The 1857 War of Independence or Great Mutiny has been directly seared into the national psyches of many countries and impacted a great many more countries indirectly. The Great British Empire, on which the sun never set, arose properly right after 1857 and lasted for about a hundred years before disintegrating extremely rapidly. I just finished reading William Dalrymple’s latest Magnus Opus, The Last Mughal, (ISBN0747587264) which tells the story of Delhi before, during and after the mutiny; describes the work of the major protagonists; the searing indictment of how religion was used and misused; outlines how one empire collapsed and another was born from the ashes; tells of the atrocities and ideals; explains the impact on royalty as well as on the common man and the pitiful end of the Last Great Mughal. Needless to say, this is a very powerful book and made a deep impact on me for a whole host of frequently contradictory emotions and reasons.

 

A British Old Soldiers Association few weeks ago tried to pay respects to the British Soldiers killed in 1857 and buried in Meerut in 1857 and ended up with protests and vandalism of the graves. That’s how emotive this subject is. An ex-serviceman site in the UK expressed extreme surprise at the emotions and exclaimed rather naively, “surely they have forgotten about it by now?”. No, Sir, they have not forgotten.

 

I have talked before about how the same event can be looked at differently by different people, relating to their national biases, their education systems, their national ethos and a lot of other factors. And I have yet to see any event other than the 1857 war which has so many different interpretations. The English saw 1857 as a great mutiny, but also that an accidental empire wasn’t really the way to go about it. It got rid of the East India Company and ruled India by direct rule. Also the sheer size of the British India Army, as well as the huge economy, gave a further fillip to the Empire building in Africa, South East Asia, China and other places.

 

 

Pakistan does not like it at all; the 1857 event was the final nail in the coffin of the over-lordship of Muslims over India. An entire culture, way of life, history and everything was swept away, leaving a civilisational chasm from which the Muslims have never really managed to recover. Despite now having two Muslim countries crafted out of British India, both are frankly in the dregs. The seeds of their collapse and current sad state were sown, fertilised and watered during this war.

 

Bangladesh does not like it either, as the war put into motion the steps which finally lead to the Bengal Partition and the final burial of the idea of a 'Greater Bengal'. Afghanistan was also impacted and does not like it either, as the war gave rise to a need for secure western borders, and the definite bugaboo of the Soviet Bear emerged, as well as the beginning of the Great Game in Central Asia. The Pathans loved it, as they managed to get a big foot inside the door of the British Indian Army. India loves the idea of this war, as it provides a definite statement on how both Muslims and Hindus simultaneously rose up against the hated foreigner and how nation building started from that moment on, leading directly to Independence in 1947. Nepal liked it, as it provided the Gurkhas with a chance to serve in the British Indian Army, a tradition which continues on to this very day.

 

Broadly speaking, from a religious perspective, the reactions were significantly different. Muslims dislike it as the entire edifice of Muslim intelligentsia was toppled. The mushaira; the rentier economy; the purdah system; the agrarian society; the high culture of poetry, gazals, painting, dance; epicurean delights, indolence, the idea of large families; the pomp and show of royal households; the Sufi traditions; a four century old tradition of Muslim rule, all were unceremoniously swept away in the aftermath of the rebellion. Christians love it, because this allowed them to finally nail the madrassah system of education. Proselytisation got its second breath, the missionary system became entrenched, Christianity got as close as possible to be a state religion and elements of Christianity and the Christian moral framework were incorporated into Indian society such as sati abolition, monogamy, Puritanism, etc.

 

Sikhs also loved it, as they got a chance to get their revenge against the Mughals, who had killed two of their revered gurus and they also got to establish a foothold in the British India Army. More importantly, this war of independence gave them a route for their nation to survive after Maharaja’s Ranjit Singh’s Sikh Kingdom was subsumed within the British Empire. Along with the Pathans, the Sikhs and the Gurkhas dislodged the common Muslims and high caste Hindus from the East India / British Army. The Hindus loved it too, as it provided them with opportunities to be educated and to learn from the British (history, education, legal system….) to provide the administrative framework for British rule.

 

The Dalits were all over this event (see for example: 'Dalit Movement in India and its Leaders (1857-1956)' by R.K. Kshirsagar, M.D. Publications (1994) New Delhi, ISBN: 8185880433 or Dalit Movement in South India : 1857-1950 by Swapna H. Samel. New Delhi, ISBN 81-86771-39-5 or Women Heroes And Dalit Assertion In  North India: Culture, Identity and Politics  by Badri Narayan. Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2006.) This is crucial from the perspective of the Dalits forming their own identity and political envelope. They had to construct a history, a culture and identity and by linking it to India’s first war of independence, it allowed them to establish the separation from the common Congress / Hindu narrative which looks at 1857 as the Indian Nation’s fight for Independence. I don’t think they managed to pull it off, specially since the Dalits' desire was to share in a great portion of the nation’s resources as well as make sure it remains. So they had to establish Brahmanism as the enemy, while making sure they remained part of Hinduism. On the other hand, the accusation from the Brahmins is that the Dalits sided with the British against the Indians (the counter argument is that the Dalits wanted to get rid of the Hindu zamindars, rajas and kings who were oppressing them!). Quite complicated, but interesting days ahead.

 

But caste was a very big factor in the 1857 war. Do not forget that one of the reasons for the East India Company Jawans to rebel was the idea that the soldiers would be asked to work outside of India and they would have to cross the seas. That would make the high caste soldiers lose their caste. Also other ill-judged initiatives such as common cooking utensils, recruitment of soldiers from other regions and not from old regular villages, etc. all pointed to the Hindu soldiers getting worried that the British wanted to destroy their caste status. And then we all know how the issue around Pig fat greasing the cartridges caused the Hindu and Muslim soldiers to rebel. Mangal Pandey is famous for this, but he was a Brahmin and the Dalits point to Mata Deen as the main person responsible for the war.

 

I always thought that Bahadur Shah Zafar was much to blame, but I changed my mind quite a bit after reading this book. As people say, civilisations and kingdoms usually start rotting from the inside out and the end of the Timurid Empire in India, which had great luminaries, ended with a whimper. Come the moment, and the man didn’t come. I am not surprised. For sixty years, all he knew was a tiny patch of land in and around Delhi, which he directly ruled. The rest of Hindustan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other places were already outside the Mughal Empire. He became the Badshah at sixty years of age, an age where people retire and tend their roses or worry about their backs and creak at every joint. And he was supposed to throw off sixty years of conditioning and of spending most of his time with poetry, songs and artistry to suddenly become a great military leader? No way, José. He wasn’t even able to manage his own harem with his own women running around with other men nor was he able to manage his own sons. Heck, he wasn’t even able to manage his own city with petition after petition (from ordinary citizens being terrorised by rebel soldiers) being fruitlessly addressed to him. So he was unsure and unable to take decisions.

 

The presence and actions of the Jihadis was very interesting and new to me. As it so happens, the book claims that these Jihadis were the most effective in the rebellion against the British. And there are so many parallels to the current day. The similarities between how the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban as well as the various fundamentalists in North India reacted after the fall of the Lal Masjid and the reactions after the rebellion is quite fascinating. Now we have suicide bombing, and back then they went out to die in suicide charges under the rifles of the British soldiers. We read about how they all piled into Delhi from all over North India, how they nearly came to blows with the Hindu soldiers and how they defended Delhi with their madcap bravery. Very little is known about this part of the struggle, but for people who think that jihadis emerged all of a sudden after Osama Bin Laden had an “idea” or America created him need to read this book to see how this phenomena of jihad’s has a long pedigree (another example is that of Khartoum but that’s another essay).

 

The sheer incompetence of the military leadership of the Indians, the corruption, the robbery of the Delhi citizens, the sheer complex and interesting British intelligence service run through the Indians, the machinations of Bahadur Shah’s wives and sons, the tragic end of Bahadur Shah in far off Rangoon, the absolutely detestable legal trial which is the biggest blot on the United Kingdom’s history, but far too common unfortunately (one can legitimately argue that it was the British who rebelled against their liege!), and so on and so forth.

 

The huge draw of the Mughal Empire was also a surprise. So many Hindus and Muslims went straight to Delhi (Chalo Dilli – Lets go to Delhi) all hoping that their emperor will throw these detested foreigners out and go back to the safe old ways. This aspect is sort of underplayed in all the South Asian narratives. They didn’t want independence, they wanted a return of the Mughal Empire. And most of the other heroes joined into the fight, mainly because of their personal position as rulers, kings, and assorted tin pot rajas was threatened or removed by the British.

 

At end of the book, I sat back and thought through the entire book. I guess the overall conclusion was that I was disappointed to have been given a wrong impression of the 1857 fight for independence. I was disappointed that India did not put up a stronger fight and that the British were so bloodthirsty and worse, and carried out a historical legal grotesque miscarriage of justice in putting Bahadur Shah on trial and condemning him. I am also disappointed that a scorched earth policy was adopted by the British and nearly succeeded in eradicating the history, library, archives, and architecture of India in various cities, but mainly in Delhi. I am also disappointed that despite so many people dying for various different motives, we are still arguing over that event. And the final disappointment was that it was a savage little war/mutiny and nobody comes out of it with any good reputation.

 

I am reminded of the quote by M. F. K Fisher that “War is a beastly business, it is true, but one proof we are human is our ability to learn, even from it, how better to exist.” But it has been 150 odd years now and we still haven’t learnt.

 

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

<p><em>Imagine facing a situation where your darling child has been born and very soon was been diagnosed with an exceedingly rare illness (only sixty patients in the world are known to have it). You are faced with a situation that there is no known cure, not much research being done and consequently treatments and medical care are very expensive. And the disease is progressive but not that fast, so you have to watch your child slowly suffering. You literally see your little bundle of joy diminishing right in front of your eyes. I cannot imagine this, but my friend is currently going through this and he needs help. And I resolved to help out by whatever little I can do. </em></p>  <p>I was introduced to Colin last year on a work related matter, but after the work matter was finished, we spent quite a long time talking about boxing. He is a boxing aficionado and also is a sparring partner to the great and good of London based boxers. </p>  <p>I used to box when I was a young and callow youth, before my knee gave out. It is a fun exercise and something that really gets the adrenalin going. So he became a friend, anybody who has (voluntarily) been on the receiving end of a boxing glove aimed at his jaw with bone crunching force is guilty of divine madness and courage. And over the next few months, whenever we bumped into each other, boxing came up first and then much more. </p>  <p>Yesterday, he walked across the floor and I waved to him. He nipped over, shook my hand and said: “W<i>ell, BD, I won’t see you for few months now</i>”. I thought he was going off on a sabbatical like people often do to go off for some studies, or learn a new language or what have you. </p>  <p>No, he said he was going over to the USA to see about his little daughter’s treatment. I gaped and asked, excuse me? For few months? He quietly said, “<i>Yes, mate, a few months, the first few months for research and investigation and then many more months for her hip replacement and fixing other leg bones and knee issues</i>“. </p>  <p>He praised the bank’s management in allowing him such a long time off. (I agree, the bank is very good indeed on people issues!) I really did not know what to say and when I asked about more details, he said he did not have time right now, but pointed me to the website, <a href="http://www.tillysappealfund.com/">http://www.tillysappealfund.com/</a>. </p>  <p>I felt like I was on the receiving end of one of his boxing fists. My sister and I spent some time checking out the website and then did a bit of research on the web and then spent some time hugging each other. Tilly has been diagnosed with CINCA/NOMID syndrome. It is and I <a href="http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/103/7/2809">quote</a>:</p>    <p>“<i>a rare congenital inflammatory disorder characterised by a triad of (i) neonatal onset of cutaneous symptoms, (ii) neurological symptoms, and (iii) joint manifestations with recurrent fever and inflammation. The first symptom of skin rash occurs at birth or in the first 6 months of life. A progressive neurological impairment results from chronic meningitis and secondary cerebral atrophy. Progressive visual defect and perceptive deafness frequently occur with increasing age. Joint symptoms manifest as recurrent flares. The course of the disorder is one of chronic relapsing inflammatory disease with fever</i>”</p>  <p>I am not medically qualified by any stretch of the imagination. I am only first aid qualified I am afraid, but the first thing I did when I got home that day was to hug my little girl and squish her very tightly until she squeaked and scolded me. I have to admit I went all teary and emotional. Colin is a rock, you will know what I mean when you read his blog and comments. He is positive, strong and courageous. I do not know his wife, but I am sure she is just as strong, courageous and determined. I am not sure if I could ever be like them if I was in the same situation. Hats off to them. </p>  <p>There is no drug therapy to cure this syndrome. One can only alleviate some of the symptoms and the joint issues and degeneration can only be addressed after painful joint replacement surgery (hip replacement, knee replacement etc.). Read her story <a href="http://www.tillysappealfund.com/articles/6/1/Tillys-Story/Page1.html">here</a>.  I mean, if I went even through 10% of this, I would be a gibbering mess. I cannot imagine the pain and courage required for a parent to see their child go through this, </p>  <p>At this very moment, what Tilly needs is hope, prayers and load of funds to help support her research, medicines, surgery and nursing. Her parents and her brother have, very courageously and bravely, put their lives on hold to help Tilly move forward. </p>  <p>Tilly has been extra-ordinarily brave to shoulder the pain, the constant poking and prodding and a lifetime of hurt. See the <a href="http://www.tillysappealfund.com/categories/Tilly%26%2339%3Bs-Story-in-Pictures/">pictures </a>to see how brave she has been throughout her as yet still rather short life. </p>  <p>Looking at the most recent picture of Tilly, a beautiful brown haired, smiling faced image of innocence, I am reminded of Václav Havel’s quote: “Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.” Please let us all join in to help as much as we can in making this turn out well for Tilly and her family. Between all of us, we CAN and we WILL make her better. </p>  <p>Can you help? Please help this brave girl and her loving family. Please contribute whatever you can spare to her appeal fund. Please visit the website and leave messages of support. Do forward this essay and the website address to as many friends and family you have and can. This is not a forward joke, but a real life little girl who needs your help. Please do mention her in your prayers to whichever God you believe in. And hug your child, niece, nephew or your neighbour’s child when you finish reading this. I am sure God will listen to that prayer. </p>  <p style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.tillysappealfund.com/">http://www.tillysappealfund.com/</a></p>  <p><a href="http://lh4.google.com/bdasgupta/RvTau-ag_9I/AAAAAAAAAHo/a4QBdfieJVE/clip_image002%5B3%5D.jpg"><img style="border-width: 0px;" alt="clip_image002" src="http://lh6.google.com/bdasgupta/RvTaveag_-I/AAAAAAAAAHw/8adKAzg5sc8/clip_image002_thumb.jpg" border="0" height="233" width="154" /></a></p>  <p>And for the first time, all this to NOT be taken with a grain of piquant salt but hopefully with a generous heart!</p>

The Muslim Brotherhood is a much mis-understood and under-estimated force in today’s political climate across the globe. Like the various communist parties globally, drawing sustenance from the same original thinkers such as Marx, Engle, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, etc but having very distinct local characteristics, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has similar antecedents through Al Banna and Qutb as their thinkers while having very local characteristics.
The brotherhood is looked upon with suspicion by western governments, media, local governments, NGOs; you name it, with the exception of the general local country citizens and members. This MB has had different levels of successes and failures in different times in different countries but going forward, it is my belief that the MB will be an increasingly important force, one which cannot be ignored.
The world’s geo-political framework currently does not have space for either the ever evolving ideology or the political structure of the MB and the earlier people make the mental shift; the better it is for the world. Let us see the how’s and why’s of this rather interesting phenomena that is the MB.
My sister is vociferously against the brotherhood. She thinks their statements against the use of violence, jihad being more akin to struggle rather than violent means, and other niceties are nothing but a sham till they get into power through democratic means and then slam!!!, down comes the shutters and we will get to a Taliban state.
And further to that, she also thinks that the current enthusiasm for veiling and being more pious than the other is being stupid and naïve because as soon as the MB comes into power, women will be stopped from working, inside the veil, and no women’s rights whatsoever.
Her stories about the recent burst of piety and sickening self righteousness indeed make heavy reading across the Middle East. Curiously enough, this is not just her reading but also from most other liberal thought leaders, women’s rights advocates and of course the rest of the conservative gang in the west etc.
But I have my doubts about this suspicion. Yes, quite a lot of the howling mob of terrorists has emerged from the MB, but think about this bit. When a person like Ayman Al Zawahiri (2nd in command of Al Qaeda) spends a good hour fulminating against Hamas in Palestine and the Ikhwan in Egypt for participating in such an evil, devilish thing such as elections, it definitely gives cause for comfort that the MB are not terrorists.
In Al Qaeda’s dream world, an ideal situation is one lead by the Mahdi, with a Khalifa, a shura council and no infidels dirtying up the place. The idea of a multi-party democracy which rests on the concept of sovereignty of humans instead of Allah is anathema to them.
But the MB generally has accepted this concept of democracy (for now). That “for now” is very important because the MB have a very long history of being extremely pragmatic in shifting their ideological base and tactical moves to achieve power.
What they are currently doing would make Hassan al Banna and Sayyid Qutb spin rapidly enough in their graves to power all of Gaza. They have indeed moved a long way from what their founders and chief ideologues have done (remember how the communists in say China and India have embraced capitalism and have even gone for SEZ’s for private capital; Banna and Qutb share the same centrifuge with Marx, Lenin and Mao!).
When groups and parties from the extreme and radical wings want to move into power, they need to compromise, they need to appeal to the centre of society. And no society will ever tolerate too many restrictions on individual behaviour or too much piety.
So while it is ok for you to be nice and foaming, tub thumping, bellowing “no surrender” and hold extreme positions, when you need to actually rule a country under democracy, you will need to have to move into a centrist position. See the lovely magic wonderland of Iran, a country which started off at the very edges of revolutionary thought is busy spending time worrying about fuel subsidies, industrial productivity, youth employment, availability of credit, scientific innovation, roads and and and…..
Do not get distracted by the pronouncements of their silly illiterate president and the nuclear issue; if you look at the Iranian official press or Al Jazeera or keep track of the Iranian blogs, you will see that the major concerns of the state, intelligentsia, clerics and others relate to pretty much bog standard matters.
As I have frequently said in these pages, worrying about sewers does not leave you much time for worrying about revolution. After all, while Allah and faith can get people out to prayers, paying for and cleaning sewers requires a cool head, logic and consensus driven politics.
Having a cool head, logic and consensus driven politics are characteristics of the MB in every country they operate in. While they have all but abandoned the wild and woollier side of Qutb and Banna, they are steadfast in looking at the world with eyes that are pragmatic and in line with mainstream Sharia Muslim thought.
For example, they have said that non-Muslims are equal to Muslims, that a woman can participate in public life, vote, do jobs, drive, you name it (with the exception of being a head of the state), that violence is not the way and all they want is a just and peaceful society.
If nothing else, the fact that the various despotic regimes in the Arab world hate the MB itself is a plus point in their favour. Almost every regime in the Arab world has tortured, imprisoned, discriminated, beat up and in general been horrid to the MB. Syria has killed 20,000 MB people in Hama, their families and friends in a town (and people know more about Sabra & Shatila but that’s ok, Muslims killed by Muslims do not matter, what matters are Muslims killed by infidels but that’s for another day!).
Egypt has concentration camps full of MB people. At every election, they are kicked into jail, their supporters beaten, the women molested, their democratic rights taken away, false lawsuits launched against them, their votes stolen, laws made to stack the deck against them, etc. etc. In Jordan, the electoral laws are very carefully drafted so that the Islamic Action Front (the local MB party) (whose power base is in the urban areas) are either kept out of power or have very few votes.
The Jordanian intelligence services frequently keeps a very close eye on these, not hesitating to shove them into jail or arrange for unexplained disappearances for jumped up MB’s who might dare to ask for democratic rights or parliamentary representation.
There are MB affiliated parties in Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Tunisia, Kuwait, anywhere there is the slightest hint of democracy and everywhere they are kept down. But they are still the danger party; they are still the only organised political opposition to the motley, moth eaten, and despotic regimes in the Arab lands. Why?
Well, there are many reasons for their success. The first and foremost is that most of the current regimes are bonkers, utterly corrupt, totally un-representative, autocratic, filled with thieves, dictators, time servers and that’s just the so-called elected lot of presidents, prime ministers and members of parliament.
Let us not even talk about the various kings, emperors, emirs. So if I dress up a scarecrow in a coat and top hat on a straw head, he will score better in governance compared to these assorted gangsters, goons, thieves and robbers.
But that is not just it, there are more reasons behind their success. The MB’s leaders in every country, the committee members and chairmen, the district leaders, the municipal councillors, the social network leaders and workers, are almost all very highly educated (compared to the general population). In almost every country, one of their main bases are the universities, colleges and educational institutions.
This provides them with three very important advantages; it provides them with a highly intelligent, ever questioning, and intellectually strong ideology. The second advantage that it provides is a cadre of young, highly motivated students who are full of energy, enthusiasm and desirous of change. And the last one is that it provides them to lay long term seeds in the minds of fertile, excited, and eager to learn students.
Nobody can doubt their commitment, despite the repression, they have stuck to the desire to be part of the political process and help their fellow humans. So that gives them a huge advantage and that is that the citizens trust them to stick with their word even if the going gets tough unlike the other assorted liars that they see on TV. And since they have already proven to be pragmatic and ditch the wild side of their ideology, people trust them even more!
Plus their internal organisational discipline is legendary. They are internally cohesive, believe in consensual decision making even if the decision making process is not very transparent (ok, so don’t push it, don’t forget this is the Middle East!), internal elections take place and candidates/policy are followed in a disciplined manner.
There is an organisational structure (even if it is not fully transparent) and the members have bought into this structure. This means that they can mobilise much faster than the corrupt, slow moving dead hand of the state. Their charitable and social networks are legendary in education, medicine, humanitarian assistance, employment etc., witness their reactions to natural or geo-political events ranging from the Cairo Earthquake to new changes in election law in Jordan and Iraq, to new rulers in Morocco, war in Lebanon and Palestine etc.
They are also much less corrupt than the secular / nationalist / despotic lot who are the rulers. This is, in my opinion, primarily because they are more attuned to faith and religion than the others. They actually practise what they preach, instead of the hypocritical, corrupt, thieving lot like the Fatah in Palestine, NDP in Egypt, the Ba’ath party in Syria etc.
When they speak of righteous and fair behaviour, people see that they mean it and live by those words, unlike the others, which immediately leads them to be thought of as better.
The last item which I would point to is their strategy to join hands with other professional and political bodies. Whether you are talking about labour unions, architect associations, association of medical personnel or doctors, teachers associations and unions, journalist unions, etc. you will see some link there.
This link ranges from either full control by the MB or participating in municipal, association, parliament, state or federal elections in conjunction with other parties. This causes them to be thought as people with whom you can do business with. And why are they so attractive? Well, they bring all the above advantages and generally the support of the citizenry along with them.
So to conclude on the MB, they are powerful because they are disciplined, committed, intelligent, educated, consensual, democratic, non-violent, committed to social service, trustworthy, not corrupt.
Before you think that I am saying that they are gods on earth, remember that I am comparing them to frankly garbage and filth in the form of the ruling parties and autocratic thieving potentates.
Now let me ask you, given this scenario, who do you think we in the west should support? Let me put this in another way, the MB have got the support of THEIR people, it is up to us to decide whether we are on the side of the thieves, torturers, autocrats, despots or on the side of the better guys.
Do not let the antics of Osama Bin Laden and other assorted violent Islamists blind you to the future of the political landscape of the Middle East. Work with them and we will have a peaceful world, work against them and the clash of civilisation will indeed come true with far bloodier circumstances than now.
All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Last week I reviewed the recent book, titled 'Lies, Lies and More Lies' by Vivek (ISBN: 978-0-595-43549-4), which is a collection of articles aiming to shed light on Hindutva. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a nation and there is also nothing wrong in defining that nation on the basis of religion. But nationality, as a measure of human identity and possibly politics has to be very dense and logical from an intellectual basis. I identified some issues with the thesis and this week I pick up and continue with the rest of the book and end with some suggestions on Hindu nationalism.

In Part Two of the book, Jaswant Singh is quoted saying that Kashmir is at the core of Indian nationhood. I found this very curious, because it echoes what the Pakistani politicians have been saying since 1948. We have moved far beyond trying to define Indian nationhood as a fountainhead of secularism. The problem with using this quote is that it negates most of the author’s other points. If India is not a believer in denominational definitions of nationhood, then why is the author conflating Hinduism with 'Indianness'? See the inconsistency?

Kashmir has been rehashed quite a lot, but I am surprised that the author missed out on the rampant corruption and vote theft in the 1989 elections. Also the solid support given by Kashmiris of all stripes to India during the 1965 war and the miscalculations by the Pakistani Generals, or the (estimated) 80,000 killed and missing in the two decades long insurgency. Chapter 8 is something that I definitely sympathise with. The plight of the Kashmiri Pandits is very bad and their neglect has been shameful indeed. The last quote on page 69 is very telling. I have seen this quote repeated for Jews, Hindus, Communists, Liberals, Conservatives, Christians, etc. any discriminated against community tends to drag out this quote and bang on about it. It has become totally overused to the point of being a cliché now, but that’s just a personal opinion.

The Chattisinghpura massacre has too many unanswered questions, and I am very suspicious of the "official" statements. There have been far too many inconsistencies in the story; no follow-up massacres of Sikhs happened, the Kashmiri militants rejected the accusation far too strongly. I do accept that Kashmiri terrorists attack Hindu labourers, Pandits and pilgrims, but Sikhs have been a new one back then and none since then.

I am not surprised at Arundhati Roy's assertions, the Arundhati school of writing has its own dubious pleasures, one of them being wallowing in a surfeit of hyperbole, fantasy and just lightly dusted with facts. But the Graham Staines murder is very cavalierly treated by the author, as is the IDRF report and the accusations thereof. The breaking story of most of the US electronic infrastructure of the US based Hindu council being the same as that of the Sangh Parivar came out after the book was published, but the situation is the same.

Chapter 13 skips the BJP Rath Yatra, which helped in inflaming passions. Bit unfortunate that. Also it skips the most crucial element, which was the way too many reported incidents of official stage government machinery being used to identify and isolate Muslims. Yes, Hindus were killed, but curiously, so many years after that event, Muslims are still inside DP camps and subject to economic boycotts. The usage of the state machinery was the kicker putting the riots beyond the pale. And it is indeed tragic that the author points to the fact that the anti-Sikh riots (also state sponsored) happened. One crime does not excuse another, I am afraid. And no, it is not against Hindus at all, because if it had been so, then Hindus across the country would have been affected. Does the author know of anywhere else such an incident happened? If 1984 was a blot on India, then Gujarat was a body blow, because it just showed that the Hindus are equally barbaric as any others.

Chapter 15 talks about how Karnataka State Government is actually in charge of the Temple trusts and is worrisome and frankly not on. The state government has no business being in the religion business and should hand it over to the local temple trusts immediately, under regulatory control just like all charities are. So if a temple, mosque or church is engaged in receiving charitable donations, then accounts have to be filed in public. So I agree with the author that the donations given by the faithful have to be ring fenced and hypothecated for the purpose for which the donation has been made.

The other remarks about commentators commenting unfairly about Hindus is a viewpoint and there is nothing much to be said about that, but the fact that we have a good broad open press which singularly treats every bit as different is good. Mind you, the points in Chapter 16 and 17, relate more to the English language press which is relatively small in coverage, the vernacular press, the other media channels like tape cassettes, etc. are really hair-raising.

I was also reminded of Edward Said in his very obtuse book 'Orientalism' while reading this chapter. It evoked the same feeling of victimhood based upon a select reading of facts. "Our newspapers possess a degree of freedom that is unmatched in the world. That this freedom has been blatantly misused in recent times is another story" on Page 110 points to a fundamental misreading of the facts. You cannot praise freedom of speech in the press and then complain that it has been misused. Remember what Voltaire said?

Chapter 19 is something which I again agree with. Religious based discrimination is an anathema to me, whether it is the OBC/SC/ST or what have you. To hell with all these religious denominations, if you do want to give sops and help, then help them as poor Indians. There is nothing more corrosive than to give one poor Indian a leg up and give another identical poor Indian a shove off simply because s/he happens to be born into another religion, caste or creed. Disgusting.

One can argue for a strong political voice for Hindus but I am afraid that form of political consciousness does not function for such a heterogeneous lot like Hindus. For example, the Christian democratic parties in Europe are totally different by country in terms of their ideological underpinning and allies. The other problem is that as soon as you plug in religion into a political party, you introduce an element of tension between secularism and religion. By it's very nature, if you are reliant on one religion’s tenets, you have to treat others differently, but for a political party to aim for government, once inside government, you have to treat everybody equally, hence the tension. The biggest mistake that the Hindus have made is to make a political party in the first place, because that exposed them to the demands of governance. If they had stuck to being a social, religious and cultural organisation, then they would have made a better fist of it. I suppose the love and lure of power was too strong. Also, creating a nation out of Hindus means trying to force them into one straitjacket and as the past history has shown, it is not possible. People will throw you out if you try to impose a common religious idea.

Second, while many elements of this book point to inconsistencies and discrimination against Hindus, the basic inconsistencies of the arguments and the limited use of facts means that the book remains what I would call as a pamphlet. If the author is hoping for a Hindu consciousness based upon arguments such as these, then he has to work much harder and go back to basics. He has to think about what do they want to be, Hindu or Indian, a secular person or a religious person? a political party or a religious group? a desire for equality without any reference to casteism or other religious ills? a huge amount of thought needs to be generated. Some hints, consider why the luminaries such as Vivekananda and Dayanand never breached the boundary between nation, religion and politics. That is the reason why their message still resonates. Compare that to the fate of Gandhi, who managed to make a pig's ear out of the mix between religion and politics and that is the reason why his reputation is taking so many hits these days. And ironically, he being a firm committed Hindu did not save him from being bumped off by another Hindu who thought he was betraying the Hindu cause. Politics and religion never mix!

So the conclusion is that the author would be better off arguing for equal treatment of Hinduism under the equality perspective. He needs to stop whining about being a victim, because it is demeaning and frankly embarrassing, see the example of the Palestinians, the almost constant whining and moaning is so irritating. He should not confuse India, Hindu, Hinduism, Bharat, Buddhism, Secularism etc. and aim to reform Hinduism by eradicating social and religious ills such as the position of women, widows, caste, and superstition. Encouraging the usage and spread of Sanskrit, Tamil and other Hindu languages, of traditional schools of learning ranging from ayurveda, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, literature, etc. is also an option. An Indutva rather than Hindutva so to say, and one will see that many of the inconsistencies and incoherence dies away. One has a far stronger historical, economic, sociological, anthropological, philosophical, theological and even epistemological basis than relying on Hindutva, More importantly; one will see that all the objectives of Hindutva are satisfied by the Indutva concept and very little of the religion specific downsides.

Mixing religion with politics never works and l never will recommend doing so. If one does want to see how others have defined a nation on the basis of religion, one can read about people starting from Shaka for the Zulus, Theodore Herzl for Zionism and the various books on Jinnah for Pakistan. These three chaps would be good indicators on how a nation can be constructed and how complicated and impossible it is to reconcile a religion, a nation and a state. And no, Sarvarkar’s and Golwalkar’s books and thoughts are not at par, they are inapplicable and in many cases inconsistent. Oh! The last thing, remember Godwin’s law!

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Hindu Nationalism has emerged from a rather long history of a feeling of victimhood and discrimination, with roots going back to more than millennia. Ever since new religions and cults have appeared from the imaginary (maya) body of Hinduism or have intruded into the subcontinent, there have been reactions against those cults and religions with a call to Hindu Nationalism.

 

There have been reactions to introduction of Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam, intra Hindu sectarianism (such as the Naga’s, Shaivites, tantrics etc.). But the current formulation, called as Hindutva, is of comparatively recent origin. A recent book, titled 'Lies, Lies and More Lies' by Vivek (ISBN: 978-0-595-43549-4), is a collection of articles aiming to shed light on Hindutva. I am afraid if Hindus need to be defined as a nation, it needs much more work than this effort. Let us see why!

 

Nobody can doubt the sincerity of the author. It is clear that the author is writing with deep passion and strongly held beliefs. There are also several chapters and concepts that the author raises that I completely agree with. But by and large, the book suffers from some very deep seated mis-conceptions and fundamental inconsistencies, which unfortunately destroy the entire argument around building a nation out of Hindus. Building a nation out of Hindu’s is a laudable aim. Nations have been formed for far less interesting and cogent reasons (cults are one example).

 

But given the nature of Hinduism, I am afraid forming a nation is well nigh impossible. The whole concept of nationhood relies on a group of people united under a common concept or ideology (communists), a characteristic (Goths, skinheads, white skin), a geography (the Brits from the British Isles), a language (Swedish, Serbian, Marathi), culture (Bengali around the work of Rabindranath Tagore), religion (southern Baptists, Greek orthodox), history (Mongolia – emerging from the Mongol Empire history) etc.

 

Sometimes the concept of nation and country coincide (Greece, Greek, history, religion…), but more often than not, they do not. Sometimes the country is bigger than the nations while at others the nation is bigger than the country. Sometimes the nation is spread out over multiple countries. To further complicate matters, a person can belong to multiple nations at the same time.

 

For example, I can belong to the Bangla nation from the perspective of one culture and language, but also belong to the British nation by virtue of geography, while belonging to the English nation by virtue of language. One can switch in and out of nations for example after immigration, learning another language, conversion to another religion or falling in love with somebody from another nation. And the concept of nations changes over time. The Mesopotamian or Ancient Egyptian nations no longer exist, although the successors do.

 

This brings me to this book where the author switches between a country (India), the idea of India which was expressed in the Indian constitution and a nation (Hindus) interchangeably. This is the root cause of the incoherence and inconsistencies in the book. It is the same confusion which occurs with Jews, Zionism and Israel.

 

More importantly, I am afraid the author has missed the foundational underpinnings of Hinduism. For example, the cycle of birth-rebirth, the concept of Moksha and Maya, destiny in the hands of the Brahman, the impermanent nature of this world and atman.

 

These would have given him the clue as to why Hindus have not undertaken resistance to the large scale invasions of the sub-continent, rule by foreigners, foreign customs, etc. Given that background, Hindus operate on a totally different frame of behaviour and one should not expect a violent reaction to invasions. This also emphasizes the concept of non-violence of the Mahatma.

 

Secularism is another concept which confuses the author. Secularism, like beauty, depends upon the eye of the beholding country. While the dictionary meaning might say one thing, you have all different varieties in the world. In the UK, you might have the head of the state also being the head of the church. In Poland, it is explicitly Catholic. In USA, you have clear identification with God (In God we trust), and so on and so forth. So the conclusion is that there is no single definition of secularism.

 

Which brings me to India and this concept of 'Nehruvian Secularism'. If one has to name it, then a better name would be 'Ambedkeraite Secularism' after the Chairman of the committee which drew up the Indian Constitution. And this brings me back to the idea of India, and the secular, pluralistic idea of India is based upon this document.

 

The author also seems to demand a certain pride in his religion. I fail to understand why belonging to a certain religion will make one proud? Religion is not something to be proud of. Religion provides a moral compass to live by, a set of principles, processes and procedures which will hopefully lead one closer to God(s) and achieve the spiritual aims.

 

Pride, as it so happens, is one of the deadly sins (yes, I know, it is in Christianity, but it is almost the same in every religion and value system). And what exactly is involved in “being proud”? Boast about it? And who will hear it? And what will it achieve? Besides noise and disgust, nothing. Its such a bizarre notion! So this desire to recover the lost pride is rather meaningless.

 

The author also says that Hinduism needs armour. Armour from what? You see, armour also has issues. Armour is heavy, expensive and is very limited in protection. Steel armour worn by the mounted knights was overturned by the cross-bow. And I am also surprised to hear that Hinduism needs protection. The author again confuses the religion with its practitioners.

 

A philosophy doesn’t need any protection, and the practitioners of a religion get physical protection from the state. Why would they need this strange undefined and illogical concept then? If Hindus are not getting protection from the state, then that is a different matter to Hinduism needing protection.

 

Concepts and history are very uneasily mixed in the discussion. Bharatvarsh, Bharat, the Mauryan Empire, The British Indian Empire, so on and so forth. An example of the confusion arises from the fact that the largest expansion of the Mauryan Empire was done under the aegis of Ashok, who ultimately converted to Buddhism. So how do we draw a line from a contentious origin of the Hindu nation, to a Buddhist empire, to the Mogul Muslim Empire, a colony of Christian Britain, to the Dominion of India, to Independent Secular India?

 

Another shibboleth needs to be knocked on the head. The concept of "divide and rule" is a very simplistic concept. You cannot rule a country the size of former British India based upon a silly sound bite concept. The British Indian dominion was a proper subsidiary state, with national structures, parliamentary representations, army, judiciary, etc. etc.

 

And divide and rule does not explain how the British Crown took over from the East India Company nor does it explain the partition. The author also forgets the amount of British control over the so-called independent kingdoms, whether Kashmir or Hyderabad, they all had British residents controlling the kingdoms tightly.

 

None of these kingdoms had an independent foreign, defence, macro-economic, or communications policy. So they were, in effect, colonies with the thin trappings of independence. The tiny countries and kingdoms collapsed because of their own mismanagement and were taken over by the East India Company or the British (or were controlled by them).

 

India as a cohesive and unified nation did not exist except as a figment of people’s imagination. Just what did a Bijapuri have in common with a Pathan or a Konkani with an Assamese or Naga? Even the first war of independence was fought under the ostensible allegiance to a Muslim Emperor who used to spend his time writing poetry, while rest of the leaders were motivated more by a desire for personal gain rather than an over-arching National Ethos.

 

The author again is making a leap of faith in trying to ascribe a single world view to Hinduism, and I am afraid the historical record vitiates against his assertion that "The only religion to have a stellar record of tolerance and acceptance of other views is Hinduism. Hinduism and democracy are synonymous". There have been far too many fights between various sects of Hinduism. And there is actually no link between democracy and Hinduism, but what does exist is based more on the Pali canton (which is Buddhist in nature).

 

If one does want to review political structures within Hinduism, then it is based upon a class based structure, not democracy based structure calling for equality of all. The caste system, the restriction of professions, the divine right of kings, etc. have no link with democracy. On page 44, one cannot conclude that Hinduism equals democracy at all.

 

Democracy was imposed as a foreign condition, based upon the general liberal education of most of the pre-independence leaders of the Indian National Congress (who were of all different faiths as it so happens). And the fact that we had the luxury of a long unbroken series of institution building, a great constitution and a huge determination to be secular. No link to Hinduism at all, I am afraid. So it would have been useful to know more about the background to this assertion.

 

The population modelling is interesting but very limited. Population dynamics have a long unhappy history of being proven almost continuously wrong every generation. Some major exclusion in this modelling relate to socio-economic levels, fertility rates, survival rates, birth/death ratio's, health and education statistics, availability of employment opportunities for women, polygamy, etc.

 

Each of these factors has a severe and large impact on demographic trends, so the ratio is very suspect. Furthermore, the ratio is different in separate areas. For example, urbanised Muslims have the same fertility ratio as Hindus say in Hyderabad, etc, but the ratio is far more skewed due to the immigration factor mentioned by the author. However, one aspect is important and that is the immigration from Bangladesh, because it is seriously a threat to the integrity of India, as well as the survival of rare and ancient cultures in the North East.

 

The prevalence of terrorist, insurgent and separatist threats in North East is evidence of how difficult it was and still is to control immigration, the border fence not-withstanding. And the blame lies on many political parties seeing this new voting bloc as their way to power by displacing local political parties. But to ask for Demographic Status Quo in Chapter 21 is such a silly concept that I am not even going to deign that with a comment.  

 

Before this turns into another book, I should stop. My sister hates multi-part essays, but this topic is so broad, and the author has covered such a large number of issues that writing a good comprehensive review in one essay will be too large to cover this broad spectrum of issues. So next week I shall continue with my observations about the remaining chapters and my final conclusion about the intellectual development of Hindutva after reading the entire book.

 

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Rage is a funny thing in humans, it makes you forget the boundaries of civilised behaviour. You cannot define rage or even what constitutes civilised behaviour. But you know when you see rage and you know when boundaries are breached. We have seen enraged boys on our screens and newspapers, but many times, the public expression of rage is staged and thus they become the rent boys.

Finally and unfortunately, while one’s rage might be justified by one’s own frame of reference, when it violates the world’s frame of reference of civilised behaviour, then it backfires and you end up being a lady boy. Allow me to explain.

I was struck by the sheer prevalence of rage in the world. The first incident which I came across was the identification of the Islamic Rage Boy by some bloggers in the USA. These bloggers noticed that one person in Indian Kashmir kept showing up in various demonstrations in Kashmir on a variety of causes, against India, against Salman Rushdie, against USA, against the war in Iraq etc. etc.

They named him the Islamic Rage Boy. His bearded visage, the wide open bellowing and shrieking mouth, big staring eyes, and clenched fist became an icon in the blogosphere. Even many mainstream media outlets got hold of the story and pictures. For a variety of reasons, it clicked and has entered into the lexicon.

Finally some Indian media people tracked him down and found that this person does indeed participate in all these demonstrations, frequently travelling very long distances on foot and by bus to participate in demonstrations, which are tinged with a Islamic fervour.

The other interesting factoid that I picked up is how angry many bloggers are. Keeping with the Islamic theme, you can have a look at the Angry Arab Blogger, Angry Sunni Sister (just google for “angry Muslim” or “angry arab” and see what you get), and these aren’t really "fly by night" blogs, these are well publicised blogs, with lots of hits and lots of participation.

Read the entries and you will actually see that what they are doing online in their blog is the electronic equivalent of what the Kashmiri Islamic Rage Boy is doing in real life. Almost every post is a moan, cry, shout, complaint or whine. While reviewing these blogs, I sometimes feel like suggesting a stiff drink or a spot of R&R. All that rage is surely not good for either their stomach linings or their keyboards which must be getting bashed.

What are these people upset about? They are upset about USA, the Jews, the French, the Brits, the Iranians, the Shia, the Illuminati, the Pope, the white folks, their leaders, their army, their water, their history, their culture, the robbed opportunities, their hotel rooms, whew. Generally, if they manage to have one humorous post in a hundred, it’s a red letter day! But generally speaking rage is a very strong component.

Moving on, I also see similar rage from a certain type of Hindu bloggers and mailing-list participants. These people rage against Muslims, they rage against the secularists, the communists, some academics, the liberal media, the painters such as Maqbool Fida Hussain…. Oh! They also rage against Hindus as well, calling them cowards, ashamed of their heritage, wimps and so on and so forth. It is pretty much typical of these lists.

If you want to see the perfect example of a very large mailing list where you have Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, anti-US and pro-USA, communists and Maoists, capitalists and free-masons, all in a gigantic rage filled fur ball, see here. But people would have seen this kind of electronic behaviour since a long time. Does anybody remember the USENET? And the flame wars and rage wars on the soc.culture lists? Very excited electrons rushing around all over the place.

But going back to real life, we have seen Hindu rage boys in action when the Babri Masjid was demolished, the red gold fringed bandana, brandishing the trishul (a trident spear), veins standing out while shrieking imprecations and battle cries, crowbars being used to demolish the mosque. And the sadly common rioters and riots in India, which we have seen for almost all of the last century, during the Moplah rebellion, the Direct Action Day, the tragedy of Partition, and then the post independence riots ending with the Godhra incident and the Gujarat state sponsored shameful riots.

These riots are generally almost always a political move by some leaders, which turns these rage boys also into rent boys. Whether you are talking about the Muslim, Hindu or Sikh boys, it’s always the same, rage filled boys.

If you seem to think that this was a peculiarly Indian rage boy syndrome, then think again, my dear readers. Let me point to the Bradford Riots between the British Muslims and British Whites, the Brixton riots by the British black community, the Banlieue riots in France recently, the riots in Los Angeles in the USA after the Rodney King issue, etc.

You see the same type of rage filled people, young angry boys, screaming, out for blood, eyes staring and rolling, usually in a big group or mob. And in sadly many cases, a group think gestalt has taken over with an unholy mix of politics, deprivation, real or imagined wrongs, and then barbarism just takes over.

Mind you, it is not like the secular parties are fine and dandy. Again going back to India, you have seen the granddaddy, father and mother of Indian secularism, namely the Indian Congress Party, indulging in rampant sectarianism. The Congress rage boys massacred innocent Sikhs by the thousands in 1984 in an act of revenge for the assassination of the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

And nobody has been jailed for this piece of indecent dastardly event. You can see the communist cadres doing the same, time after time. You see the communist cadre rage boys come out, bellowing slogans against the port visit of the US Navy, against Foreign Direct Investment, against liberalisation, etc. etc. etc.

I think India could well start off a new national industrial sector, "rent a mob - outsourcing and off-shoring". Pick your event or ideology and we can arrange for a mob to burn effigies, flags, cars, buses, etc., shout slogans with wide open and foaming mouths, throw stones at a relevant place, building, billboard, etc. Why not? Remember the Moplah rebellion and riots which I mentioned above? That wasn’t because of any Indian situation, but it happened because of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Similarly, India can arrange for great television, internet events and print visuals of Indian rage boys or Indian rent boys on your choice of request. You want a protest against the Pope? George Bush? Planning Permission for a housing estate in Canada? Widening of the Panama Canal? Opening up a nuclear reactor in Hokkaido in Japan? Mining operations on Mars? Sure, no worries. Take a seat and relax and go through the menu of options. We also offer very attractive financing deals, and yes, we will offer a service level agreement, independent audit tests, and if you hire 200 rage boys, we will throw in a second demonstration free.

This rage business is very strange to me. Perhaps I am too old to feel rage. I cannot understand why this kind of rage happens. And don’t tell me that this is just out of protest. You and I both know the difference between protests and peaceful demonstrations. This rage is one micron, one teeny weenie step, away from outright violence and we have unfortunately seen this so many times.

This rage is the fertiliser, the compost on which violence, terrorism and uncivilised behaviour breeds. Smart politicians and leaders utilise this. Left to itself, rage like this is self consuming and dies out, but the tragedy is that some leaders and politicians continue using it for their nefarious and indecent ends. Leaving the rage boys, who are turned into rent boys and end up regrettably as ladyboys.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

While reading a book Every Man a Tiger by Tom Clancy (ISBN-10: 0399144935) on General Horner, the Air Component Commander of during Operation Desert Storm, I came across this statement: “When a general goes to war, he needs a staff function. And if he wants to have any chance of success, he needs to have the best possible people heading up his intelligence, communications and logistics”. A further comment said: “amateur and younger soldiers study success, while professional, older and more successful warriors study logistics”. It all makes sense. After all, war is nothing but the application of the right amount of very violent force, at the right time, at the right place, aimed at the right people. And that's logistics. You can have your armoured corps commanders and you can have your special forces, infantry battalions, close air support helicopter commanders, strategic bomber leaders and artillery force commanders by the dozen, but all those are great at only a tiny part of the whole.

It is your staff function (intelligence, communications and logistics) which makes sure that you get these commanders to apply the above mentioned right amount of very violent force, at the right time, at the right place and aim it at the right people. Otherwise you might have the best tactical corps commanders, but you will fail in your plan, because it hasn’t been staffed and coordinated properly. History tells us that great generals ranging from Napoleon to Patton all could attribute their success to many things, but this staff function was vital for their success as well. And its not like it’s new, Alexander of Macedon is reputed to have said, “My logisticians are a humourless lot...they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.”

The reason I have gone into so much depth is that I have noticed an interesting lack of thought and preparation given to the staff functions within the financial institutions that I have operated in and worked for. If I look at the bottom of the top layer, the Managing Directors, their staff functions are usually very poor, unplanned and frankly, in my opinion, they are missing a trick. MD's are there because they are very good at their jobs and they usually are very very good revenue generators or very good at managing a very large process/department if they are in the support function. But almost always, they are very good at the functional level (like trading, crafting deals, client sales, Middle Office functions, back office functions, Compliance, Legal, Information Technology, etc. etc.)

In fact, I would say that they are brilliant compared to the great majority of the populace within the markets, themselves not being any slouches. Indeed they are Masters of the Universe. But they also stumble in the best case scenario and make major losses in the worst case scenario. You see, when the markets are booming, most mistakes and limitations are overlooked. It’s when the markets turn down, then any limitation or mistake is cruelly exposed. Look at the number of high profile people who have been fired. And it is my belief that a good staff function would help obviate, if not manage the delivery risks of the MD's business plan and leave the MD to do what he does best, concentrate on making money or getting the process to run sweetly, cheaply, faster....

The staff function is called differently in different organisations and areas. Some call it the business management function, some call it the Chief Operating Officer position, or the Chief Administrative Office, and I have even seen a position of Chief of Staff (d'oh!). Irrespective of what you call it, every MD has to have a strategic intelligence function, a communications function; logistics/operations function and should be backed up by a very very good administrative function (equivalent to an ADC in the army!). It is not necessary that each function is done by a separate person. For a trading desk, it might well as be done by a single person (if you can manage to get a person like that), but these functions need to be done.

The Strategic intelligence function provides the far seeing ability, the idea to bounce possible futures about, to continuously reposition the business, to change the trading limits, to think about new products, to think about client behaviour changes, to think about economics and technology and to worry about the client industry future, etc. It also includes making sure that the current and strategic capital investments are in line with the strategic plan. The Communications function is where the thoughts, ideas, plans and desires are crafted together and communicated. The channels might be a PowerPoint presentation, a conference speech, a monthly blog entry, a stand-up speech every quarter, an email going out, etc, but communications are vital for the success and also for making sure that everybody is doing what they are supposed to do and are aligned to the overall goals.

The final part of the mix is the logistics and operational fellow. You need a highly process and detail oriented person, who is able to spot challenges in potential deal flow, who is able to have a handle on operational risk and capable of looking after scope and volume changes without too much screaming. You see, this is also what I call as the sewer works. As far as the front office or business is concerned, they really don’t want to know about what’s happening in the back, as long as it works. A smart MD will make it his business to know the back office inside out, but unfortunately that happens very rarely. In fact, I think I can only recall one MD at Merrill Lynch, who moved from the front to the back office to gain experience and then moved up to head the institution. But that will happen rarely. So you are supposed to be like a sewer. You keep on working and keep on being invisible. If you get blocked up, then you start to stink and that’s the only time that you get noticed. Not a good idea, is it? But that’s logistics for you! These logistics people, the people who are looking after your operations, systems, middle office, accounting, finance, product control etc. are making sure that your sales force/revenue generators are able to deploy their firepower at the right place at the right time aimed at the right people.

So as an MD, what you need is a staff function, a function which will support your primary purpose, to deliver revenue dollars. So how do you go about doing it? Well, generally, a new MD has a hundred days or about three months grace or trial period. You can negotiate getting this hundred day period and generally your boss will be happy to do so. During this period, hoping that you know yourself and your abilities, you can find out what you have in terms of existing personnel, processes, systems and coverage. More importantly, you should find out where the holes are, what audit points are outstanding, etc. Then, assuming by this time, you have developed your revenue plan then you underlay your revenue plan by your staff and operations plan. It is a fair cop that there is already a business manager in the business, so s/he can keep on doing the logistics work while you fix the strategy and communications piece. Then look at your business manager with very strong and penetrating beady eyes. Is s/he able to step into your shoes if you were to be run over by the proverbial bus? Will you be able to use her as your deputy? Can s/he do the jobs? If not, then make replacement plans. How do you judge them? Well, it is very simple. Look at the potential replacements and think whether you can hand over your business to them in three years time when you get promoted? If you can do that, then you are in clover, General Managing Director.

Business is not warfare and a managing director does not have to make life and death decisions and there is not that much death and destruction. But then again, capitalism was once described as creative destruction to me! And if one has to surf the waves of these creative destructive economic and financial turbulent seas, then you can do worse than to have a good staff function and specially concentrate on the logistics. As General Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.”

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

When I was knee high to a pea plant, I started getting interested in politics (in a vain hope to sound intelligent when trying to pick up birds). My mother told me a quote which still sticks to my mind, she said: "Son, you will be torn between two feelings when somebody you know gets elected to high office, namely local pride and fear for your country". I am facing the same situation here as far as the elections for the Mayor of London are concerned.

I don't know what side of the bed London got out of those thousands of years ago, but it has been peculiarly afflicted with challenges starting from floods, fire, plague, war, bombing, riots, death, destruction, overpopulation, stinking sewers, collapsed or creaking infrastructure and has ended up with a seriously amusing Mayoral election. In today morning's metro, I read that Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik is going to stand for the position of Mayor of London. I was struck by two feelings. I have written before about London versus NY, but how come NY gets political giants such as Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg and we, well, we get to choose between Red Ken, tousled haired Boris Johnson and Cheeky Lembit. And the second was, why the heck are we faced with these "worthies"?

The only thing that is common between these chaps is that they are all very eccentric. Best way to describe them. Red Ken is an unreconstructed communist from the hard hard left, prone to making gaffes such as taking 300 quid taxi rides, getting into a war with the American embassy in London, being found guilty of anti-semitism, telling Americans that they are stupid (this speech while wanting to increase tourist numbers … Americans constitute the biggest number tourists to UK). Don't get me wrong, he has pushed for good things in London like the congestion charge, trying to improve the transportation infrastructure, etc. He is ferociously intelligent, mind you but he is very eccentric. Never a dull moment with our Red Ken! Then you have Boris, who pissed off the Liverpudlians by saying that they were a maudlin lot. He then had to go to Liverpool and publicly apologise, a modern day stock punishment! Boris participates in a comedy programme on BBC and is hugely popular, very intelligent and edits a high brow magazine. He was caught doing a bit of risqué' hanky panky. Boris drives a good bicycle (looks absolutely ludicrous in lycra), has the most entertaining turn of speech and well, has a signature hairstyle (I am pushing it by calling it style, but you know what I mean).

And then you have Lembit Opik. I know, you must be going, Lembit who? Well, Lembit's claim to fame is that he is dating a Romanian one song shot pop star, Gabriela Irimia (along with her twin Monica Irimia .) sang one song which hit the charts. The song, Cheeky Girls, sung by these two lovely young ladies, showed them in a tiny pair of shorts gyrating in a demented fashion while leaping around like a new born gazelle and asking people to touch their bum's. Well, Lembit dates one of them. Again, he is quite bright, very intellectual and has a very firm grasp of public policy but if he gets elected, the closest I can think of as an example would be John Edwards with Paris Hilton as his wife going for the US Presidency. Can you imagine Paris Hilton as the First Lady? Well, you got it.

The only explanation I can come up with is that the powers enjoyed by the London Mayor are so little (compared to NY), that only those people who are on the political fringes and are unable to aim for a serious political career tend to apply for this role. It is more prestige rather than action. This is unlike in NY, where the Mayoralty is substantial with tax raising powers and ability to direct investment. So we get these clowns and Londoners, themselves a very hardy and eccentric breed (remember the case where the overwhelming reaction after the London bombings was, "we are a bit inconvenienced but nothing that a cuppa tea wouldn't resolve", while see how NY reacted after 9/11? They went to war, while we drank some tea! Ah! I love this city, its people and country.

And I support Boris Johnson. I had enough of Red Ken's eccentricities. I need a different eccentric personage leading London now, so let the Circus Londonium Maximus Show begin.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!

I nearly fell out of my chair when I stumbled over a tiny piece of news about the fact that August 7th is declared as the Memorial Day for Assyrian Martyrs. Assyrians? Surely somebody is pulling my leg or its April fool’s day. Assyrians as a people died out millennia ago, and for a press release coming out commemorating August 7th as Martyr’s day for them sounded a total joke to me. After I had managed to drag my carcass up from the floor, collected my jaw and settle down my oculars, I went digging into this strange and interesting news-story which I thought I would share with you dear readers. Here is what I found out.

There are approximately 1.8 million Assyrians scattered around the globe, but mainly in Iraq, USA and Syria. Previously inhabiting a swathe of territory ranging from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and bits of the Caucuses, genocide and ethnic cleansing meant that a lot of them have emigrated to other countries. The link to the ancient Assyrians seems to be a bit weak and not very clear, but I suppose it is very difficult to establish it either way, even with DNA testing. What is interesting is that these modern day Assyrians have a different culture, language and religion to their Iraqi, Kurdish, Iranian and Syrian neighbours.

The language spoken by the Assyrians is Aramaic. If one is a movie goer or follows the tinsel-town news, one would know that Mel Gibson recently made a film about Jesus and used Aramaic in this film. Historians posit that the language of Jesus and the early Christians was Aramaic. Of course, any language would change over the course of couple of millennia, but it is apparently still heavily related to its roots of ancient Aramaic. The current day language borrows from Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac and Akkadian languages. The religion which they follow is Christianity, and they follow the Chaldean Church of Babylon in Iraq, the Assyrian Church or Chaldean or Assyro-Chaldean Church in Syria, and Church of the East in Iran. There seems to be some confusion but the Syrian Orthodox Church who also consider themselves as Assyrians or Arameans. Be that as it may, these are minor details. There has been much to’ing and fro’ing between the Roman Catholic Church of Rome with some elements of the Church of the East becoming catholic, while others have maintained their own unique church, liturgy and theological aspects.

An interesting aside, the Assyrians literally believe in one passage in the Bible which says, “In that day there shall be a way from Egypt to the Assyrians, and the Assyrian shall enter into Egypt, and the Egyptian to the Assyrians, and the Egyptians shall serve the Assyrian. In that day shall Israel be the third to the Egyptian and the Assyrian: a blessing in the midst of the land, Which the Lord of hosts hath blessed, saying: "Blessed be my people of Egypt, and the work of my hands to the Assyrian: but Israel is my inheritance." (Isaiah 19:23-25).” This has been repeated in many Assyrian websites and mailing lists, it is an article of faith for them. Egypt is their promised land, and between Egypt and Israel, the Assyrians will be the lord and masters. Now the situation in the Middle East is difficult and convoluted enough to attempt to understand without bringing in more complexity like this.

Imagine me writing an alternative history of the region, or a fantasy tract. And then we have these Assyrians coming over the hills (or is that the Golan Heights?) and sweeping the Israeli’s and Egyptian border pickets and armies away, the respective armies melting away, and a new Assyrian state is born in this region. Many have created a state in this area comprising of Israel major and Egypt in the past, such as the Romans, Ottomans, etc. but this one should be good and interesting. It will really set the local politics alight. I wonder what will happen to the various other ‘promised land theories’? Actually, here’s a theological quandary for you, if the God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims is the same, how did he manage to promise the same few kilometres of land to so many different people? And for crying out loud, out of the billions and gazillions of kilometres in the universe and on this earth, why in the name of all that’s holy (no pun intended) did he have to pick those few concentrated kilometres?

But while these Assyrians, at least in this essay, have been portrayed as a single ethnic group, the reality was different in the last century. Even though they share the culture, history, language and religion, they had been fragmented to a large degree over language dialects, religious differences, historical backgrounds, etc., but recently with the rise of internet communications, and use of English as a common external language it is bringing this community together again. What is very impressive is that they have managed to keep an ancient language, Aramaic alive and in common use for such a long time. Think back on other ancient languages such as Latin and Sanskrit, which are unfortunately no longer in common usage.

This group of people have a rather interestingly and well documented history of being persecuted. A website I found notes the first persecution way back to 107 A.D. when the Parthian king Xosroes murdered the second bishop of Arbela (modern Arbil). In 448 A.D., King Yasdegerd II lead the Persians to knock off more than hundred thousand Assyrians in and around Kirkuk in modern day Northern Iraq or Kurdistan. And so on and so forth, being persecuted by the Jews, Muslims, Parthians, Mongols, Kurds, you name it. Between Iran, Iraq and Syria, the Kurds seems to have really got it in for them. And these Assyrians were also part of the group of Maronite Christians in current Lebanon and participated in the civil war which sadly seems to be picking up steam again. But these chaps have really suffered, so much so that they were called as the Martyr’s Church by Pope John Paul II, because no other church has been the unfortunate recipient of concentrated martyrdom, persecution and massacres just for belonging to this religion/church.

This church seems to have grown and it pops up in the most amazing of places. The South Indian church is linked to the Assyrians, where it is known as the Chaldean Syrian Church. Kerala, the southern state, has had long trading links with the Middle East and this is where it’s believed (on very little factual basis mind you) that the Apostle Thomas landed and converted many locals to Christianity. The Portuguese tried to convert these people to Catholicism, but didn’t really manage to do so, but guess what? There seems to be a right royal theological war going on between Catholicism and Syrian Christians in India, with the equivalent of a SWAT team being sent by Antiochene Church in Jerusalem in 1665 to help fight off these pesky Catholics. This church is also present in USA, Australia and New Zealand and in some smaller numbers in Russia and other countries.

When I started to research this and talking to my sister about it, it was almost like being an internet Indiana Jones. Fascinating to dig around and discuss this little nugget of information. But for these Assyrians, life is not that easy. They are dissipated across a vast landscape, persecuted by and in the states in the Middle East where they live, difficult language and communication problems. It will indeed be a shame for this amazing cultural and religious group to die out, but they will have to make extraordinary efforts to create a self identity and grow into a confident part of the greater comity of nations. The Assyrians should take the words of Irena Klepfisz, a famous Jewish poetess and writer to heart. Irena said about her people and language: “Yiddish acted as the cement that bound the Jewish community together on a socialist foundation. What language we spoke was critical. It reflected our identity, our loyalty, our distinctness not only from the gentile environment, but from other Jews as well. The use of Yiddish was an expression not only of love of a language, but of pride in ourselves as a people; it was an acknowledgment of a historical and cultural yerushe, heritage, a link to generations of Jews who came before and to the political activists of Eastern Europe. Above all it was the symbol of resistance to assimilation, an insistence on remaining who we were.”


All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Predicting the future of a nation is comparatively easy when the country has a democracy with stable institutions, but it is considerably more difficult when the country’s reins are forcefully held by an individual or party. In situations like this, where there is no democracy and rule of one applies, once that ruler disappears, the country’s future trajectory is anybody’s guess. This is the reason why, despite very enlightened rulers, kingdoms and empires fell apart regularly throughout history. The case of Iraq, which was ruled for a very long time by despots, the last one of whom was deposed violently, is extra-ordinarily difficult to predict. But when my editor asked me to take a stab at it, it turned out to be an interesting mental exercise! And the result of all those mental callisthenics was that, in my opinion, on the balance of probability, Iraq as we know it will no longer exist in fifty years time, if the troops are pulled out before the Iraqi federal political system is stably bedded down.

While I said at the beginning that the future of democratic societies can be predicted, it is also true that most of the democratic societies, with some honourable exceptions, have been homogenous countries, meaning that while there are different ethnic groups within the country, there is generally no debate about the basic country ethos / principle / ideology. For example, take France, USA, UK, Japan and India, strongly democratic countries, with a strong national ethos superseding any racial, religious, economic, ethnic, linguistic, political, sociological or anthropological grouping. The stronger this national ethos is, the lesser the chance that the country will fly apart. Civil wars or national disintegration happen when the national ethos is in question between the groups.

To complicate matters, post imperial or post colonial societies take birth in very difficult circumstances. A survey of 112 western European post colonial countries in 2004 by three American professors showed that a colonial background is not conducive to democratic rule. Colonialism has generally lead to under-development, high levels of social fragmentation and the relationship between state / civil society is generally bad. Given such a historical background, when we look at Iraq, it is clear that it is starting from a bad initial point.

People point to India as a successful post colonial society when talking about the future of Iraq, but as I keep on pointing out, India had certain advantages. It had a history of multi party elections (albeit under a colonial regime), these political parties spanned the full spectrum of political thought, so it provided a home for all kinds of citizens. There was an agreed overarching national ethos of India (howsoever vague and possible contentious), there were political giants such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Motilal Nehru, Jagjivan Ram, Mahatma Gandhi, Lal Bahadur Shastri, C. Rajagopalachari etc. who believed in secular and liberal democracy. So despite a bewildering variety of competing identities based upon cuisine, religion, culture, clothing, dialects, languages, locations, history, etc., these factors helped in creating a vibrant democratic country with a secure future. A cursory look at Pakistan will show what a country without these factors can face, and a similar situation is faced by Iraq.

In the case of Iraq, there IS no national ethos which can be used. History shows that it was either based on a combination of tottering and decaying Safavid and Ottoman empires, or an imposed and illogical imperial construct by Britain and France after the Skyes – Picot agreement and finally by fear of the Ba’ath Party / Saddam Hussein. For those doubters who think Saddam was some kind of a leader with a consistent ideology, I am afraid that is way off the mark, the chap was a socialist, then a great Arab leader, then the leader of the faithful and a great Islamic warrior and all this while he was basically a small time thug. So no national ethos around which a country can be created.

But before we talk about why this should be formed, we need to think about the downsides. If Iraq falls apart into three parts, the Shia, Sunni and Kurd parts, then the Middle East is going to go up in flames. Turkey and Syria will go to war over Kurdistan. Iran will gobble up Eastern and Southern Shia dominated Iraq, while Western Sunni Iraq, the empty part (both in terms of land and oil) will be orphaned. There is a strong chance that round two (round one being the first Iran Iraq war) of the Shia Sunni theological war breaks out (shades of the European Thirty Year War) and Israel is a running sore already. Nobody, in their right minds, wants the country to break up, irrespective of the lack of national ethos. The only way to do it is to impose or encourage a Secular Liberal Democracy. Unfortunately, these ethnic and religious sectarianism means that there is simply nobody who can be acceptable to all. A Nehru or Tito will not be able to arise in such a situation, although the fate of Yugoslavia post Tito is instructive. One cannot keep such a state alive once the fear element is removed.

The development of a secular liberal democracy is possible. Look at post 1947 India, a secular country despite the presence of a multitude of fairly unique groups. But back to Iraq, the presence of Wahhabi Sunni autocratic Saudi Arabia on the left and theocratic Shia Iran on the right means it will be a challenge. In the north, given the extreme sensitivities of Turkey about a Kurdistan, you have a country which is already beset with extreme centrifugal force. Unlike India, which had the benefit of some very strong personalities who believed in the benefits of secular democracy, Iraq does not have that. So the only solution is to impose the steel security framework needed for a secular democracy to take seed. And that can only be provided by the presence of the Americans and British troops. A potent indicator is that the current Prime Minister is so very weak because he does not have a militia of his own. As a matter of fact, he was selected because of his political weakness.

So the future of Iraq, when/if the coalition forces withdraw, is bleak and will definitely fly apart at the seams in a very short matter of time. The probability that there will be genocide and a far hotter civil / regional war breaking out is quite high as well. Given the US Presidential Election coming up, the amazingly incoherent and incompetent prosecution of the war by President Bush and the new UK Prime Minister, who is himself facing a new election in couple of years, it is pretty much certain that most, if not all, of the troops will be withdrawn in a couple of years time.

That’s when Allah/God and other assorted deities and divinities need to step up to the plate and knock some sense into the warring groups and parties. What is unfortunate is that the future of the country and its people is now either dependent on a divine miracle or on a bunch of frankly very small minded people lead by pygmies, wrapped up in obstinate ideologies and the vagaries of American / British politics.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!