South Asia Daily

Pakistan again

You cannot warn Pakistan against using insurgent groups as a tool to advance its strategic policy goals and simultaneously offer it to expand strategic partnership. President Barack Obama's two-page letter to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, which The Washington Post reports was delivered earlier this month, seems to do precisely that.

Pakistan knows that if the U.S. is willing to offer it some semblance of strategic parity with India, it is because it is craftily used the very insurgent groups that the Obama administration wants Islamabad to disengage from. Without in some way patronizing these groups, there is no way Pakistan could have made itself potent enough to extract any strategic partnership. Why would anyone give up a winning strategy? Other than directly or indirectly controlling those groups and owning nuclear weapons, there is not a lot more going for the Pakistani military. To that extent they are playing their cards very well.

Notwithstanding the bluntness of Obama's fundamental message, Islamabad knows that Washington will have to do some delicate balancing when it comes to making that policy work on the ground. As far as the overarching goals in the region go, Afghanistan and Pakistan are geostrategically contiguous. One does not happen without the other. Subsequently the U.S. goals will be dictated by this fact. By extension that contiguity stretches even to India. Given the highly complicated bilateral dynamics among the three countries, the job is made even more difficult.

One does not want to dismiss the Obama administration's seemingly new approach out of hand because there is no other option but to keep trying to get it right. The consequences of getting it wrong are obvious.

Chronicling Mumbai attacks

Having watched the HBO documentary "Terror in Mumbai" and PBS documentary "Mumbai Massacre" back to back it is clear to me that it is a combination of factors that has made these particular attacks so much a subject of international focus.

The most obvious factor is that they involved the urban rich obliviously leading their opulent lives in five-star hotels, insulated from the dust and grime outside their rarefied existence. This may sound reactionary and even communist but it is an undeniable fact that had the attacks occurred in Mumbai's thousands of shanties they would not have received half the attention they have. Let me paraphrase Oliver Goldsmith in "The Vicar of Wakefield' and say that the troubles of the rich are ever successful. (For those of you who may not know the original line goes: 'The jests of the rich are ever successful').

Daniel Reed, the director of "Terror in Mumbai" says in a somewhat unrelated context, "Previous terrorist attacks on Mumbai had always targeted primarily the urban poor - mainly commuters. But now two five-star hotels had been attacked, and the well-to-do of South Mumbai felt suddenly defenseless and betrayed by the failure of the police and security services."

But to only attribute the interest in these attacks to the fact that they involved the rich would be missing the point. It is equally undeniable that the attacks make for a classically gripping narrative from every angle. It has the grandeur of wealth as symbolized by the Taj Mahal and Oberoi hotels and the kind of people whose heels are thoroughly scrubbed and tender. It has a group of religiously brainwashed malcontents who represent the abhorrent underbelly of South Asian society. Sandwiched between these two extremes are unsuspecting middle class people as symbolized by the commuters at the city's Victoria Terminus (now Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus) railway station. Beyond these three broad sociologically distinct groups are utterly compelling individual characters such as the lone surviving and captured gunman Mohammed Ajmal Amir alias Kasab. Here is an utterly impressionable young man, grabbed from his wretched existence from Pakistan's hinterland and sold visions of a fabled afterlife.

As if all this was not enough there is a news photographer whose total commitment to his profession produces an iconic chronicle of Kasab in action. I am referring to Sebastian D'Souza of the Mumbai Mirror newspaper.

The whole plot is so brilliantly cinematic that one cannot fault for any filmmaker for jumping in.

Contrary to all the hype that preceded the HBO documentary I was somewhat underwhelmed by its overall impact. One of the unique selling points of this particular documentary was the never before seen and heard audio and video of the attacks pieced together from CCTV footage and tapped phone conversations. I am told that many Indian news channels had access to the same material but they were asked by the investigators not to use it so as to prejudice the delivery of justice in the Kasab trial. The PBS documentary, which mixes real live TV footage and reenactment along with interviews of some survivors, was a little more compelling. Ideally, the two documentaries should have been fused into one powerful record.

Neither documentary attempts to delve into the mind of a misanthropic young killer. That is understandable because it was not their purpose. Their purpose was to offer perspectives which are little more comprehensive than the breathless 24x7 television news coverage. To that extent both succeed. The HBO documentary is not available online but the PBS one is. See it here.

The party is over

 

I should have been a country. I would have then been too big to fail. Reading of Dubai World's money troubles one is not surprised that it has happened. One is surprised that not a lot of people saw it coming. Next time when a well-meaning friend lectures me on my bad financial management I am going to just say one word—Dubai. And when a creditor calls I am giving Dubai's country code.

Robert Fisk has an excellent piece in The Independent of London. "Allah was kind to Dubai yesterday. Just when the emirate's unspeakable wealth appeared on the point of collapse – stock markets, of course, naturally 'trembled' – along came the feast of Eid al-Adha and sent all the kings and emirs and sheikhs off to their diwans to celebrate the decision by the father of monotheism – the Prophet Ibrahim himself – not to kill his son Ismail. But then again, Sheikh Mohamed bin Rashid al-Makhtoum, knew that the week-long holiday in Dubai would close down the local markets even if it couldn't stifle the rumours," Fisk who is a veteran of the Middle East writes.

An unsuspecting world gaped in awe and wonder as Dubai embarked on a spending spree with a building frenzy rarely seen anywhere. It was as if they wanted to use up cement, steel and glass before they became scarce. The simple logic seemed to be—If we build people will buy. It so happened that logic came apart. So Dubai is now doing what millions of middle class Americans are doing—defer debt payments. Of course, when you are a sheikh in an oil rich kingdom and owe tens of billions the term is debt standstill.

India has a direct stake in Dubai, considering a vast expatriate Indian population there which sends billions in remittances. Nearly half of India's $25 billion in annual remittances comes from the Gulf region, of which Dubai is a crucial part. The country's Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee is advising against pushing the panic button. "Let us wait and watch what has happened recently. I don't visualize it is going to have an earth shaking adverse effect," he said.

The sandy earth is shaking under Dubai though.

Gate-crashing and Afghanistan

This morning I had to choose between my news analysis on India possibly influencing the Obama administration's new Afghanistan policy and a story about what the gate-crashing couple meant in terms of security breach. Both of these appeared worldwide courtesy my professional home, the Indo-Asian News Service. I have posted excerpts from both.

Will Manmohan Singh influence Obama's Afghan strategy?

By Mayank Chhaya

Washington, Nov 27 (IANS) Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assertive counsel to stay the course in Afghanistan or risk "catastrophic consequences" under an emboldened Taliban could play a decisive role in President Barack Obama's final determination about his new strategy in the region.

It is more than likely that the prime minister's warning in his interviews preceding the just concluded state visit here was a carefully calibrated move to ensure that the Obama administration seriously factors in India's views in their long-term strategy.

(l to r) Tareq Salahi, Vice President Joe Biden and Michaele Salahi (Pic: As it appears on the couple's Facebook page)

Gate-crashers constituted serious security breach at White House

By Mayank Chhaya

Washington, Nov 27 (IANS) The gate-crashing by a couple at the White House state dinner in honour of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Nov 24 is a more serious security breach than it might apparently seem.

Had something comparable happened in the vicinity of a visiting US president anywhere, particularly in South Asia, it would have triggered a drastic security response.

 

Smaller than its reputation

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the Blue Room of the White House. November 24, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The White House briefing room is even smaller than its reputation. While waiting for the joint news conference by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama on Tuesday morning, the Indian media members were ushered into the James Brady Briefing Room. I don't know if it was the sheer number of journalists and their individual egos that made the briefing room appear even more claustrophobic.

My overriding sense is that the space is deliberately kept cramped so as to ensure that the media never really gets too comfortable. Given how coveted a seat in the briefing room is, the regulars do get anal about anyone else intruding their august space. They have a sense of entitlement about their own seats. I saw some raised eyebrows and rolling eyes among the regulars at the sheer burst of media humanity that morning. If there were thought balloons over their heads, they would probably all read "WTF is going on here? WhoTF are these strange looking people? WhotTF let them in?"

While the regular White House press corps was allowed to the East Room, the venue of the joint presser, through some mysterious backdoor, the Indian/visiting media was herded through the main entrance in small trickles, past what seemed like a moving truck. I thought it was too early for the White House occupants to move out. They just got in there.

Coming back to the briefing room, there has to be a reason why it is so small. It cannot be for want of space. I am sure those who are in charge of such affairs can easily add some 1000 square feet more. I am quite certain that the White House building permit application would be viewed favorably, even if it is aimed at accommodating the annoying media. I was told that on television the podium, where the press secretary stands, looks bigger than it actually is because of the kind of camera lenses used for the purpose.

The oddest sight in the room, other than us, was two picture frames with a pair scissors each mounted above two pictures. Apparently they were there to commemorate the ribbon cutting by the august hands of President Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush after the briefing room was refurbished and renovated. It is just as well that in this media shrine, pairs of scissors are on such prominent display.

 

Mumbai, November 26, 2008

Mumbai Mirror news photographer Sebastian D'Souza's iconic picture of Mumbai terror attack gunman Mohammed Ajmal Amir alias Kasab

Today marks the first anniversary of the Mumbai terror attacks. While the attacks were full of compelling stories, nothing is more emblematic of the attacks than the iconic picture of one of the ten gunmen, Mohammed Ajmal Amir alias Kasab captured by news photographer Sebastian D'Souza. M R Narayan Swamy of the IANS has interviewed Sabby as part of that remembrance. You may read the rest of the story here: http://dailysub.com/media.htm

I do not have the permission to use Sabby's picture but since the story concerns him I have taken the liberty of using it as an illustration here.

By M R Narayan Swamy

New Delhi, Nov 26 (IANS) The only photographer who clicked Pakistani terrorists killing innocents at Mumbai's largest railway station says he is not proud of his iconic pictures although they have won him global fame.

Sebastian D'Souza can never forget the cold-blooded massacre he witnessed at the Chhattrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station on this day last year as he risked his life to capture on camera the terrorists in action -- a rarity in photo journalism.

"Technically they are great pictures. They are the first pictures in the world of terrorists in action," Sabby, as the photographer is popularly known, said in a telephonic interview.

"What I saw was not a great person. He is just a killer. He has killed our citizens? From that point of view, it not a great picture for me," the 57-year-old told IANS.

"Had he been a great guy, then I would have been very proud of my pictures. What happened that day is a sad thing, what he did was bad," he said.

Obama Singh

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama at the White House (White House Pc: Pete Souza)

I just returned from the White House. I have nothing after that. That's it. That's all I have to say. After all going to and returning from the White House in itself a credible vocation for so many people.

With an introduction like that you would probably expect something intellectually vigorous on the first post of the day. Far from it, I only have a few observations about their body language of President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at their joint conference this afternoon. Listless and enervated were the words that came to my mind when I saw them together. And the fact that the two men are separated by nearly three decades was only a factor in the absence of passion in their joint appearance.

Obama seemed uncharacteristically distracted and Singh looked characteristically contracted as they laid out what they projected as a strategic partnership between the two countries. I was not expecting Obama to so unsubtly attempt to forge equity between China and India, apparently prompted by his joint statement only last week out of Beijing which upset New Delhi. But he did in saying, "India is a rising and responsible power. In Asia, Indian leadership is expanding prosperity and security across the region. US welcomes and encourages India's leadership role in helping to shape the rise of a peaceful and stable Asia,"

For the nth time Obama called Singh a "wise man" and Singh barely nodded in acknowledgement. I don't know why but when Dr. Singh turns his head, his torso too turns. Only I seem to notice such trivial details and extract a deeper analysis out of it.

I will have a lot more to say and you can expect many more posts on the Singh visit.

Indra Nooyi and Manmohan Singh seem to share their tailor

I am in Washington for a couple of days reporting on what I think should have been a Skype conference between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Instead it is an elaborate state visit to give the bilateral discourse the weight of a summit. It is good for me because I get to do some fresh hack work.

The first major event that Dr. Singh attended was a US-India Business Council luncheon this afternoon in the presence of all the heavy hitters of industry, trade and commerce from both sides. Even under duress Dr. Singh is a very uninspiring speaker. So his address was not much to write home about. His delivery has the drone of a drone at 50,000 feet. And unlike the drone he does not even drop anything incendiary on his unsuspecting audience. "As you well know, the last year has not been an easy one for the global economy," was one of his trademark understated remarks in the address.

Since I reserve the more serious substance for those media outlets which pay me, the blog gets only superficial deconstructions. Here is one. I could not but notice that Dr. Singh and Pepsi chief Indra Nooyi were dressed alike. For a moment I thought they share the tailor. The only difference was that Dr. Singh's 'bandhgala' was a lighter shade of grey than Nooyi's and her buttons were a little more expensive. That's the least one would expect of the boss of a huge multinational fizz drink and chips maker.

Both Dr. Singh and Nooyi seemed to have worked assiduously on making their address utterly mundane and commonplace. I will offer more such profound insights later.

Tandoori chicken v. turkey

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's state visit beginning Sunday could not have come at a more unproductive time considering the sheer enormity of domestic and international challenges that the Obama administration is facing.

A shaky economy, ten plus percent unemployment, two prohibitively expensive yet unwinnable wars and a rancorous political fight over a piece of nearly trillion dollar healthcare legislation are only compounded by slowly gathering skepticism about a young president's capacity to manage so much. Even some of his most ardent admirers have begun to feel underwhelmed by President Barack Obama's performance so far. They say unless he and his advisers are engaged in some unfathomable long-term strategy, signs do not look very promising.

Notwithstanding that it is the first state visit of his presidency, Obama is so besieged by challenges that it is anybody's guess how much attention other than generating some ceremonial atmospherics he can pay to the Indian prime minister. From India's standpoint a particularly jarring note was struck by Obama during his first visit to China. A joint statement issued by him and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, practically according Beijing the role of a referee in South Asia, upset New Delhi enough to offer an immediate rejection.

Contrary to India's own vision of its growing global clout the U.S. essentially sees her as a regional power of consequence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the other hand China, which controls nearly a trillion dollars in U.S. debt, is being grudgingly seen as a potential nemesis. Even as the U.S. economy seems to have put the worst behind it, there are enough vulnerabilities still prevailing to compel the Obama administration not to confront China on any major issue. It is in this context that the U.S.-China joint statement ought to be seen. There are only two reasons why Obama and his advisers would have agreed to the particular language in the statement. One is that he means it and believes that China should be the monitor in the region or the other that it was a tactical move to create a false sense of equity between the U.S. and China. In either case it does not help India.

It is less than likely that Dr. Singh would explicitly raise the language of the statement during his meeting with Obama on November 24. As it is the bilateral agenda appears to be studiedly non-political. In an interview with The Washington Post Dr. Singh explained the agenda thus: "We would like to strengthen energy cooperation with the United States -- [in] clean coal technology and in renewable energy resources. Similarly, there is concern for food security. We would like to have a second Green Revolution in our country -- therefore, cooperation in the field of agriculture, in science and technology, in health, and in dealing with pandemics." This is apart from operationalizing the civilian nuclear deal and "refocusing our attention on an equitable, balanced global order." Also on his agenda is to get a "positive reaffirmation" of the deal from the Obama administration.

When you add up all this you get the sense that a lot of these bilateral initiatives could have been set rolling on a Skype conference call as well. (Hey this is a blog. Let me be facetious and cynical.) And yes, just two days before Thanksgiving dinner at the White House, you cannot blame Obama if he has a turkey on his mind and not tandoori chicken.

My lord, let it be noted

 

President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

My lord, let it be noted that this blog was quicker than The Washington Post to record the potentially chilling impact of the recent U.S.-China joint statement that seemed to accord Beijing a mediatory role between India and Pakistan.

The Post has a story today by John Pomfret that says,  "…two perceived missteps by the Obama administration have Indian officials concerned that New Delhi suddenly has been relegated to the second tier of U.S.-Asian relations."

Let me quite pompously quote myself. (When a journalist does that it is pretty much the end of the road.) "The timing of China-U.S. joint statement was particularly inopportune coming as it did less than a week before President Obama hosts India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on his presidency's first state visit. I did not quite understand why the U.S. president would agree to that language in the joint statement except for one of two specific reasons—a) he means it and believes that China should be the monitor in the region or b) it was a tactical move to create a sense of equity between the U.S. and China. Both are worth rejecting. Coupled with the fact that Obama softballed issues such as human rights and Tibet can only mean that he is acting on his natural impulses not to rock status quos too much," I had said on November 18^th.

When I quote myself I sound quite credible. (Another sign that there is a career dead-end ahead.) Humor aside, having reported out of New Delhi for a long time I have an intuitive sense of what it is that is going to rile Indian sensibilities. Quite disengaged from its economic status, New Delhi has for decades spoken its mind with great candor on all international affairs and has always found resonance around the world. Now that India, along with China, is one of the two bellwether global economies, it has commensurate gravitas to back up its independence. What may have seemed presumptuous in a poor economy two or three decades ago is now a recognizable strength.

The Post story speaks in terms of the Obama Administration's perceived missteps raising concerns in India. I am not quite sure if these are missteps. I wish the joint statement were a result of diplomatic ineptitude in dealing with China and India. The more I reflect, the more it strikes me that it was a conscious attempt to walk an extra mile towards China with the presumption that India can always be counted to do the right thing.

I am sure the statement has not gone unnoticed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh but he too is not known to be gratuitously assertive in these matters. I would be surprised if he even mentions the U.S.-China joint statement directly at the summit level during his talks with President Obama on November 24. Even if he does so it would not be projected as something which has a serious long-term impact on India-U.S. relations.