युवक.................बलवंत सिंह(भगत सिंह)

शहीदे आजम भगतसिंह आज भी युवकों के अनंत प्रेरणास्रोत हैं। यह लेख "साप्ताहिक मतवाला" (वर्ष 2, अंक सं.38, 16 मई, 1925) में बलवंत सिंह के नाम से छपा था। केवल 17 वर्ष कुछ महीने की उम्र में हिन्दी में लिखा यह लेख भगतसिंह की भाषा के ओज और लालित्य की एक मिसाल तो है ही, युवाशक्ति के दिशा बोध के लिए भी एक प्रेरक बिन्दु है। यहां हम आज के युवाओं के लिए भगतसिंह की प्रेरक स्मृति के रूप में लेख का संपादित अंश प्रकाशित कर रहे हैं। इस लेख की चर्चा "मतवाला" के सम्पादकीय कर्म से जुड़े आचार्य शिवपूजन सहाय की डायरी में भी मिलती है। लेख से पूर्व यहां "आलोचना" में प्रकाशित डायरी के उस अंश को भी उद्धृत किया जा रहा है। -स.

आचार्य शिवपूजन सहाय की डायरी का अंश (पृष्ठ 28)

भगतसिंह ने "मतवाला" (कलकत्ता) में एक लेख लिखा था, जिसको संवार-सुधारकर मैंने छापा था और उसे पुस्तक भण्डार द्वारा प्रकाशित "युवक साहित्य" में संग्रहीत भी मैंने ही किया था। वह लेख बलवंत सिंह के नाम से लिखा था। क्रांतिकारी लेख प्राय:गुमनाम लिखते थे। यह रहस्य किसी को ज्ञात नहीं। वह लेख युवक-विषयक था। वह लाहौर से उन्होंने भेजा था। असली नाम की जगह "बलवंत सिंह" ही छापने को लिखा था।

-आलोचना-67/वर्ष 32/

अक्तूबर-दिसंबर, 1983

युवावस्था मानव जीवन का वसंतकाल है। उसे पाकर मनुष्य मतवाला हो जाता है। हजारों बोतल का नशा छा जाता है। विधाता की दी हुई सारी शक्तियां सहस्र धारा होकर फूट पड़ती हैं। मदांध मातंग की तरह निरंकुश, वर्षाकालीन शोणभद्र की तरह दुद्र्धर्ष, प्रलयकालीन प्रबल प्रभंजन की तरह प्रचंड, नवागत वसंत की प्रथम मल्लिका कलिका की तरह कोमल, ज्वालामुखी की तरह उच्छृंखल और भैरवी संगीत की तरह मधुर युवावस्था है। जैसे क्रांतिकारी की जेब में बमगोला, रण रस रसिक वीर के हाथ में खड्ग, वैसे ही मनुष्य की देह में युवावस्था। 16 से 25 वर्ष तक हाड़ चाम के संदूक में संसारभर के हाहाकारों को समेटकर विधाता बंद कर देता है। युवावस्था देखने में तो शस्यश्यामला वसुंधरा से भी सुंदर है, पर इसके अंदर भूकंप की सी भयंकरता भरी हुई है। इसीलिए युवावस्था में मनुष्य के लिए केवल दो ही मार्ग हैं- वह चढ़ सकता है उन्नति के सर्वोच्च शिखर पर या वह गिर सकता है अध:पात के अंधेरे खंदक में। चाहे तो त्यागी हो सकता है युवक, चाहे तो विलासी बन सकता है युवक। वह देवता बन सकता है, तो पिशाच भी बन सकता है। वही संसार को त्रस्त कर सकता है, वही संसार को अभयदान दे सकता है। संसार में युवक का ही साम्राज्य है। युवक के कीर्तिमान से संसार का इतिहास भरा पड़ा है। युवक ही रणचंडी के ललाट की रेखा है। युवक स्वदेश की यश दुंदुभि का तुमुल निनाद है। युवक ही स्वदेश की विजय वैजयंती का सुदृढ़ दंड है। अगर किसी विशाल ह्मदय की आवश्यकता हो, तो युवकों के ह्मदय टटोलो। अगर किसी आत्मत्यागी वीर की चाह हो, तो युवकों से मांगो। रसिकता उसी के बांटे पड़ी है। भावुकता पर उसी का सिक्का है। वह छंद:शास्त्र से अनभिज्ञ होने पर भी प्रतिभाशाली कवि है। कवि भी उसी के ह्मदयारविंद का मधुप है। वह रसों की परिभाषा नहीं जानता, पर वह कविता का सच्चा मर्मज्ञ है। सृष्टि की एक विषम समस्या है युवक। ईश्वरीय रचना कौशल का एक उत्कृष्ट नमूना है युवक। विचित्र है उसका जीवन। अद्भुत है उसका साहस। अमोघ है उसका उत्साह।

वह निÏश्चत है, असावधान है। लगन लग गयी है, तो रातभर जागना उसके बाएं हाथ का खेल है, जेठ की दुपहरी चैत की चांदनी है। वह इच्छा करे तो समाज और जाति को उद्बुद्ध कर दे, देश की लाली रख ले, राष्ट्र का मुखोज्ज्वल कर दे, बड़े-बड़े साम्राज्य उलट डाले। पतितों के उत्थान और संसार के उद्धारक सूत्र उसी के हाथ में हैं। वह इस विशाल विश्व रंगस्थल का सिद्धहस्त खिलाड़ी है।

संसार के इतिहास के पन्ने खोलकर देख लो, युवक के रक्त से लिखे हुए अमर संदेश भरे पड़े हैं। संसार की क्रांतियों और परिवर्तनों के वर्णन छांट डालो, उनमें केवल ऐसे ही युवक मिलेंगे, जिन्हें बुद्धिमानों ने पागल छोकरे अथवा पथभ्रष्ट कहा है। पर जो सिड़ी हैं, वे क्या खाक समझेंगे कि स्वदेशाभिमान से उन्मत्त होकर अपनी लोथों से किले की खाइयों को पाट देने वाले जापानी युवक किस फौलाद के टुकड़े थे। सच्चा युवक तो बिना झिझक के मृत्यु का आलिंगन करता है, संगीनों के सामने छाती खोलकर डट जाता है, तोप के मुंह पर बैठकर भी मुस्कुराता ही रहता है, बेड़ियों की झनकार पर राष्ट्रीय गान गाता है और फांसी के तख्ते पर अट्टहासपूर्वक आरूढ़ हो जाता है।

ऐ भारतीय युवक! तू क्यों गफलत की नींद में पड़ा बेखबर सो रहा है। उठ, आंखें खोल, देख, प्राची दिशा का ललाट सिंदूर रंजित हो उठा। अब अधिक मत सो। सोना हो तो अनंत निद्रा की गोद में जाकर सो रह।

तेरी माता, तेरी प्रात:स्मरणीया, तेरी परम वंदनीया, तेरी जगदम्बा, तेरी अन्नपूर्णा, तेरी त्रिशूलधारिणी, तेरी सिंहवाहिनी, तेरी शस्यश्यामलांचला आज फूट-फूटकर रो रही है। क्या उसकी विकलता तुझे तनिक भी चंचल नहीं करती? उठकर माता के दूध की लाज रख, उसके उद्धार का बीड़ा उठा, उसके आंसुओं की एक एक बूंद की सौगंध ले, उसका बेड़ा पार कर और बोल मुक्त कंठ से-वंदेमातरम्।

Communal Violence Bill is vicious, will divide society.......Ram Jethmalani

The Prevention of Communal And Targeted Violence (Access to Justice And Reparations) Bill, consisting of 138 sections and several schedules and running into 66 printed pages, is as without any legitimate social purpose as it is mischievous in its thinly concealed aims and objects. The need for a marathon criminal statute arises only when the prohibited conduct has assumed endemic proportions and the statutes already in force are ineffective to eliminate it. In other words, it has turned into a chronic cancer of the national multitude. Yes, occasionally in some isolated corners of the country such offences occur, but our people are far too civilised to indulge in them with regularity and frequency to cause what the great Bentham in his "Theory of Legislation" called "alarm".

Even on those rare occasions when they erupt it is almost always that some evil gang leaders instigate and plan them for some ignoble political end. It is these criminals who occupy the upper decks of our social and political life who have to be identified and eliminated. The current available laws have never been used against them. Will somebody examine the statistics of prosecutions and convictions for such offences? The Bill is not designed to cure alarm, instead it is intended to create false alarm, which the leaders will translate into crimes, more social tensions and divisions of our nationhood and patriotism.

This Bill has been drafted by the National Advisory Council headed by Mrs Sonia Gandhi, and put as an agenda item for discussion at the National Integration Council meeting chaired by the Prime Minister on 10 September 2011. The eminent government lawyers who had questioned Anna Hazare's audacity in preparing a draft Lokpal Bill remained silent on this. Obviously, a draft from the NAC (a nominated body of activists, social workers and professionals, without any constitutional or parliamentary status), proposing a Central law on a State subject, and without consulting the States, was far higher in the government's pecking order than a draft from humble Anna Hazare. And woe betide any minister or MP who dared to question its legitimacy for being included in the National Integration Council agenda, without following any prescribed procedures.

It was known that a badly shaken government was anxious to divert the enraged public mind from corruption to something else; from Kalmadi's Commonwealth Games and the 2G scam to non-existent atrocities on minorities to perpetuate vote banks.

Even on cursory reading, the Bill is unconstitutional, anti-national and a communal piece of pseudo legislative work. Unconstitutional, because it violates the federal principle and poaches into the powers of the states as prescribed by the Constitution and the Seventh Schedule. It also violates the provisions of Article 14 by its scandalously communal definition of the word "group" as defined in Section 3(e) that can never pass the test of legal scrutiny.

It is anti-national and communal because it seeks to divide a polity through novel manoeuvres: by the repugnant definition of the term "group" in Section 3(e). "Group" means a religious or linguistic minority, in any state in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of Clauses (24) and (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. The lack of good faith in the NAC intention becomes abundantly exposed.

Communal violence, regardless of whichever community perpetrates it, is criminal and anti-national. If the NAC was keen on addressing this issue, it should have established its bona fides by viewing it in a secular perspective, and through the prism of a sound analytical framework to identify recurring causative factors and then suggesting the best preventive and punitive measures, after consultation with legal experts and political parties. The draft does not envisage a mere grant in aid or a welfare scheme for minorities; it contains a bill, the provisions of which have a sinister implication on Constitutional provisions and the prevailing laws of the land, namely, the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. The NAC's objective to provide a symptomatic framework for "good communal violence" and "bad communal violence" — as if communal violence can be equated with cholesterol — comes through clearly by the definition of "group". It is trying to achieve the ultimate by communalising even communal violence, and ensuring that it further destroys community coexistence in our country.

Social scientists, civil society organisations and administrators would broadly agree that communal violence assumes serious proportions only when fanned and encouraged by local political/religious leaders. Sometimes, communal violence is engineered by political leaders to disgrace a government, and effect a leadership change, such as what happened in Karnataka in 1990. But mostly it is stray incidents, for example, desecration of places of worship during religious festivals that become large communal clashes with the encouragement of local political/religious leaders, who then retreat into the background, leaving the innocent, ordinary people to suffer. Police behaviour would differ from person to person. An honest and conscientious police superintendent would act fearlessly and exercise his ample regulatory powers in accordance with law, whereas a corrupt and political policeman would take orders from his political bosses.

The NAC has several eminent members who would be aware of the dynamics of communal violence and also community dynamics at the grassroots. I am informed that following the dynastic model, there is an outstanding tri-generational advisory group consisting of an elderly retired civil servant, his former joint director, and probationer. Have they taken into account the impact of their Bill purely from the sociological point of view on the lives of the minorities who by and large peacefully inhabit the villages and towns of India? Have the religious and linguistic minorities agitated for a Bill as prepared by the NAC? I don't think so. I have neither read anything in the recent past in defence of the Bill by any respected leaders of the religious and minority communities. Chief Ministers of several states, including UPA partner Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal, have criticised the bill as violating the federal structure. Eminent jurists, particularly the former Chief Justice of India, Justice J.S. Verma and Justice B.N. Srikrishna have argued against it. So why impose a bill, which the BJP rightly termed as dangerous for the country, on the minorities?

I would like to make one suggestion to the NAC. Can we stop seeing persons belonging to minority communities as a sheaf of ballot papers with the luckless Hand stamped on them? Can we stop seeing them as a bank of votes, but instead give them the respect due to human beings who wish to live with dignity, peace and security, with religious and cultural freedom that is guaranteed to all citizens by our Constitution, with aspirations for themselves and their children for education, employment and opportunity, and do everything possible in state and society to provide such an enabling environment. Wooing them with such draft laws will only ghettoize and alienate them further, will neither provide them any long-term, sustainable social and economic benefits, nor strengthen national unity.

Minorities of all shades have produced men of magnificent intellectual attainments coupled with ennobling compassion for fellow citizens and a spirit of sacrifice for the greatness of the Indian nation. We can produce many more by a proper system of liberal education that fosters genuine secularism and rule of reason in place of blind superstition and fanatical faith. This is the need of the hour, not this legislative garbage.

A strategy to combat Islamic terrorism in India..........Subramanian Swamy

A rebuttal to the Open Page article ‘Muslims and Hindus are mature, the Sangh Parivar is not.'

This rebuttal is to the piece

in The Hindu titled “Muslims and Hindus are mature, the Sangh Parivar is not” (“Open Page,” August 14, 2011) written by Mr. A. Faizur Rahman, claiming to represent the “moderate” spectrum of thought in the Muslim community.

Although Mr. Rahman's piece was written in reference to an earlier piece (“We Muslims are mature, we can take criticism,” “Open Page,” August 7, 2011), by Mr. Raji Raouf, he engages in disinformation about my op-ed piece in another newspaper. Hence it has become essential for me to rebut what Mr. Rahman has written in your columns.

Mr. Rahman's definition of a moderate Muslim is one who does not react to what he calls provocative articles such as mine. He however fails to define what the so-called moderate Muslim's reaction should be to those “terrorists” who have been killing thousands of innocent Indians in various parts of the country, including driving 5,00,000 Hindus out from the Kashmir Valley.

He states that moderate Muslims are content that the National Commission for Minorities sent a notice to me, rather than respond to the call from Muslim Organisations [his words] to “take up arms and to let all hell loose (sic).” Thank you for the consideration, Mr. Rahman!

However, his concept of moderation clearly seems to be an oxymoron because it means a tacit acquiescence in the atrocities of the Islamic terrorists. He fails to offer any concrete steps for Muslims to disown or counter measures to meet the challenge of the jihadi brand of Islam. At this juncture, I am entitled by the “equal time principle” to state what I had in substance written in my op-ed about combating Islamic terrorism, that is terrorism invoking the tenets of Islam especially jihad.

Terrorism is an act of violence that targets civilians to overawe a legally constituted government and the people in the pursuit of political or ideological aims.

In 2004, the U.N. Security Council, in its Resolution No.1566, referred to “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”.

Hence, every government, separately and collectively, has a duty to take effective counter-terrorism measures, to prevent and deter future terrorist attacks and to prosecute those who are responsible for carrying out such acts. At the same time, countering of terrorism poses grave challenges to the protection and promotion of human rights. Every nation is therefore called upon to resolve the conflicting demands of combating terrorism and protecting human rights. The relationship between the two is not “linear,” but “non-linear.” That is, it is not true that the less we protect human rights, the more we can combat terrorism. The converse is also not true. There is, therefore, an “optimum combination” of measures to combat terrorism and the level of safeguards that ensure human rights. The law of diminishing returns operates in this trade-off. Hence we need a strategy of deterrence with minimal intrusion on human rights. This is what I wrote to stir a debate — and not invite and disinformation abuse as Mr. Rahman has done.

Strategy

The fundamental question here today is that since in India we are the worst affected by jihadi terrorist attacks, how to formulate a strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism.

The strategy we choose for terrorist attacks should not be worse in the long run than the consequences of these attacks as in the Rubaiya Sayeed kidnap case of 1989 and the Kandahar IC-814 plane hijack case. Terrorism in India worsened as a consequence of the deal made by the NF and NDA governments to free the notorious terrorists in custody. More innocent people, for example, have been killed in terrorist attacks since the release of Maulana Azhar, Umar Qureshi and Zargar in exchange for the passengers and crew in the Kandahar case. These three upon reaching Pakistan, continued as heroes in their terrorists acts against India including 26/11 in Mumbai.

Thus we need a clear-cut policy, which means a clear-cut statement of objectives, defining the priorities of these objectives, the strategy to achieve the objective, and the committing of necessary human, financial and infrastructural resources.

We need, most of all, a strategy of deterrence. Secular intellectuals may wax eloquent about “true Islam” being humane and peaceful, on TV programmes, but it is clear that they have not read any authoritative translations of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. These three holy books together constitute the theology of Islam. Hence instead of talking about the “correct interpretation” of Islam, those who call themselves “moderates” in the Islamic community, ought instead to urge for a new reformed Islamic theology that is consistent with democratic principles.

In Islam, the word of the Prophet is final. No true Muslim can disown these verses, or say that they would rewrite the offensive verses of the Koran. If they do, then they would have to run for their lives.

We Hindus have a long recognised tradition of being religious liberals by nature. We have already proved it enough by welcoming to our country and nurturing Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, and Moplah Muslim Arabs who were persecuted elsewhere, when we were 100 per cent Hindu country. Today, Hindus being targeted by Islamic terrorists, have to stand up for themselves.

What does it mean in the 21st century for Hindus to stand up? I mean by that mental clarity of the Hindus to defend the nation by effective deterrent retaliation.

This also entails an intelligent co-option of other religious groups into the Hindu cultural continuum. That is why I advocated that Muslims accept what has been scientifically established by DNA genetic studies, that we have common ancestors and share the hoary Hindu past.

(Dr. Subramanian Swamy is President, Janata Party.)

NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: COURSE STRUCTURE

NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: COURSE STRUCTURE: "National Security and International Relations School of International Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University Monsoon Semester 2011 MA O..."

How to wipe out Islamic terror.........Subramanian Swamy

The terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011, requires decisive soul-searching by the Hindus of India. Hindus cannot accept to be killed in this halal fashion, continuously bleeding every day till the nation finally collapses. Terrorism I define here as the illegal use of force to overawe the civilian population to make it do or not do an act against its will and well-being.

Islamic terrorism is India’s number one problem of national security. About this there will be no doubt after 2012. By that year, I expect a Taliban takeover in Pakistan and the Americans to flee Afghanistan. Then, Islam will confront Hinduism to “complete unfinished business”. Already the successor to Osama bin Laden as al-Qaeda leader has declared that India is the priority target for that terrorist organisation and not the USA.

Fanatic Muslims consider Hindu-dominated India “an unfinished chapter of Islamic conquests”. All other countries conquered by Islam 100% converted to Islam within two decades of the Islamic invasion. Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic rule. That is jarring for the fanatics.

In one sense, I do not blame the Muslim fanatics for targeting Hindus. I blame Hindus who have taken their individuality permitted in Sanatan Dharma to the extreme. Millions of Hindus can assemble without state patronage for the Kumbh Mela, completely self-organised, but they all leave for home oblivious of the targeting of Hindus in Kashmir, Mau, Melvisharam and Malappuram and do not lift their little finger to help organise Hindus. If half the Hindus voted together, rising above caste and language, a genuine Hindu party would have a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the assemblies.

The first lesson to be learnt from the recent history of Islamic terrorism against India and for tackling terrorism in India is that the Hindu is the target and that Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus. It is to undermine the Hindu psyche and create the fear of civil war that terror attacks are organised.

Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus against the terrorist and not feel individually isolated or, worse, be complacent because he or she is not personally affected. If one Hindu dies merely because he or she was a Hindu, then a bit of every Hindu also dies. This is an essential mental attitude, a necessary part of a virat (committed) Hindu.

We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist. The Muslims of India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do I will not believe unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims, their ancestors were Hindus. If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected representatives).

Any policy to combat terrorism must begin with requiring each and every Hindu becoming a virat Hindu. For this, one must have a Hindu mindset that recognises that there is vyaktigat charitra (personal character) and rashtriya charitra (national character). For example, Manmohan Singh has high personal character, but by being a rubber stamp of a semi-literate Sonia Gandhi and waffling on all national issues, he has proved that he has no rashtriya charitra.

The second lesson for combating terrorism is that we must never capitulate or concede any demand, as we did in 1989 (freeing five terrorists in exchange for Mufti Mohammed Sayeed’s daughter Rubaiya) and in 1999, freeing three terrorists after the hijack of Indian Airlines flight IC-814.

The third lesson is that whatever and however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate massively. For example, when the Ayodhya temple was sought to be attacked, we should have retaliated by re-building the Ram temple at the site.

According to bleeding heart liberals, terrorists are born or bred because of illiteracy, poverty, oppression, and discrimination. They argue that instead of eliminating them, the root cause of these four disabilities in society should be removed. This is rubbish. Osama bin laden was a billionaire. In the failed Times Square episode, failed terrorist Shahzad was from a highly placed family in Pakistan and had an MBA from a reputed US university.

It is also a ridiculous idea that terrorists cannot be deterred because they are irrational and willing to die. Terrorist masterminds have political goals and a method in their madness. An effective strategy to deter terrorism is to defeat those political goals and to rubbish them by counter-terrorist action.Thus, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India.

Goal 1: Overawe India on Kashmir.
Strategy: Remove Article 370 and resettle ex-servicemen in the valley. Create Panun Kashmir for the Hindu Pandit community. Look for or create an opportunity to take over PoK. If Pakistan continues to back terrorists, assist the Baluchis and Sindhis to get their independence.

Goal 2: Blast temples, kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites.

Goal 3: Turn India into Darul Islam.
Strategy: Implement the uniform civil code, make learning of Sanskrit and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. Rename India Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus.

Goal 4: Change India’s demography by illegal immigration, conversion, and refusal to adopt family planning.
Strategy: Enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion. Re-conversion will not be banned. Declare that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline. Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they adhere to the code of discipline. Annex land from Bangladesh in proportion to the illegal migrants from that country staying in India. At present, the northern third from Sylhet to Khulna can be annexed to re-settle illegal migrants.

Goal 5: Denigrate Hinduism through vulgar writings and preaching in mosques, madrassas, and churches to create loss of self-respect amongst Hindus and make them fit for capitulation.
Strategy: Propagate the development of a Hindu mindset.

India can solve its terrorist problem within five years by such a deterrent strategy, but for that we have to learn the four lessons outlined above, and have a Hindu mindset to take bold, risky, and hard decisions to defend the nation. If the Jews could be transformed from lambs walking meekly to the gas chambers to fiery lions in just 10 years, it should not be difficult for Hindus in much better circumstances (after all we are 83% of India), to do so in five years.

Guru Gobind Singh showed us how just five fearless persons under spiritual guidance can transform a society. Even if half the Hindu voters are persuaded to collectively vote as Hindus, and for a party sincerely committed to a Hindu agenda, then we can forge an instrument for change. And that is the bottom line in the strategy to deter terrorism in a democratic Hindustan at this moment of truth.

The writer is president of the Janata Party, a former Union minister, and a professor of economics.

Warfare and limits: a losing battle?.......by Richard Falk

Dangerous pressures are pushing international warfare in the direction of the absolute, imperiling the future of mankind. Undoubtedly, the foremost of these pressures is the emergence, use, retention, and proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as the development of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have been several close calls involving heightened dangers of nuclear war, especially during the 45 years of Cold War rivalry. None of these was more frightening than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when it took Soviet willingness to reverse their decision to deploy missiles in Cuba to avert a slide into catastrophic nuclear war.

To entrust such weaponry to the vagaries of political leadership and the whims of governmental institutions seems like a Mount Everest of human folly. Yet there is little outcry against nuclear weapons today, despite the collapse of the deterrence rationale that seemed to make reliance on the weaponry somewhat plausible during the decades of confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States. Even under Cold War conditions, deterrence was seen by peace activists as a form of geopolitical insanity widely known by the descriptive acronym "MAD", short for "Mutually Assured Destruction".

Underneath the tendency of powerful governments to develop whatever weapons and tactics technology can provide are the fragmented political identities of a world divided into sovereign political actors. The inhabitants of these states of greatly varying size, capabilities, vulnerabilities, cultural and political traditions have long been indoctrinated to approve blindly of the actions of their own state. The idolatrous eyes of nationalism treat the extermination of an enemy as an acceptable goal if necessary for national security, and even desirable, if it is seen as furthering national ambitions.

Beyond this, defending the security of one's own state is viewed as an unconditional prerogative, vindicating even a suicidal reliance on nuclear weaponry. The ideology of nationalism, nurturing the values of unquestioning patriotism and militarism in the modern West, have led to an orientation that can be described as secular fundamentalism, embodying imperial worldviews, however dysfunctional, given the risks and limits associated with continuing to seek desired political ends by relying on military superiority. The crime of treason reinforces these absolutist claims of the secular state by disallowing citizens of democratic states any right to claim conscience, law, and belief in support of their deviant behaviour.

'Militarist frustration' since WWII

Any objective study of international history will show that the militarily superior side has rarely prevailed in an armed conflict since the end of World War II unless it has also been able to command moral and legal legitimacy. The political failure of the colonial powers despite their military dominance provide many bloody illustrations of this recent trend toward militarist frustration, starting in the middle of the 20th century.

Because of entrenched bureaucratic and economic interests (the "military-industrial-media complex"), the evidence of the decline of hard-power geopolitics has been ignored. As a result, dysfunctional military solutions for conflicts continue to be relied upon in the West, especially by the United States, and costly and futile recourses to war are repeated over and over without lessons of restraint being learned. Experience, which might provide a rational limit on militarism, has been neglected; instead, old habits persist. 

Another check on the excesses of warfare is supposedly provided by the inhibiting role of conscience, the ethical component of the human sensibility, that is supposed to be a hallmark of citizenship in liberal democracies. This sentiment was vividly expressed in a Bertolt Brecht poem, "A German War Primer":

General, your bomber is powerful   It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men   But it has one defect:   It needs a driver.

A driver is both a human cost, and maybe a brake on excess, as Brecht suggests a few lines later:

General, man is very useful   He can fly and he can kill   But he has one defect:   He can think.

Of course, military training and discipline are dedicated to overcoming this defect, especially when complemented with nationalist ideologies. International humanitarian law has vainly been trying to impose limits on combat behaviour in wars, but almost always yields in practice to considerations of "military necessity".

The Nuremberg Trials decided that "superior orders" were no excuse if war crimes were committed, a breakthrough in establishing responsibility for adhering to law in relation to war, but flawed by its character as "victors' justice". Although beset by double standards, this Nuremberg tradition of imposing individual accountability for political and military leaders has persisted, and has recently been revived through the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002.

In the nuclear age, this process of dehumanising the military machine went further because the stakes were so high. I recall visiting the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) at the height of the Cold War. SAC was responsible for the missile force that then targeted many cities in the Soviet Union. What struck me at the time was the seeming technocratic sensibility exhibited by those entrusted with operating the computers that would fire the missiles.

This amoral posture contrasted with the ideological zeal of the commanding generals who would give the orders to annihilate millions of civilians at distant locations. I was told at the time that the lower-ranked technical personnel had been tested to ensure that moral scruples would not interfere with their readiness to follow orders.

I found this mix of politically and morally driven commanders and amoral subordinates a most disturbing mix at the time, and still do, although I have not been invited back to SAC to see whether similar conditions now prevail. I suspect that they do, considering the differing requirements of the two roles. This view seems confirmed by the enthusiasm expressed for carrying on the "war on terror" in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Although my remarks here are confined to the United States, I would suppose they apply to other major governmental bureaucracies dealing with national security and war/peace issues.

Use of drones dehumanises war

Now, new technological innovations in warfare are underlining these concerns. American reliance on drone attacks in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) removes the human altogether from the war theater, except in the geographically remote roles of programmer and strategic planner. And even then, reliance on algorithms for targeting removes any shred of personal responsibility. When mistakes are made, and innocent civilians are killed, it is treated as an unfortunate anomaly.

The tragic event is deprived of its human quality by being labeled "collateral damage", and a formal apology is usually made. But nevertheless, the practice goes on: the US is investing heavily in more and better drones for future wars. Eliminating the presence of human soldiers from the battlefield is a chilling development: historically, the fact that war put soldiers' lives at risk forced citizens to think about whether a war was morally right, or worth fighting. The anti-war sentiments of American soldiers in Vietnam exerted a powerful influence that helped over time finally to bring the war to an end.

Ultimately, what is at stake is the human spirit, which at the moment is being squeezed to near-death by technological momentum, corporate greed, militarism, and secular fundamentalism. The ultra-sophistication of the new weaponry and the accompanying military tactics create a new divide in the military sphere, giving rise to an era of virtually "casualty-free" and one-sided wars where the devastation and victimisation are shifted almost totally to the technologically inferior side. Examples include The Gulf War of 1991, the Kosovo War of 1999, and the Gaza Attacks of 2008-09. In the background, however, is the persisting threat of a use of nuclear weapons either by a state or an extremist non-state actor that could in a flash change this ratio of comparative vulnerability.

This web of historical forces continues to entrap major political actors in the world, and dims hopes for a sustainable future, even without taking into account the growing threat of climate change. Scenarios of future cyber warfare are also part of this evolving capacity to destroy distant societies without any human interaction. The cumulative effect of these developments threatens to make irrelevant the moral compass that alone provides acceptable guidance for a sustainable political future. Because international institutions remain too weak to provide global governance, reason and prudence remain the best hope to guide human destiny.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008) and Achieving Human Rights (Routledge 2009).

The radicalization of Pakistan’s military.......Fareed Zakaria

Whatever their strength, American troops will not determine success in Afghanistan. Nor will the newly formed Afghan National Army. As U.S. forces are gradually withdrawn over the next three years, it is Pakistan’s 600,000-strong army that will become the dominant military force in the region and will try to shape its future. But that military is undergoing a deep internal crisis of identity, its most serious since Pakistan’s founding in 1947. How it resolves this crisis will determine its future, the future of the Afghan war — and much else.
This week’s news that a Pakistani brigadier general has been arrested for his ties to a radical Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, is only the latest in series of events that have rocked that nation. In the past year, two senior Pakistani officials have been gunned down, one by his own security guard. Last month, well-armed militants attacked a key naval base in Karachi, an operation that required inside assistance. Also last month, a brave Pakistani journalist, Syed Saleem Shahzad, who detailed the growing extremist presence within the Pakistani military, was tortured and killed, almost certainly by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (which denied the allegation). And then there is the case of Osama bin Laden, who was for years comfortably ensconced in an army town.

Pakistan’s military has traditionally been seen as a secular and disciplined organization. But the evidence is now overwhelming that it has been infiltrated at all levels by violent Islamists, including Taliban and al-Qaeda sympathizers.
There is also strong evidence of a basic shift in the attitude of the Pakistani military. Last month, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, was invited to speak at the country’s National Defense University. Addressing a large gathering of officers, Haqqani asked the audience, “What is the principal national security threat to Pakistan?” He offered three categories: “from within [Pakistan],” “India,” and, “the United States.” A plurality voted for the third option.
The vote is consistent with a WikiLeaks document, a 2008 cable from Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, expressing shock at the rising levels of anti-Americanism in the next generation of leaders of Pakistan’s military elite. Last November, Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper, described a military briefing in which a senior military officer explained to a handful of top columnists that the Pakistani military viewed the United States as a hostile force trying to perpetuate a state of “controlled chaos” in Pakistan and determined to “denuclearize” the regime.
Islamist ideology is replacing strategy. For 60 years, Pakistan’s military has focused obsessively on its rivalry with India. Large elements within that military appear to be switching obsessions, and the United States is replacing India as the organizing principle around which Pakistan’s military understands its national security interests. If this happens, not only is the Afghan war lost but Pakistan itself is also lost. (It does not have that far to fall; it made its annual appearance this year on Foreign Policy magazine’s “Failed States” list, coming in 12th, above Yemen.)
Ambassador Haqqani explained to his audience, “If [the threat] really comes from the United States then we’ve already lost, ladies and gentlemen, because you can’t beat the United States in a military confrontation. . . . [L]et us be honest, we do not have the means to take on the one military power in the world that spends more on defense technology than the next 20 nations in the world. So that is where I think we sometimes end up having what I call an ‘emotional discussion.’ ” Haqqani was gently pointing out the incoherence of these attitudes, but they persist.
It’s more than emotional. It is an indication that radical Islamist ideas — with America as the great Satan — are now reflexive for many in Pakistan’s military.
After the bin Laden raid, Pakistan’s military dispatched Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani to Beijing to try to cozy up to the Chinese. “We have asked our Chinese brothers to please build a naval base at Gwadar,” said Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar, Pakistan’s defense minister, and Gillani returned claiming triumphantly that he had secured the deal. The Chinese, however, were too savvy to play this anti-American game and humiliated the Pakistanis by publicly contradicting the story.
Pakistan is drifting into a strategic black hole. Does the country really think its best path forward is as an adversary of the United States, currying favor with militants and becoming a vassal of China? Are its role models North Korea and Burma? Or does it want to crush the jihadist movements that are destroying the country, join the global economy, reform its society and become a real democracy? These are the questions Pakistan has to ask itself. The United States, for its part, having disbursed $20 billion in aid to Pakistan in the past decade — most of it to the military — needs to ask some questions of its own.
comments@fareedzakaria.com

What Does A 'Post-American World' Look Like?........Fareed Zakaria

Thirty years ago, the United States dominated the world politically, economically and scientifically. But today?

"The tallest building in the world is now in Dubai, the biggest factory in the world is in China, the largest oil refinery is in India, the largest investment fund in the world is in Abu Dhabi, the largest Ferris wheel in the world is in Singapore," notes Fareed Zakaria. "And ... more troublingly, [the United States is] also losing [its] key grip on indices such as patent creation, scientific creations and things like that — which are really harbingers of future economic growth."

Zakaria, the host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS and an editor at large for Time magazine, charts the fall of America's dominance and the simultaneous rise of the rest of the world in his book The Post-American World: Release 2.0, which shows how the collapse of communism and the Soviet empire — as well as the rise of global markets — has leveled the playing field for many other countries around the world.           

"The result is you have countries all over the world thriving and taking advantage of the political stability they have achieved, the economic connections of a global market, the technological connection into this market," he tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "And we are all witnesses to this phenomenon."

America, Zakaria says, is also starting to lag behind other countries in education, building a competitive workforce, and fostering new energy and digital infrastructure to support those workers — all markers of long-term economic growth. He says America is now heading toward what he calls a "post-American" world, in which the United States' share of the "global pie" is much smaller — as the rest of the globe begins to catch up.

"In economic terms, the rise of the rest [of the globe] is a win-win," he says. "The more countries that get rich [and] the larger the world economy, the more people there are producing, consuming, investing, saving, loaning money. ... If we didn't have the rest of the world growing, the United States economy would be in much worse shape than it is today."

But Zakaria cautions that the economic growth around the world — and the benefits that global economic stability create — do not extend to the political arena.

"Politics and power is a realm of relative influence," he says. "So as China expands its role in Asia, whose role is diminishing? Of course, the established power — the United States. It's not possible for two countries to be the leading dominant political power at the same time."

America's political system, Zakaria says, becomes mired in debate and cannot deal with the short-term deficit. "To put it in perspective, if Congress were to do nothing, the Bush tax cuts would expire next year," he says. "That by itself would yield $3.9 trillion to the federal government over the next 10 years. We would go to the bottom of the pack in terms of deficit as a percentage of GDP among the rich countries in the world — we would basically solve our fiscal problems for the short term."

Interview Highlights

On the U.S. economy

"We have the leading companies and the leading sectors in the advanced industrial world, we have an incredibly dynamic society, and we have high levels of entrepreneurship. And we have the best universities in the world. ... We also have impeccable credit. What we don't have is a political system that can take the simple measures to deal with our short-term deficit."

On what might happen if the U.S. defaults on debt

"I tend to think it will be catastrophic. I think, more importantly, there is a high enough risk here that this is surely a game we don't want to play. ... There are events that economics call low-probability, high-impact events that you don't want to test. You don't want to see if this is one of those things that is an unlikely situation but once it happens could have a huge seismic global effect, because then the cost of dealing with the after-effects is just cataclysmic."

On the government's role in innovation

"We have this debate in America that is almost a theoretical debate about the role of government in the economy and whether government should be involved, and I worry that while we're having this theoretical debate, on the other side of the world, the Chinese government is vigorously promoting industry after industry, the German government is vigorously promoting its manufacturing center, the South Korean government is vigorously promoting its manufacturing sector — and by the time we've resolved our debate, there won't be any industries left to compete in. It is absolutely clear that government plays a key role, as a catalyst, in promoting long-run growth."

On Germany

"Germany is a fascinating role model. The Germans have maintained their manufacturing edge despite being a high-tax, high-regulation economy. Why? Because the government really set about ensuring that it maintained funding for technical training, technical advancements and programs. It made a concerted effort to retain high-end, complex manufacturing — the kind of BMW model, if you will. And they've done that so successfully that Germany, which has a quarter of America's population, exports more than America does.

Chapter 1: The Rise of the Rest

This is a book not about the decline of America but rather about the rise of everyone else. It is about the great transformation taking place around the world, a transformation that, though often discussed, remains poorly understood. This is natural. Changes, even sea changes, take place gradually. Though we talk about a new era, the world seems to be one with which we are familiar. But in fact, it is very different.

There have been three tectonic power shifts over the last five hundred years, fundamental changes in the distribution of power that have reshaped international life — its politics, economics, and culture. The first was the rise of the Western world, a process that began in the fifteenth century and accelerated dramatically in the late eighteenth century. It produced modernity as we know it: science and technology, commerce and capitalism, the agricultural and industrial revolutions. It also produced the prolonged political dominance of the nations of the West.

The second shift, which took place in the closing years of the nineteenth century, was the rise of the United States. Soon after it industrialized, the United States became the most powerful nation since imperial Rome, and the only one that was stronger than any likely combination of other nations. For most of the last century, the United States has dominated global economics, politics, science, and culture. For the last twenty years, that dominance has been unrivaled, a phenomenon unprecedented in modern history.

We are now living through the third great power shift of the modern era. It could be called "the rise of the rest." Over the past few decades, countries all over the world have been experiencing rates of economic growth that were once unthinkable. While they have had booms and busts, the overall trend has been unambiguously upward. Even the economic rupture of 2008 and 2009 could not halt or reverse this trend; in fact, the recession accelerated it. While many of the world's wealthy, industrialized economies continued to struggle with slow growth, high unemployment, and overwhelming indebtedness through 2010 and beyond, the countries that constitute "the rest" rebounded quickly. India's annual growth rate slowed to 5.7 percent in 2009, but hummed along at a 9.7 percent rate in 2010. China's GDP growth never fell below 9 percent.

This economic success was once most visible in Asia but is no longer confined to it. That is why to call this shift "the rise of Asia" does not describe it accurately. In 2010, 85 countries grew at a rate of 4 percent or more. In 2006 and 2007, that number was 125. That includes more than 30 countries in Africa, two-thirds of the continent. Antoine van Agtmael, the fund manager who coined the term "emerging markets," has identified the 25 companies most likely to be the world's next great multinationals. His list includes four companies each from Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Taiwan; three from India; two from China; and one each from Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, and South Africa.

Look around. The tallest building in the world is now in Dubai. The world's richest man is Mexican, and its largest publicly traded corporation is Chinese. The world's biggest plane is built in Russia and Ukraine, its leading refinery is in India, and its largest factories are all in China. By many measures, Hong Kong now rivals London and New York as the leading financial center, and the United Arab Emirates is home to the most richly endowed investment fund. Once quintessentially American icons have been appropriated by foreigners. The world's largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. Its number one casino is not in Las Vegas but in Macao, which has also overtaken Vegas in annual gambling revenues. The biggest movie industry, in terms of both movies made and tickets sold, is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Even shopping, America's greatest sporting activity, has gone global. Of the top ten malls in the world, only one is in the United States; the world's biggest is in Dongguan, China. Such lists are arbitrary, but it is striking that twenty years ago, America was at the top in many, if not most, of these categories.

It might seem strange to focus on growing prosperity when there are still hundreds of millions of people living in desperate poverty. But in fact, the share of people living on a dollar a day or less plummeted from 40 percent in 1981 to 18 percent in 2004, and is estimated to fall to 12 percent by 2015. China's growth alone has lifted more than 400 million people out of poverty. Poverty is falling in countries housing 80 percent of the world's population. The 50 countries where the earth's poorest people live are basket cases that need urgent attention. In the other 142 — which include China, India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey, Kenya, and South Africa — the poor are slowly being absorbed into productive and growing economies. For the first time ever, we are witnessing genuinely global growth. This is creating an international system in which countries in all parts of the world are no longer objects or observers but players in their own right. It is the birth of a truly global order.

The emerging international system is likely to be quite different from those that have preceded it. One hundred years ago, there was a multipolar order run by a collection of European governments, with constantly shifting alliances, rivalries, miscalculations, and wars. Then came the bipolar duopoly of the Cold War, more stable in many ways, but with the superpowers reacting and overreacting to each other's every move. Since 1991, we have lived under an American imperium, a unique, unipolar world in which the open global economy has expanded and accelerated dramatically. This expansion is now driving the next change in the nature of the international order.

The rise of the rest is at heart an economic phenomenon, but it has consequences for nearly every other sphere of life. At the politico — military level, we remain in a single — superpower world. But in all other dimensions — industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural — the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance. That does not mean we are entering an anti — American world. But we are moving into a post — American world, one defined and directed from many places and by many people.

As countries become stronger and richer, we're likely to see more challenges and greater assertiveness from rising nations. In one month in 2008, India and Brazil were willing to frontally defy the United States at the Doha trade talks, Russia attacked and occupied parts of Georgia, and China hosted the most spectacular and expensive Olympic Games in history. Ten years ago, not one of the four would have been powerful or confident enough to act as it did. Even if their growth rates decline, which they surely will, these countries will not quietly relinquish their new roles in the global system.

Excerpted from The Post-American World: Release 2.0 by Fareed Zakaria. Copyright 2011 by Fareed Zakaria. Reprinted by permission of W. W. Norton & Co.

Under the cover of democracy......Joseph Massad

For decades during the Cold War, the rhetoric of US and Western European imperial power was one of promoting democracy around the world. Indeed, as the Soviet model became attractive to many countries in Asia and Africa (not to mention Latin America) ridding themselves of the yoke of West European colonialism, the US system of apartheid, known as Jim Crow Laws or racial segregation, was less than a shining example for people who just liberated themselves from European racial supremacy that was used to justify colonial rule. As is well known, it is this that prompted the United States to begin the road to end its apartheid system, signaled by the famous legal case of "Brown vs the Board of Education" in 1954, which set the stage to desegregate schools in the American South. 

But as US action around the world aimed at eliminating the recently won right to self-determination for the peoples of Asia and Africa under the guise of "Western democracy" fighting "totalitarian communism", which left a trail of millions murdered by the US and its allies (starting with Korea and moving to the Congo, to Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, and from Guatemala to Brazil to Argentina, Uruguay, El Salvador, and Chile, to Southern Africa and the Middle East), the cruel US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade have hardly changed this anti-democratic trend. Yet two important victories are always touted by supporters of US foreign policy on the democratic front: namely, the fall of the Soviet Union and the ensuing "democratisation" of Eastern Europe, and the end of Apartheid in South Africa. The US hopes that its policies in both places will guide it to achieve similar ends for those uprisings of the Arab world that it cannot crush.

Profits and impoverishment

The people of the Eastern bloc wanted to maintain all the economic gains of the Communist period while calling for democratisation. The US, however, sold them the illusion of "Western democracy" as a cover for their massive US-imposed impoverishment and the dismantling of the entire structure of social welfare of which they had been beneficiaries for decades. Thus in a few short years, and through what Naomi Klein has dubbed the "Shock Doctrine", Russia went from a country which had less than 2 million people living under the international poverty level to one with 74 million people languishing in poverty. Poland and Bulgaria followed suit. As billionaires increased and the margin of profit for US corporations skyrocketed in the former Eastern bloc, with the help of illustrious imperial organisations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the US, under international pressure, moved steadily to conclude a deal to end political apartheid in South Africa.

If the people of the Eastern bloc had to sacrifice their welfare states and their livelihoods in exchange for the outright pillage of their countries by Mafia-style capitalism, the people of South Africa were sold political "democracy" in exchange for the intensification of economic apartheid and the complete surrender of the country's economic sovereignty. While the business class became infinitesimally more racially diverse (as its US precedent pretended to do since the 1970s), the impoverished classes remained racially uniform. Today's South Africa is so saddled by debt and is signatory to so many economic agreements and protocols, that it can neither redistribute the racialised private property of the country (protected by its constitution), anymore that it can provide wage increases under its obligations to the IMF, which insists on wage "restraint". The massive racialised poverty of the country has only deepened its economic apartheid under the cover of the "end" of political apartheid.

In the Middle East, the Oslo agreements, signed around the same time that US-style democracy was being imposed on Eastern Europe and South Africa, were even worse. The Palestinian Authority moved (under US and Israeli instructions) to demobilise Palestinian civil society, which was enormously strengthened during the first intifada. Western-funded non-governmental organisations appeared on the scene in force. The NGOs co-opted the intelligentsia, the technocracy, and most of all erstwhile activists into the service of a Western agenda that rendered these foreign NGOs the new local "civil society", while Western governments financed the corrupt Palestinian Authority that continued to collabourate with the Israeli occupation. Poverty reigned supreme in much of the West Bank and all of Gaza and continues to destroy the lives of Palestinians there. Iraq, meanwhile, was being also transformed from its reduction to the stone age by US bombs into a US-imposed mafia-style "democracy" while the entire welfare benefits that existed under Saddam were withdrawn. Iraqi oil was handed over to American corporations in the ongoing American pillage and destruction of that country.

Other Arab countries, especially Egypt, were being flooded with Western-funded NGOs as the IMF and the World Bank were ensuring that local wealth is firmly in the hands of international capital and a small, local, subservient business class that supports the local dictatorships. A large number of women and labour activists, human rights and political activists, minority rights and peasants rights activists were no longer to be found defending the poor and the oppressed among whom they lived, but were now found on the payroll of these Western-funded NGOs, masquerading as civil society. While this demobilisation of Arab civil society ultimately failed to forestall popular Egyptian and Tunisian rage against two of the most corrupt regimes of post-independence Asia and Africa (or even Latin America), the US and its Saudi and Qatari allies are devising a new economic package to "support" the recent uprisings, especially Egypt's larger and much more important economy. 

Strengthening the rich

We got wind of US magnanimity early on. Indeed on the first day of the ouster of Mubarak, whom the Obama administration supported till his very last day in office (and beyond), the New York Times reported that "the White House and the State Department were already discussing setting aside new funds to bolster the rise of secular political parties."A few days later, on 17 February, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared "I'm pleased to announce today that we will be reprogramming $150 million for Egypt to put ourselves in a position to support our transition there and assist with their economic recovery," she told reporters. "These funds will give us flexibility to respond to Egyptian needs moving forward." A month later on March 16, Clinton declared on behalf of the US government that "we also think there are economic reforms that are necessary to help the Egyptian people have good jobs, to find employment, to realise their own dreams. And so on both of those tracks - the political reform and the economic reform - we want to be helpful."

Indeed preparations " to be helpful" were completed by the Obama administration and its European and Saudi-Qatari allies by May 19, the date Obama delivered his speech. He declared:

First, we've asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week's G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilise and modernise the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

If this was not enough, Obama offered a laughable gimmick to ease the $35 billion debts of Mubarak's Egypt on the Egyptian people by "relieving"post-Mubarak Egypt "of up to $1 billion in debt and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship."But relief of $1 billion must be countered with help to indebt Egypt further. So Obama, in the same breath and without irony, declares, "we will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation…we're working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt."

As the impoverishment of Eastern Europe created massive wealth for new local elites and their US and Western European corporate masters, Obama asserts that America's financial assistance "will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a US government finance institution, will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with the allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernisation in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe." But this is not all, the United States will also "launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa." Recognising that Saudi and American avarice was such that all oil profits have found themselves pumping the European and American economies since the 1970s to the detriment of the region itself which languished under IMF-imposed structural adjustment policies (cuts in subsidies and wage decreases for the poor, increase of subsidies for the rich, restricting the rights of the working class, ending protectionism and selling the country off to international capital, raising food prices), causing the ongoing upheavals, Obama now wants a portion of the oil profits to be reinvested within the Arab world. He explained that

We will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with US and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalisation to construct a regional trade arrangement. And just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Obama along with France and Britain moved quickly. At the end of May, leaders of the Group of 8 wealthiest industrialised nations pledged to send billions of dollars in aid to Egypt and Tunisia. France's Sarkozy declared that "he hoped the total aid package would eventually reach $40 billion, including $10 billion from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait". Meanwhile, Qatar has been talking to oil-rich Gulf partners about a new plan to create a Middle East Development Bank to support Arab states in transitions to democracy. Its plan has been inspired, according to newspaper reports, by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development "that helped to rebuild the economies and societies of eastern bloc countries at the end of the cold war." The projected Middle Eastern development bank reportedly envisages tens of billions of dollars of yearly lending for political transitions. Qatar is seeking the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates for the initiative. Indeed the Saudis had already made a $4 billion grant to the Egyptians and the IMF just announced a $3 billion loan to the country. Yet, Youssef Boutros-Ghali, Mubarak's finance minister, who had been lauded by none other than the IMF as a most efficient finance minister, and who was named in 2008 by the IMF itself as chairman of its International Monetary and Financial Committee, has fled the country and was just sentenced to 30 years in prison by an Egyptian court on corruption charges. A week before the fall of Mubarak last February and before his flight from the country, Boutros-Ghali resigned his IMF position. But the IMF is not deterred. Its "help" to Egypt will continue unhindered by such trivial matters. Moreover, as part of the effort to crush the popular demonstrations and the demands for democratisation in Jordan, Saudi Arabiabudget deficit". Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (recently dubbed the Gulf Counter-revolutionary Club) had also extended, a few weeks earlier, an invitation for the only two surviving monarchies outside the Gulf, Jordan and Morocco, to join as members. also granted $400 million "to support Jordan's economy and ease its

Neutralising the poor

But if the US deal in Eastern Europe was to impoverish the majority of people under the cover of democracy so that US businesses can pillage their economies, and if its deal in South Africa was about safeguarding and maintaining the same level of racialised pillage of the country by South Africa's whites and the international business partners also under the cover of democracy, what is the form of political-economic exchange being transacted in the Arab world?

Clearly in countries where the US-Saudi counterrevolutions have triumphed, the aim is to maintain the same level of imperial pillage led by the US while pacifying the mobilised population and strengthening local elites (Bahrain, Oman, and Jordan are the primary examples here) or rescue the retinue of collapsing dictatorships (whether allies of the US or not) to lead regime transition and resume their partnership with the US politically and economically (Libya, Yemen, and even Syria are primary examples). But what about Egypt and Tunisia where a substantial number of the entourage of the overthrown regimes are also targeted by the uprisings for their corruption and complicity in the violence unleashed by the anciens regimes? It is there where the US-Saudi axis wants to focus its efforts.

Business elites who miraculously escaped formal charges in Egypt, and they are legion, have expressed much concern about demonstrations and strikes disrupting the economy (and their profits). Billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who fancies himself a supporter, if not a leader, of the uprising, and whose father and brothers were also transformed into billionaires in a few short years after they partnered with USAID during Sadat's "infitah"or "open door" policy, and especially following the US invasion of the region in 1990/91, along with many other "honest" businessmen and women are ready to carry the torch for the US in "democratic" Egypt as they had done faithfully under Mubarak. Sawiris founded a new political party and now refuses to join the ongoing Friday demonstrations, which, he claims, are weakening the economy. He recently declared that "it was wrong to accuse all of the country's businessmen of wrongdoing,"insisting that "many are honorable people who helped create jobs for Egyptians". The US and Obama have also been celebrating young business executives like the naive Stockholm Syndrome sufferer Wael Ghonim (Stockholm Syndrome is the only acceptable excuse for Ghonim's spending the majority of his famous TV interview crying and defending, rather than condemning, his secret police interrogators). Ghonim was touring the US speaking to international bankers as well as to World Bank economists, as a "leader" of the Egyptian uprising at the behest of the Google corporation itself.

But most Egyptians and Tunisians, unlike East Europeans under Communist rule, are poor already. As the main form of apartheid that rules Egyptians and Tunisians, unlike their South African black and poor counterparts under political Apartheid, is an economic and class apartheid, what then would granting US-style democracy to them be in exchange for?

The answer is simple. There is an increasing understanding among US policy makers that the US should ride the democratic wave in the region in those countries where it cannot crush it, and that in doing so, it should create political conditions that would maintain the continued imperial pillage of their economies at the same rate as before and not threaten them. Saudi money followed by American money and IMF and World Bank plans and funds are all geared to supporting the business elites and the foreign-funded NGOs to bring down the newly mobilised civil society by using the same neoliberal language of structural adjustment pushed by the IMF since the late 1970s. Indeed, Obama and his business associates are now claiming that it is the imposition of more neoliberal economic policies that is the main revolutionary demand of the people in Egypt and Tunisia, if not the entire Arab world, and which the West is lovingly heeding. That it is these same imperial policies, which were imposed on Poland by the IMF (and produced Solidarnosc in 1980), and ultimately led to the fall of the Soviet Union, as they marched onwards to impoverish the entire globe, with special attention to Africa, the Arab World, and Latin America, is glossed over as socialist whining. In this sense, the US will ensure that the same imperial economic policies imposed by international capital and adopted by Mubarak and Ben Ali will not only be maintained, but will be intensified under the cover of democracy.

Moves to limit economic protests and labour strikes are ongoing in Egypt and Tunisia. Once elections are held to bring about a new class of servants of the new order, we will hear that all economic demands should be considered "counterrevolutionary"and should be prosecuted for attempting to "weaken" if not "destroy" the new "democracy". If, as is becoming more apparent, the US strikes alliances with local Islamist parties, we might even hear that economic protests and opposition to neoliberal imperial economic policies are "against Islam." The US-imposed "democracy" to come, assuming even a semblance of it will be instituted, is precisely engineered to keep the poor down and to delegitimise all their economic demands. The exchange that the US hopes to achieve by imposing some form of liberal political order on Egypt and Tunisia is indeed more, not less, imperial pillage of their economies and of the livelihoods of their poor classes, who are the large majority of the population. The ultimate US aim then is to hijack the successful uprisings against the existing regimes under the cover of democracy for the benefit of the very same local and international business elites in power under Mubarak and Ben Ali. How successful the US and its local allies will be will depend on the Egyptian and Tunisian peoples.

Joseph Massad is Associate Professor for Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York.

The great land grab: India's war on farmers.....Vandana Shiva

"The Earth upon which the sea, and the rivers and waters, upon which food and the tribes of man have arisen, upon which this breathing, moving life exists, shall afford us precedence in drinking."
- Prithvi Sukta, Atharva Veda

Land is life. It is the basis of livelihoods for peasants and indigenous people across the Third World and is also becoming the most vital asset in the global economy. As the resource demands of globalisation increase, land has emerged as a key source of conflict. In India, 65 per cent of people are dependent on land. At the same time a global economy, driven by speculative finance and limitless consumerism, wants the land for mining and for industry, for towns, highways, and biofuel plantations. The speculative economy of global finance is hundreds of times larger than the value of real goods and services produced in the world.

Financial capital is hungry for investments and returns on investments. It must commodify everything on the planet - land and water, plants and genes, microbes and mammals. The commodification of land is fuelling the corporate land grab in India, both through the creation of Special Economic Zones and through foreign direct investment in real estate.

Land, for most people in the world, is Terra Madre, Mother Earth, Bhoomi, Dharti Ma. The land is people's identity; it is the ground of culture and economy. The bond with the land is a bond with Bhoomi, our Earth; 75 per cent of the people in the Third World live on the land and are supported by the land. The Earth is the biggest employer on the planet: 75 per cent of the wealth of the people of the global south is in land.

Colonisation was based on the violent takeover of land. And now, globalisation as recolonisation is leading to a massive land grab in India, in Africa, in Latin America. Land is being grabbed for speculative investment, for speculative urban sprawl, for mines and factories, for highways and expressways. Land is being grabbed from farmers after trapping them in debt and pushing them to suicide.

India's land issues

In India, the land grab is facilitated by the toxic mixture of the colonial Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the deregulation of investments and commerce through neo-liberal policies -  and with it the emergence of the rule of uncontrolled greed and exploitation. It is facilitated by the creation of a police state and the use of colonial sedition laws which define defence of the public interest and national interest as anti-national.

The World Bank has worked for many years to commodify land. The 1991 World Bank structural adjustment programme reversed land reform, deregulated mining, roads and ports. While the laws of independent India to keep land in the hands of the tiller were reversed, the 1894 Land Acquisition Act was untouched.

Thus the state could forcibly acquire the land from the peasants and tribal peoples and hand it over to private speculators, real estate corporations, mining companies and industry.

Across the length and breadth of India, from Bhatta in Uttar Pradesh (UP) to Jagatsinghpur in Orissa to Jaitapur in Maharashtra, the government has declared war on our farmers, our annadatas, in order to grab their fertile farmland.

Their instrument is the colonial Land Acquisition Act - used by foreign rulers against Indian citizens. The government is behaving as the foreign rulers did when the Act was first enforced in 1894, appropriating land through violence for the profit of corporations - JayPee Infratech in Uttar Pradesh for the Yamuna expressway, POSCO in Orissa and AREVA in Jaitapur - grabbing land for private profit and not, by any stretch of the imagination, for any public purpose. This is rampant in the country today.

These land wars have serious consequences for our nation's democracy, our peace and our ecology, our food security and rural livelihoods. The land wars must stop if India is to survive ecologically and democratically.

While the Orissa government prepares to take the land of people in Jagatsinghpur, people who have been involved in a democratic struggle against land acquisition since 2005, Rahul Gandhi makes it known that he stands against forceful land acquisition in a similar case in Bhatta in Uttar Pradesh. The Minister for the Environment, Mr Jairam Ramesh, admitted that he gave the green signal to pass the POSCO project - reportedly under great pressure. One may ask: "Pressure from whom?" This visible double standard when it comes to the question of land in the country must stop.

Violation of the land

In Bhatta Parsual, Greater Noida (UP), about 6000 acres of land is being acquired by infrastructure company Jaiprakash Associates to build luxury townships and sports facilities - including a Formula 1 racetrack - in the guise of building the Yamuna Expressway. In total, the land of 1225 villages is to be acquired for the 165km Expressway. The farmers have been protesting this unjust land acquisition, and last week, four people died - while many were injured during a clash between protesters and the police on May 7, 2011. If the government continues its land wars in the heart of India's bread basket, there will be no chance for peace.

In any case, money cannot compensate for the alienation of land. As 80-year-old Parshuram, who lost his land to the Yamuna Expressway, said: "You will never understand how it feels to become landless."

While land has been taken from farmers at Rs 300 ($6) per square metre by the government - using the Land Acquistion Act - it is sold by developers at Rs 600,000 ($13,450) per square metre - a 200,000 per cent increase in price - and hence profits. This land grab and the profits contribute to poverty, dispossession and conflict.

Similarly, on April 18, in Jaitapur, Maharashtra, police opened fire on peaceful protesters demonstrating against the Nuclear Power Park proposed for a village adjacent to the small port town. One person died and at least eight were seriously injured. The Jaitapur nuclear plant will be the biggest in the world and is being built by French company AREVA. After the Fukushima disaster, the protest has intensified - as has the government's stubbornness.

Today, a similar situation is brewing in Jagatsinghpur, Orissa, where 20 battalions have been deployed to assist in the anti-constitutional land acquisition to protect the stake of India's largest foreign direct investment - the POSCO Steel project. The government has set the target of destroying 40 betel farms a day to facilitate the land grab. The betel brings the farmers an annual earning of Rs 400,000 ($9,000) an acre. The Anti-POSCO movement, in its five years of peaceful protest, has faced state violence numerous time and is now gearing up for another - perhaps final - non-violent and democratic resistance against a state using violence to facilitate its undemocratic land grab for corporate profits, overlooking due process and the constitutional rights of the people.

The largest democracy of the world is destroying its democratic fabric through its land wars. While the constitution recognises the rights of the people and the panchayats [village councils] to democratically decide the issues of land and development, the government is disregarding these democratic decisions - as is evident from the POSCO project where three panchayats have refused to give up their land.

The use of violence and destruction of livelihoods that the current trend is reflecting is not only dangerous for the future of Indian democracy, but for the survival of the Indian nation state itself. Considering that today India may claim to be a growing or booming economy - but yet is unable feed more than 40 per cent of its children is a matter of national shame.

Land is not about building concrete jungles as proof of growth and development; it is the progenitor of food and water, a basic for human survival. It is thus clear: what India needs today is not a land grab policy through an amended colonial land acquisition act but a land conservation policy, which conserves our vital eco-systems, such as the fertile Gangetic plain and coastal regions, for their ecological functions and contribution to food security.

Handing over fertile land to private corporations, who are becoming the new zamindars [heriditary aristocrats], cannot be defined as having a public purpose. Creating multiple privatised super highways and expressways does not qualify as necessary infrastructure. The real infrastructure India needs is the ecological infrastructure for food security and water security. Burying our fertile food-producing soils under concrete and factories is burying the country's future.

Dr Vandana Shiva is a physicist, ecofeminist, philosopher, activist, and author of more than 20 books and 500 papers. She is the founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and has campaigned for biodiversity, conservation and farmers' rights, winning the Right Livelihood Award [Alternative Nobel Prize] in 1993.