was. How ironical would that be?

Am I the only one who thinks that this might be even more unpalatable to those who demand nothing less than perfection from our holy cows?

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: Connecting with our world

I met Max in 2007. He was in Mumbai for a 6-month internship. He is from Rennes. I got to know him during this internship - we would lunch at the same place. He came back next year with a few more friends. This time as a 6 week vacation. For the last 1 year he is in Australia, completing his Masters (and travelling all over the continent). In between he spent a few months vacationing in Portugal and Spain.

Jan and Tomas are friends who were in Brisbane along with me - all of us were there for some university education. I came back to Mumbai after my MBA. Jan and Tomas took a flight to Hong-Kong from where they chug-chugged their way in some kind of a pan-China railway stopping at all the interesting places. This railway met the Trans-Siberian along the way and the two transferred on and crossed over to Europe. They even made a detour to Mongolia!! From Europe they apparently made a brief stop over in Amsterdam and from there they went to Nairobi. Among other things, they hired a team of 12 helpers and mounted an assault on Kilimanjaro - burra sahib-style. The recce team would go ahead and clear the way, set up the tent, make the meals and drinks, smoothen the pillows and the blanket; and wait for the intrepid duo to puff in. Jan sent me a pic of Jan 'Hillary' and Tomas 'Norgay' atop the snowy peak, fluttering flag and smudgy unwashed grins and all. They went back home to Norway, settled down into jobs and are busy raising families now. Of course, they go vacationing every year - almost always to new, unexplored places and people.

Last year I was on my way to NY in a Jet flight. I was cursing my luck that I had the middle seat in the middle at the tail-end of the plane. I was greeted by a grinning, wire-haired, skinny guy who had pierced ears (3 places), pierced eyebrow (left), and a tattoo on the right forearm. His was the right hand-seat. Name - Rafael, Rafa. Percussionist from Barcelona. Rafa was in India for 6 months. Spent time in temples listening to panch-vadyam, attended all the recitals he could in Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai; was thrilled to bits watching pung-cholam in Delhi (I think). He was eager to come back. He loved every minute. So was he going home now, after six months of breathtaking excitement? No sir! He was going only as far as Brussels. Then he would attend some seminars in Netherlands and Belgium before leaving for Yaoundé, Cameroun. He would spend a month or two travelling along the coast - Accra, Abidjan right up to Dakar, meeting people, learning about African percussion. Why Yaoundé? Well, he had a contact.

There is a custom in Europe, Anzac and in North America for young adults, just out of college, being encouraged by parents, by neighbours, by teachers, by strangers and by the State to go out and see the world. To experience freedom, to face difficulties, to overcome impossibilities and come back enriched and hopefully, wiser. Or maybe to just let off steam, soak in alcohol and cheap drugs and cheaper sex. Whatever!

We seem to have the opposite culture. Start the career immediately after college, work, don't fritter away any time, stay at home, be mamma's good, dutiful boy; go vacationing to 'native' or with the family. If one is bold, then go with friends to Goa and drink cheap beer, ogle at whores (but do nothing), do a surreptitious skinny-dip for all of three minutes, piss on the beach in moonlight and come home braver.

Paul Theroux talks about interacting with the gentle and helpful Vietnamese, and marvels at the absence of rancour against the Americans. How I wish we, the increasingly boorish, loud and pompous desi would go to Vietnam and learn a bit of humility. And there is no harm at all in starting young - right after college.

A generation or two of our youngsters travelling across the world would change the tone and even the substance of national debate. This present generation is far more mature and open minded than any in the past; and they are, I believe, free from many of the baggage older generations carry. With rising prosperity and expendable income (thanks to IT and BPO) perhaps the generation of intrepid Indian youngsters is not too far away!

Surge forth, children! The world is indeed our family. Go, meet them.

India-bashing in Ozland

In the wake of the recent attack on the Singh family at the snooker club in the Melbourne suburb of Epping, I thought to check how the issue of racism is being seen in the Australian media and in the 'most popular' articles. Here are screenshots of all the major newspapers. The curious thing is that the bashing and the race-relations between Oz and India are nowhere in sight. The google news search shows that there are articles, but they seem to be tucked in the inside links somewhere.

Clearly, this is not something that the Australian media thinks is important. Maybe this has been drummed up enormously by the Indian media and the touchy, prickly, uber-sensitive student-diaspora in Australia. Farokh Dhondy's call to arms has made some news.

On the other hand, when I caught this headline in The Australian and this in SMH, I began to wonder if there is some meat to the vague suspicion I have that Australia is slowly disintegrating back into a racist society. Something that comes to it naturally, for Australia has been a deeply racist country till the 1970s. Notice how the word racist comes in inverted commas.

It is difficult to say for certain, but one thing that I have personally experienced in my 2 years at Brisbane, is that by and large Australians do not allow race-ridden thoughts to come to the surface of their interactions. Of course, there is a set of people who are openly racist (But then all societies have extreme fringes). However the point is, most people whom I met and became friends with, continued to be hesitant and strangely clumsy about making that unconditional connect that you make with a friend. Perhaps Australians are so used to the idea of White Australia, it is finally dawning upon most that it has changed and will continue to change rapidly, and that there is nothing that they can do about it. Maybe this is the last revolt against the inexorable march. Indians make an easy target; they are not as ghettoised as the Chinese or the Vietnamese, they are generally slighter in build unlike the Pacific islanders and Fijian-Indians (who, by the way, are far more aggressive and violent than Indians). Indonesians, Singaporeans and Malaysians simply stay out of the way and melt homewards at the slightest sign of trouble. But Indians are easier meat.

I'm afraid that the relationship between white Australians and Indians has soured beyond repair and it will take a generation to redeem it. The Symonds affair showed an ugly side of both our countries, the student bashings and robbings have got bad press, the worm of doubt has crept into the minds of fair-minded Australians and emotional Indians. This will get showcased in the cricket rivalry in all the series' to come.

It is only going to get worse.

Bangladesh: a new beginning. Or is it?

Relations generally improve when the Awamis are in power in Dhaka. So it was not a surprise to see Shiekh Hasina being welcomed by Delhi with much warmth. There have been equally warm and friendly overtures from Dhaka. The recent visit by Dipu Moni has trotted impressive columns in B'desh. Many commentators are positive about the goings on.


Shiekh Hasina's government has been more rigorous in rooting out insurgents from the hill tracts and have made the right kind of noises. No pronouncements have been made by anyone in the Hasina government which can be seen as 'belligerent' by Delhi. Likewise, SM Krishna has agreed to all the 'demands' made by Dr. Moni. So it seems all is hunky-dory.


The populace is much more cautious though! in fact, it is remarkable that today in Bangladesh, there is more support for Pakistan than for India. The dam on Tipaimukh has touched a sensitive spot in the collective psyche of our eastern neighbours. To be fair their experience of Farakka has been not too good - in fact it has been a disaster on most counts.

India has the chance to behave like a future regional power here. It can show some wisdom and be generous even. If it steamrolls Tipaimukh and causes another desertification in the lower riparian area then B'desh will be lost forever from our circle of influence. I hope we have the sense to be as sensitive to Bangladesh as we expect China to be for the dam that is proposed on Brahmaputra. We have been raising a hue and cry against the dam for pretty much the same reasons as Bangladesh's.

If we are seen as a reasonable and a caring big-brother then we will also be able to veer B'desh away from the Deobandi disease. This looking to the west, and to Arabia for its cultural roots is not more than 7 years old. Its still not widespread. One would like to think that the Bangladeshis will again remember that they are Bengalis first and shun this movement towards Deobandi islamization. What we in the subcontinent need is to rediscover our own links to Sufi and gangetic-islamism. For Bangladeshis it would mean rediscovering Baul and Lalon Fokir. We are after all, the product of what Saeed Naqvi calls, our ganga-jamni tehzeeb. And there are sane voices, as this article shows. But the problem is that not just the government and the bureaucracy, even us, the citizens of this country think of our neighbours with hostility, with derision and with contempt.

So let us make a start.

We in India need to start behaving like a great nation, and stop just expecting others to perceive us as one. We need to have a hard and critical look at ourselves first.

We need to start believing in our multi-culturalism, and not just tolerate it; we need to open our eyes to the parts of our country that we are unfamiliar with. Start there. And then look towards our neighbours with those opened eyes. Can those of us who are in the plains and in the stretch from Punjab to Kerala, for instance, put our hands on our hearts and say that we think - even remotely, briefly - just think of our fellow-citizens in the North-east? Do we think of 'them' as part of 'our' nation? Do we have the broadness and generosity to acknowledge that a person from Mizoram needs to be given the same treatment as a Tamilian, or a Maharashtrian gets?

For us to be a great nation and a responsible neighbour, we first need to set our house in order.

Resuming Talks

There seems to be a default assumption that talks should resume between India and Pakistan. What we hardly ever debate is this basic assumption. Why should talks resume? What is so pressing about talks that either Pakistan or India should take heed? Let us examine first the possible reasons why Pakistan might want to talk with us.

1. Pakistan wants to discuss Kashmir. Specifically, it wants to discuss the ways in which it will be possible for India to give up territorial rights over the part of Jammu and Kashmir that we control. Assume for a moment that Pakistan really is interested in that part which is predominantly Muslim - so the Valley, really. What does India think of this? No way! So out it goes of the window. Unless Pakistan wants to pretend to demand, and India, pretend to listen.
   
2. If giving up territorial rights to the Kashmir Valley is a no-go, then Pakistan wants to discuss ways in which India will allow Kashmir to be autonomous (much like Chechnya, Ingushetia, etc. We all know what happened there!). Again, what does India think? Mind your own business, Pakistan, it says. So, this one is out as well. Or the same humbug as above - pretend some more.


3. Pakistan wants India to not dam Jhelum and Chenab and release more water than now. The 1960 Indus water treaty is seen as unfair in both countries for exactly the opposite reasons. Since 1960, India, because of it having the upper-riparian and upstream systems, has created dams along the main and the tributaries feeding into the rivers. It is now in complete control of the flows. This is alarming from a Pakistan point of view, and exactly how we want them to be, from an Indian point of view. Over the centuries, land and water have been the primary cause of wars. This has the potential of being the number one issue between us in the next 20 years. India will extract the maximum bargain from the waters and will no doubt, try to do the tightrope walk to ensure that it does not tip Pakistan over the edge and start a nuclear exchange. Strategically, Pakistan is poorly placed in this matter. The situation is getting worse still because India has reached out to Afghanistan and offered to dam the Kabul river. This will mean further loss of water, this time from the western border. It is desperate times ahead for Pakistan and it has very few levers left. If Pakistan's planners are wise, they would focus all their attention on this issue. Kashmir, while a popular refrain, is not as important. Yes, if the Kashmir valley goes over to Pakistan then it will have more say in the river systems, specially Indus. But India will never allow the Simla LoC to change. Hence it is not a gettable target for Pakistan. Which is why it makes so much sense for the planners and strategists in Pakistan to come up with an imaginative river sharing solution. War-mongering, aggression, complaining, none are going to work in the next, maybe 30 years to come. That is so because India will be the frontier nation along with China for most trade and wealth creation.


4. Pakistan wants India to stop interfering in Baluchistan and Sindh. While this was not a concern for Pakistan for all these years, it will now become one. Simply put, India did not really have a foothold in either of those provinces. It had a espionage network that it dismantled in the 90's (thank you, Mr. IK Gujral!), and now, nothing. However, Afghanistan is turning out to be an interesting case. With US blessings, India is slowly getting to be a 'legit' player in the geo-politics of Afghanistan. India is sure to leverage this entry it has got by means of, 'rebuilding Afghanistan' (and a mere $1billion) and surround Pakistan. It won't be too long when India will work with Iran and further get a grip around Pakistan. Shia Iran is no supporter of a majorly Sunni Pakistan. Here too, Pakistan is poorly placed to get any leverage. Plus, both the military and the ISI have played their cards wrong - they have not been long-sighted and have learnt nothing from the past, especially the colonial past. Too much reliance has been placed on the fortuitous Russian faux-pas, and the consequent Taliban movement. It stands increasingly isolated now. China can't help even if it wants to; and China is already re-evaluating its options. It will not jeopardise the possible economic benefits of being friendly to India (albeit reluctantly) for siding with an ally like Pakistan. It will be too costly. China will, no doubt, continue to surround India and 'show her its place' at every given opportunity, however, it will also build economic bridges, or more specifically, mutual dependence on natural resources like oil and minerals.

What does India want to talk about?

1. India wants Pakistan to stop supporting the Islamic terrorists and wants the state instruments like the military and the ISI to stop planning and conducting terror attacks across India. This is not going to happen as long as Pakistan exists as we know it today. In my earlier blog I have written why. In a single line: a united and secular India negates the need for Pakistan to exists as a separate nation.


2. India wants Pakistan to give each other MFN status and build trading links. This may start happening now. The military establishment might object, as it always has. People getting closer will not fit into the stratagem of fostering hatred. It won't happen if the civilian government (when it is in a position to rule) makes Kashmir a precondition. There is nothing to discuss about Kashmir.


3. India wants Pakistan to not veto its membership to OIC and not ask allies to veto us either. In short, India thinks that being the country with the second largest Muslim population makes her an automatic candidate for OIC. Considering countries like Togo make the list, its scandalous that India is not in the club. Of course, Pakistan will veto every time. If it does not, it undermines the notion of its existence.


4. India wants Pakistan to shut its ISI operations in Nepal and Bangladesh. Not one of the three countries will oblige India. India has not been a responsible big brother and this is the price we have paid and will continue to pay.

So what do we have? A very, very limited list of essential items to discuss. How long should it have taken? 5 years? Maybe 10? But 50! Is it possible that the talks are a big hoax? Examine - apart for the UN tribunals that handed bits and pieces to the two countries, nothing substantial has ever been agreed and followed. The LoC has stayed, more or less, with seasonal incursions; but the water treaty has never worked, there is no provision for visitor visa for citizens of either country; there is no overarching trade agreement, there is no cultural exchange blue-print; students cannot study in each other's educational institutions. It is clear that ours is an unhealthy relationship. No positives can emerge from this morass.

For that to happen, we need to restart. With no assumptions. No baggage of the past. Only looking ahead. If this is simplistic, then it is. Why can we not try? After all, we are neither brothers nor neighbours. We are just enemies now. We have nothing more to lose.