A proflict in America

By M J Akbar

What changed on 11 September 2001? The answer has become even more crucial with the success of American arms in the war against the Taliban; a war that began amid much apprehension about American ability and even more cynicism about American will.

For Americans the world changed on 11 September. For the rest of the world, America changed on 11 September. The difference in perception is not ornamental. It might be legitimate to argue that when America changes the world changes as well. It is the privilege of any superpower to define the prevailing morality of those regions it commands, and there is little doubt that no nation in history has been as powerful as the United States is today. The whole world may not be equally obedient to Washington, but it you want to see the image in terms of a queue, then there is a clamour in the front to fawn, and only a thin fag end of sceptics at the back. No responsible government has discovered either the will or the justification to challenge American policy on war, peace and economics with any seriousness. Of course the two could be related; you discover the will only if you first find sufficient justification.

How did the world change for America? That is easy. It came indoors. America has always seen itself as the largest island on the globe, a golden glade of internal prosperity and external trade, ever reluctant to engage in the messy conflict of others, except as agent provocateur, or to defend its economic interests in vital areas that provide the raw material for its consumption and energy needs. In part this must be because of its history as a refugee island; it is a country that has been settled by refugee invaders who escaped the horrors of their parent countries, usurped the land of native. American and ultimately replaced them through a policy of decimation and colonisation. Americans had escaped from a terrible world of bloodshed in Europe and Asia, and they were reluctant to bring home body bags in the first and second world wars as well. Their first major, independent, armed excursion in world affairs, Vietnam, taught them that their previous reluctance had been wise. Insular by preference, democratic by conviction, and gregarious by nature. Americans have little appreciation of the pools of anger created by their policies and their status as the preeminent power of the era. Were Graham Greene to mention an ugly American today, he would certainly be interrogated by George Bush's thought police; and much of the interrogation would be by officers who left genuinely puzzled and hurt by this allegation. The Atlantic has often been referred to, in typical British understatement, as a pond. Terrorists targetting America did convert the Atlantic into a pond on September 11. America has to face a simple fact, that this continental island is no longer a safe haven, and this has changed every equation in its book dramatically. How did America change for the world? In various ways. Some countries, India among them, had the private satisfaction of watching America wake up to a problem that it had only paid lip service to. But terrorism is a symptom of something sharper. America's attitude to conflict resolution used to be words. It did not have more than words for Afghanistan after it won its proxy war against the Soviet Union and disappeared, leaving Pakistan holding the baby and various militias crying uncle. Afghanistan is the first instance of a new phase of American participation in conflict resolution.

Is that good news? So much depends on the answer.

The suicide bombings that hit Israel last week prove one thing unambiguously: the American victory in Afghanistan has had no impact on the motivation of others who see no way forward in their cause other than suicide missions. The defeat of the Taliban (widely, and I believe sincerely, welcomed by most of the Muslim world) has not intimidated those Palestinians who believe Israel's occupation of their lands to be unjust and blame America for perpetrating this injustice. There was no doubt about the outcome in Afghanistan when those suicide missions wrecked havoc in Israel. Kabul had already fallen and Kandahar was no more than a mopping-up operation after that.

This in turn brings us to a critical point; you cannot intimidate those who are ready to die. If the United States wants to end terrorism, then it must work to change the ethos that persuades young men and women that there is a cause strong enough to die for. The immediate reaction of the White House was anger, and when anger is in the air the vane shifts almost automatically to Yasser Arafat. This is temporary give and take, with much of the giving and taking being done on television screen. Which, by the way, is more incendiary? A gunfire war or a propaganda war? A frustrated Ehud Barak called Arafat a terrorist. Is he talking about the man he supped with just a year ago at Camp David in the benign presence of President Bill Clinton? Did Tony Blair have long meetings with a terrorist only a few weeks ago? Or did Arafat briefly retire from terrorism and has now returned to it after the Americans have delivered their sharpest message ever against the problem with their victory in Afghanistan? As one perceptive diplomat said, the world's leaders no longer feel accountable for the language they use.

Washington has to take a decision, and do so sooner rather than later: does it support the creation of a Palestine state because it believes that this is the correct thing to do, or did it make statements to this effect only because it wanted the help of some Muslim countries for its own needs? There is obviously going to be overlap, but the world is waiting to see how the balance tilts when interests are weighed against convictions. There have been hints that Washington has recognised the need for a viable Palestinian state, rather than a Palestine that is full of holes and moles. Washington faces an unfamiliar twist, which is a price, perhaps welcome, of its single-superpower status. After Afghanistan , all conflicts, even the most vicious ones, are between friends of America. In the good old days, up to the age of Ronald Reagan, there were good guys and bad guys. All you can say now is that there are good guys and pals. Palestine is as happy with American mediation in its conflict with Israel as Israel is. India and Pakistan are now competitive about which of them is closer to George Bush, a sort of my-bush-is-bigger-than-yours game. China takes as much comfort in visits from the American President as Taiwan. Is this the elixir for eternal life?

Regrettably, no. Their competition for the love of America does not make regional antagonists less hostile to each other. Washington's reluctance to intervene in the dispute over Kashmir is sensible; why should America purchase the distrust of one friend or the other over a dispute that it can do little about in any case. If anyone in Islamabad has visions of the American Air Force over Delhi and Srinagar, then he is clearly dining at Barmecide's feast.

This is the danger with too much friendship. Everyone may end up praising food that does not exist. Barmecide, a great noble of the Calipph Haroun al-Rashid, at least until his head was cut off, would invite beggars from the street, seat them on the most comfortable divans and then order his servants to brnng out a dinner of many courses. With each course, and each sherbet he would strew the air with phrases of praise for the food and drink, and, if his guests were sensible, they would join in with even greater compliments about the food, the chef, the service, the grandeur. The trick was that no food was ever served, an d everyone participated in maintaining the illusion, both the well-fed host and starving beggar. A barmecide's feast is an excellent metaphor, but not a good policy for international relations. Sometimes, though, the temptation to use the metaphor becomes irresistible for superpowers.

Far better for Washington to serve wholesome rice and dal with the rider that this is a realistic option, and good for health. Guests at such a table might be unhappy at the difference between reality and expectations, but at least their children will bless them for not returning hungry, and angry and having dined on empty words.

Should there be a new word in the post-Taliban era? Conflict is too redolent of the past that we want to leave behind us. How about proflict? It sounds like the opposite of conflict. Better still, it means nothing. As yet.

Badal ensures political supremacy

By Harjit Singh

The political scene in Punjab, for a change, is not moving on expected lines. Contrary to the speculations that ruling Akali Dal is losing its ground, the emerging trends are singing just the opposite tune. Parkash Singh Badal is certainly surfacing as a political heavy weight as against any other Akali faction.

To substantiate it, just view the election of Mr. Kirpal Singh Badungar as the new President of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) in Amritsar on November 27. Despite the hype created by the media about the "desperate efforts to unite Badal and Tohra factions", the Chief Minister has gone ahead with his personal preference of a person as the head of SGPC.

That his chosen favourite won the election by a huge margin of 56 votes clearly indicates that Tohra has no so-called hold on SGPC. I personally feel the Tohra faction, in fact, has got factionalised group within itself. The cracks in his group were more than visible in the recent Press conference. In the first place, announcing that Tohar was to address the Press fooled the media. However, any and every member was fully aware that he was not to be there. As if this was not enough, to expose their cracks further, both Prem Singh Chandumajra and Ravi Inder Singh took a stand against each other. When Ravi Inder Singh stated that it was a "mistake" on Tohra’s part to have visited Badal in a Delhi hospital, Chandumajra intervened to say that these remarks were "off the record".

However, Ravi Inder Singh throwing Chandumajra’s caution to the wind promptly shot back, "No, this is on record". Coming back to Badal’s rising stature among the Akalis, Badungar, an Officer on Special Duty with the Chief Minister, won the SGPC presidential poll defeating Mr. Sukhdeve Singh Bhaur, a candidate of the Panthic Morcha. But interestingly, Jagdeve Singh Talwandi, the former SGPC President, could not hide his heart-burn to such an extent that this 80-year-old man acted like an offended teenager by tearing off his ballot paper. He tried his rather feeble accusations against Badunagar about his alleged links with Baba Piara Singh Bhaniara. (Baba Bhaniara has been accused of ordering burning of Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of the Sikhs, and also stands excommunicated from the Sikh Panth by Akal Takht). The Akal Takht, however, did not find anything against Mr. Badungar.

Meanwhile, Talwandi, who was seen sulking at the STPC elections soon enough changed colours like the chameleon probably because better sense prevailed upon him, keeping in view the political future of his sons, which obviously depended much on Badal’s support than Tohra’s faction. Reportedly, he called Badal within 24 hours reiterating his allegiance to him.

On the other hand, Talwandi has opened yet another front with the Sikh clergy too. Talwandi broke the tradition on Diwali by addressing the Sikh sangat at the Golden Temple. This has always been the prerogative of the Akal Takht Jathedar, who gives his traditional "message" on that day. In his address, Talwandi reportedly cast aspirations on the Jathedar and his colleagues, which has been taken cognizance of. The clergy is examining Talwandi’s message and may proceed against him.

Contrary to speculations, Mr. Badal has played his political cards well showing the door to Mr. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, who was being supported by Mr. Tohra. This has sent home a cryptic message to other party leaders and the cadre that it does not "pay to be on the wrong side Badal" or rake up unnecessary controversies queering the pitch for him every where and all the time.

There was hope of "unity among warring factions of the Akali Dal following a meeting between Mr. Tohra and Mr. Badal in a hospital in New Delhi before the SGPC Presidential poll. The hope was further fanned by the media hype. There was intense speculation of "unity" being achieved before the Assembly elections due early next year.

The media is now out to suggest that the SGPC election outcome has once again jeopardized chances of "unity". The hope re-kindled in some sections of the warring Akali factions seems to have extinguished; though not completely. The Akalis are known to do the unexpected. One would, therefore, do well to keep his fingers crossed at what the future holds for the Akali politics. The machination of operation of wheels within wheels in Akali politics is difficult to decipher. At this point of time it will be harzardous to guess which way the Akali politics will turn. Nevertheless, despite hopsitalization of Mr. Badal, it is pretty clear that a strategy has been evolved for the smooth functioning of the party apparatus, both organizational and legislature, as well as the Government.

The recent meeting of the Council of Ministers in Chandigarh, where abolition of octroi was approved, indicates that the temporary absence of Badal will not be allowed to give the Opposition any chance to talk of the ruling outfit operating in a vacuum. What new religion-political equations, permutations and combinations emerge in the weeks ahead will show the broad contours of the roadmap to the Assembly elections.

All said and done, Badal certainly cannot be called a spent force. His Akali Dal’s alliance with BJP in the state and his more than cordial equation with BJP at the Centre make him rather irresistible for the voters in Punjab. Recently, when the Union Home Minister, L. K. Advani, visited Badal in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital his comment in the register claimed Badal to be his "brother". As far as I understand Badal’s personality, such expressions mean a lot to him as he belongs to a generation, which has the value system of respecting human bonds.

In fact Badal has never gone out of his way to play destructive politics even within Akali factions. One has never witnessed any hatred or ridicule on his part of his rivals. But he certainly ensures political supremacy of himself and his faction by playing his cards well. INAV