Terrorism comes home to

By K.N. Pandita

Two years back, I told a visiting high profile American political analyst, also a member of American think-tank on Asia – Pacific, that his country would need to re-examine the entire gamut of its relations with the Saudi Arabian kingdom. He gave a vicious smile.

Last week, the US ordered the closure of its Consulates in the Saudi kingdom, further beefed up the security of its vital military installations in and around Saudi Arabia and warned its 35,000 nationals living in the Middle East to be alive to possible attacks from Islamic militants.

Washington has also alerted most of its vital installations around the Middle East. It suspects the Islamic jihadis to repeat 9/11 in a changed strategy in which cargo aircrafts could be hijacked and used for repeating the previous experiment with terror.

These are no small or insignificant decisions. They speak very eloquently of the frustration that has engulfed the strongest nation of the world.

If the alarming intelligence of a probable terrorist strike is correct, it should induce any sane person to reassess the so-called success achieved in combating global terrorism during past two years of US military action (or reaction) first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq and most likely in Iran in days to come.

What the Americans have achieved is the physical removal of the Taliban-Al Qaeda nexus from maintaining itself in a position of power in Afghanistan or of Saddam Husain in Baghdad. That may appear an achievement to the American policy planners. Or at the best that is what they can sell to the unsuspecting American citizenry in justification of the administration’s dubious decisions.

The truth is that anti-American sentiment is deep-seated among the Muslims of the world. It sounds paradoxical. The largest number of emigrants to the US during last three or four decades is of the Muslims from Islamic countries. Yet it is the Muslim community as a whole that has been nursing anti-American sentiment. This is a different question.

Therefore what the Americans actually need to do is to examine the "why" of this hatred syndrome. Those at the top know the answer but they would not open it for discussion. Oil interests stand out most prominently as the first and foremost reason.

Oil interests have led to American-Saudi monarchical nexus leading to the perpetuation of authoritarian rule in the land of the birth of Islam -- the religion of equality, fraternity and justice. This religion enjoins upon its adherents to rise against perpetrators of inequality, injustice and loot of their natural resources. This is what Osama said at the end of the day. Every Muslim is committed to fight its adversary..

The Saudi monarchical regime has been the primary source of spreading religious extremist ideology called Wahhabism. They have misused their enormous wealth and influence in creating schism among the Muslims world over. The Americans have been overt and covert supporters of this policy. Ar-Rabita, the powerful organization based in Saudi has been playing the key role in deepening Islamic fundamentalist ideology the world over.

In the process, the Americans by their outright support of the Saudi monarchy have brought tremendous pressure on moderate and accommodative segments of Muslim society to assert at all available forums that Islam is a religion of peace and not of violence.

By deploying its military forces in most of the sensitive Islamic regions of the world, the Americans have displayed a red rag to the bull. Islamic society is bound by the tenets of faith, its history and sociological application. A Muslim cannot accept to be looked upon as "the oppressed". That word does not exist in his lexicon. It means that the Muslims have to engage themselves in a long - drawn battle against their oppressors. Islamic history and tradition teach the Muslims to freely use craft and statecraft for obtaining liberation of the community (ummah) from a tyrant.

The United States cannot forget that its Muslim population is rapidly increasing numerically. Conversion of American blacks to the Islamic faith is going on with high speed. American Muslims are of crucial importance in influencing the future course of history meaning the American policy in the Middle East. It is they who will force the policy planners to make a shift in its oil-centric policy in the Middle East. As a result, any rationalizing measure will have direct impact on the Palestinian issue.

In wider context, America’s shift in Saudi policy will also have its undeniable impact on political climate of South Asia. Pakistan’s nuclear programme would not have materialized in absence of financial support from the Saudis. Kashmir armed insurgency manifests Saudi linkages. The rise of Islamic religious extremist groups in Pakistan, the proliferation of religious seminaries in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan (Ferghana Valley), Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Indian Kashmir and parts of India is closely linked to Saudi patronage and largesse. Central Asia has her own story to tell.

Saudi monarchy has also been playing safe despite all – pervading proximity to the Americans. It has created its military and now nuclear muscle in Pakistan, a country whose ruling class understands the Americans better than its own self.

Therefore, the precautionary steps taken by the Americans in connection with their presence on the Saudi Arabian territory is only misplaced judgment. What will actually insulate them against the terrorist threat not only in the Middle East but also anywhere on the globe depends on how pragmatic they are in their policy towards Islamabad. Islamabad is capable of deriving ten times more mileage out of its feigned friendship towards the Americans than the Americans are capable of deriving it from Pakistan.

Problems of Left-Green Social

By Bharat Jhunjhunwala

The latest talk in socialist circles is that of 'Left-Green Development'. The Left critique of pro-rich politics can be combined with the Greens' concern with environmental sustainability. The two streams can together present a new approach to development.

The Left-Green prescription is that there should be move towards a genuinely participatory democracy. They point to the successful experiences of Karnataka and West Bengal with Panchayati Raj. But have these experiments got genuine decentralization? It will be self-evident that this success came from the desire of the State-level leadership to decentralize power. The State leaders must have thought it beneficial for their power games to decentralize. Some observers have pointed out that the 73rd amendment was pushed by Rajiv Gandhi not to empower the local people but to undercut the power of State Governments and provide a direct access to local leadership that listens to the Central Government. The question is what may be the motive for the political elites to decentalize power. Genuine decentralization is like asking a magnet to repel the piece of iron lying nearby. It is the nature of a magnet to attract all iron. The leaders at the Centre and State levels have become leaders because they love power. To decentralize, on the other hand, means to give up power. Therefore, genuine dencetralization cannot be made from the top. If it genuine it necessarily has to come from the bottom.

Moreover, the ambit of local self-governance has much shrunk due to new technologies. The modern village is dependent on the urban system for diesel extracted in foreign countries, electricity produced in large thermal plants, chemical fertilizers produced in port towns from imported fuel, cement steel made in huge factories, television programmes relayed from urban centers, bus for going to colleges located in the cities, X-ray machines that operate on electricity; and most importantly for market to sell their vegetables and carpets. Participatory democracy has become meaningless because these areas have necessarily to be controlled by the city.

In fact the Panchayats have become mere implementation agents of the Central Government. They are happy spending the money sent by the latter. Sarpanches can be seen running from one Government office to other seeking grants for their villages. The 'people' only determine where the road may be built. But the fact that a road will be built and not a tank is determined by the Central Government which provides the money. Therefore, participatory democracy has no meaning in the villages today. Good governance necessarily has to be established at the national level at which the technologies are managed.

The second suggestion of Left-Greens is to increase accountability by enacting Information Act etc. While this is a laudable objective but it may not solve the fundamental problem either. We need to ask ourselves why historysheeters regularly win election despite the people having full information about their character. The Left-Greens should recognize that common man is shortsighted. That is, partly, the reason that he is 'common' man. He would have been 'uncommon' had he a long term vision. He is more interested in getting access to the corrupt politician who can get his nephew transferred rather than the honest one who will make a road in the village. More information may only make it possible for the voter to select the better historysheeter.

The fundamental mistake of all Leftists, Greens and socialists is that they do not care to understand human psychology. If the highest objective of humankind is consumption, wealth and power, then there can arise on solution. The elite will try to acquire most of the goods, wealth and power because that is the socially accepted norm. We need a higher objective that will rein this mad craze of the consumption. This higher objective cannot come from any version of materialism even if it be tempered by environmental limits. The Western Greens are trying to build an environmentally sustainable but socially iniquitous world by hypnotizing the poor countries to accept their poverty while the rich countries make clean cars and extract oil from the poor countries to run them. It makes little difference if they have 200 clean cars against 100 polluting ones. The solution will come from making only 50 clean cars instead of 100 polluting ones. An upper limit has to be imposed on consumption.

The only solution is to recognize that there exists, in psychologist Abraham Maslow's words, a hierarchy of desires. The desires of human being have to be ranked. The lower desire may be those of consumption, wealth and power. The higher desire may be that of self-knowledge or God. We have to teach the elite that their own happiness will be achieved not form increasing their consumption but by reducing it and seeking self-knowledge. Then alone they will give up their claims on the scarce natural resources and leave them for the consumption by the poor. Then alone they will reduce their level of consumption and create a sustainable environment. Only the carrot of spiritualism can encourage the elites to implement the Left-Green agenda.