Tag Archives: Saudi Arabia

India-US Relations Blog

The Voice of the Majority – 2 – Religion & Regime Stability?

4 Comments

In the first article of this series, the following was deemed self-evident:

  • The majority in every society or country expects its religion, its culture, and its belief systems to be respected and supported by its government.

A corollary of this self-evident fact is:

  • A regime that is seen, felt and recognized to be respectful and supportive of the majority religion tends in turn to be supported the majority of the people.

The events of the past 2-3 weeks demonstrate the truth of this corollary.

Does any one think Pakistan is richer than Egypt or Tunisia? Does anyone think that Pakistan provides its youth greater career opportunities than Egypt or Tunisia? Does any one think that Pakistan is less corrupt than Egypt? No.

Yet, we have not seen a single protest demonstration in Pakistan. And we have seen massive demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt. The leader of Tunisia fled the country and his regime is in tatters. Yesterday, President Mubarak of Egypt announced his decision to step down in the face of huge protests in Cairo and Alexandria. Despite his 32-year reign, no one in Egypt has been willing to stand up in support of Mr. Mubarak. The Obama Administration and the Western European Governments have essentially dumped him.

The leaders of Tunisia and Egypt were and are secular men. They went out of their way to diminish the hold of religion on their people and they were ruthless against the proponents of the majority religion of their people. These leaders were the ones who created the education systems that educated the young men who have now risen against these leaders.

Look at the other regimes that seem to be trouble in the Middle East, Jordan, Bahrain, possibly Kuwait. These regimes, like Egypt & Tunisia, are generally secular; they have implemented western education systems and have discouraged overly strong influence of religion.

In each of these countries, the western educated segments are small and urban. The young “educated” people think of themselves as almost western and expect similar living standards. These “educated” youth are popular with American anchors who can interview them on American TV. They come across as just like young Americans or Europeans, young people who want the same things western young people want. It makes for lovely TV.

The Iranian students of 1978-1979 were just like these young people in Tunisia and Egypt. The Shah of Iran was like Ben-Ali of Tunisia and Mubarak of Egypt. He was dumped unceremoniously by his “bff” America and fled the country like Ben-Ali of Tunisia. Mubarak of Egypt seems made of sterner stuff and his fate is still unclear.

The Iranian Students that rioted in 2009 in Tehran were just like the Iranian Students of 1978-79, like Tunisian and Egyptian students we see today. But today’s Iranian regime is totally different. The Theocratic Regime in Iran has the support of the majority of Iranian people who are deeply conservative and religious. This is why the revolting Iranian students of 2009 received no support from the Iranian majority. This is why the Iranian regime could crush the revolt and tell the western world to bug off. And the Iranian regime won.

Today’s Pakistan is a basket case despite billions of dollars of U.S. aid. Actually Pakistan, a land with 170 million people, gets far less aid than does Egypt, a country of 80 million people. Yet, Pakistan has seen no riots about the price of bread, about the lack of jobs.

Is it because the Pakistani regime is as anti-secular as it can get? Is it because Pakistan’s religious establishment has a stake in supporting the regime, especially against American & European pressures? Is this why no American Anchor would dare to walk around Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar with a TV camera and crew to interview people in the streets? Is this lack of access to American TV another protective cover for the Pakistani regime?

President Mubarak’s Egyptian regime was a true loyal friend of America for 32 years. President Mubarak was the first to accept American Iraq, the first supporter of America’s War on Terror. President Obama chose Cairo, Egypt’s Capital, to deliver his major address to the world’s Muslims. Yet, the moment he became inconvenient, President Obama sent his envoy to Egypt to tell Mr. Mubarak to not seek an additional term.

In stark contrast, a U.S. Congressional delegation pleaded with Pakistan’s President Zardari to obtain a release of an American Diplomat who has been held in jail despite his diplomatic immunity. The Congressional delegation failed. And this is a Pakistani Government that is accused of being duplicitous and diverting American anti-terror aid to the Taleban, America’s enemies.

This is the difference between leaders/regimes that cultivate & placate the majority religion in their countries and leaders/regimes who scorn their majority religion under the banner of being “secular” and “modern”. Support of the majority gives the first set their power and immunity from America’s pressure. The second set! They get nothing from their majority because they gave the majority nothing.

How does this discussion relate to core India or US-India Relations? That is the topic for the next article.

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

From Tunisia through Egypt to Kashmir

5 Comments

The Jasmine revolution in Tunisia is only the latest manifestation of the power of the people to decisively compel dictatorial forces to yield. In February 1986, the Philippine people had brought down a dictatorship and restored democracy in their dramatic four-day People Power Revolution. Though the Soviet communist regime had quelled both the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring with tanks in the street, the influence of Lech Walesa’s Solidarity movement in Poland led to the intensification and spread of anti-communist ideals throughout the countries of the Eastern Bloc, weakening their oppressive communist governments.

egyptunrest

In August 1989, a Solidarity-led coalition government was formed in Poland and, almost simultaneously, the citizens of neighbouring Czechoslovakia threw off the shackles of four decades of totalitarian communist rule in what has been called the “Velvet Revolution”. The victory of the Ukrainian people’s Orange Revolution over their country’s corrupt leadership and the installation of Viktor Yushchenko as President in January 2005 represented a new landmark in the history of people’s movements for democracy. The Cedar Revolution in April 2005 ended the Syrian military occupation of Lebanon after 30 years. The Nepalese revolution in April 2006 led to the overthrow of the monarchy, reaffirming once again that the power of the people ultimately prevails.

The fragrance of Tunisia’s jasmine has spread rapidly to other Arab states including Algeria, Egypt, Jordan and Yemen. Libya and perhaps even Saudi Arabia may soon be smothered by its scent. Morocco and Syria may be next in line. Can non-Arab states ruled by tin-pot dictators under various garbs be far behind? Iran could be ripe for another revolution. The Pakistan army and the government of the day must surely be deeply concerned that the people might rise in revolt. They would be even more concerned about the prospects of hard-line Islamist support to the people’s aspirations for genuine self rule.

Even though India is a legitimate democracy and the people have enough avenues available to them to air their grievances and let off steam, many sections of society have felt a sense of alienation from the national mainstream for several decades. Some of them may take inspiration from the happenings in West Asia. Almost 100 stone-pelting youth had died in the Kashmir Valley in the summer of 2010 and many more were injured in police firing. The reason for the spontaneous students’ uprising appeared to be the collective weight of the hardships suffered over 20 years of militancy and terrorism and the central government’s often heavy-handed response. Though the sorry state of affairs was eventually brought under control through a measured response and the initiation of a sustained dialogue by government interlocutors with the people’s representatives, the situation remains volatile. Subterranean tensions may again rise to the surface without major provocation.

If the Kashmiri people come out on the streets of Srinagar, Baramulla, Sopore, Kupwara, Anantnag and half a dozen other towns like they did in 1988-89, in today’s mega-media age, it will be well nigh impossible for India to keep Kashmir by force. The Government of India must lose no further time in meeting the aspirations of the Kashmiri people for autonomy and self rule within the framework of the Indian Constitution. It is time to stop inflaming passions on vote-bank based party lines and to act in a statesman-like manner in keeping with the national interest.

(Gurmeet Kanwal is Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi.)


Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

Up Persian creek without a strategy

Leave a comment

India must get its act together on Iran…quickly.

The apparent lack of policy co-ordination within the Indian government over Iran is really worrying.

We are referring to the RBI’s decisions in recent days closing the Asian Clearing Union (ACU) mechanism to imports—beginning with oil and extending to other goods and services—from Iran. The move not only caught the industry by surprise, it looks like it caught the relevant government ministries by surprise as well. Given that Iran is India’s second largest supplier of crude oil accounting for around 13 percent ($12 billion) of oil imports and the risk of a short-term supply shock sending oil prices higher, the lack of policy coordination amounts to dereliction of duty.

The lack of coordination reflects a deeper malaise—the UPA government’s inability to evolve a coherent policy on Iran, with the result that New Delhi is forever in reactive mode. [See: Will the Ayatollah step behind the line?] The overall failure of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his government to communicate with the public—witness how they botched up the India-U.S. nuclear deal—means that no political leader explains why the government is doing whatever it is doing, and why difficult decisions have to be made. The latter would still be acceptable if the government executed in a competent fashion—like in the case of the nuclear deal—but intolerable where execution is poor.

In this case, there is no evidence that the relevant cabinet committees ever discussed the implications of RBI’s move and took the necessary measures to manage the fallout. The RBI’s independence doesn’t preclude coordination in matters like this. A competent government would have reassured the markets and the public that although RBI’s measures against imports from Iran would put 13% of India’s supply of crude at risk, it has alternative plans to protect the Indian economy. Instead we were left working out the implications of terse press releases issued by the central bank.

What might those alternative plans be? These could involve arrangements to import Iranian oil through other currencies (or the Indian rupee), assurances from other suppliers (read Saudi Arabia) that they will make up the shortfall or both. Given Saudi interests in keeping the lid on Iran’s nuclear programme, New Delhi could have extracted the latter as the price of tightening the financial screws on Iran. Indeed, not extracting such a price is a good opportunity squandered.

India must get its act together on Iran. First, it is in India’s interests to ensure that Iranian oil and gas continue to provide the economy with the supply diversity that an oil-importing country needs. If this objective is inconsistent with playing responsible global citizen then so be it.

Second, given that Iran shares an interest in preventing Afghanistan from falling under the sway of a Saudi-Pakistani-Taliban nexus, India needs to continue to engage Iran.

Third, while a nuclear-armed Iran may or may not be entirely in India’s interests, it is far better to manage the consequences thereof than to countenance the use of military force in a futile attempt to stop it.

Finally, while international sanctions are unlikely to prevent a determined Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it is geopolitically costly to stay out of the Western consensus. Unless sanctions prohibit India from purchasing Iranian oil and gas, it is better for India to be part of the sanctions regime.

Reconciling these objectives is not easy, but not impossible either. The big prize in foreign policy, however, is for India to assiduously work to bridge the divide between the United States and Iran. This—more than securing a permanent seat at the UN Security Council—is a project that is worthy of a rising global power. This task of international statesmanship requires a real leadership at South Block and the PMO. Till that time we can have day-to-day issue management, not strategy.

The new year begins with a question mark on oil imports from Iran. The larger question mark though is whether the UPA government will now realise that it finds itself in a jam over Iran because it has no ideas of its own.