When Zimbabwe Defence Force under General Chiwenga forced herself in in 'State House' to unceremoniously tell Mr. Robert Mugabe that the post of President is not for dynastic considerations in Africa's once most promising nation-state and his authority has been ended, how that fellow of 93, with vast experience in everything political must have felt? Bewilderment? Shock? Shame? Non-chalance? Fear? Injured honour? Disbelief? Or a curious mix of this all.
After all, you don't get rude shocks like this when you have been flattered for most part of your life that you are a god-sent saviour of oppressed nation. 37 years is quite a time to be at helm of affairs, making almost everyone in that nation licking your boot by any and every means possible in politics.
Mnangagwa may say that he paid the price for thrusting 'gucci' Grace on the nation but that is just half the story. Bedrock of all dictatorships is their grip on the armed forces and not to annoy the men in fatigue too much. From Robespierre to Mussolini, from Nawaz Sharif to Mohammed Mursi everyone knows that seemingly democratic affirmation of political power gets exhausted suddenly if democratic institutions are a smokescreen and public has a leaning for the army.
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Why Mugabes fall !
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
On Modern Age Caliphs
For those not conversant with Islamic history Caliph is something of a mix of great Harun al-Rashid's grandeur and tales of idiosyncracies of many other lesser known ones. The institution saw everything in its long journey. Right from Muhammad's last days in A.D. 632 to its abolition in A.D. 1924, it witnessed almost every phase of political and temporal development in Islam.
Abdulmecid II was the last Caliph of Islamic world from the once mighty Ottomans. Then on March 3, 1924, the first , Mustafa Kemal constitutionally abolished the institution of the Caliphate. But in most Muslim minds it always was there in the hearts and minds. Secularism being antithesis to Muslim identity, a Caliph was always needed who shall, one day, unite all the Ummah under banner of Islamic loyalty
Abdulmecid II was the last Caliph of Islamic world from the once mighty Ottomans. Then on March 3, 1924, the first , Mustafa Kemal constitutionally abolished the institution of the Caliphate. But in most Muslim minds it always was there in the hearts and minds. Secularism being antithesis to Muslim identity, a Caliph was always needed who shall, one day, unite all the Ummah under banner of Islamic loyalty
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
SIGNIFICANCE OF UKRAINE
Ukraine has long
been a virtual battlefield open for fight-loving tribes near around. Ever since
its foundation as an independent powerhouse, she has been a bone of contention,
for, without conquering this steppes and plateau filled bowl, no regional power could
have expected to be counted as serious in Europe or Central Asia.
Kievan Rus made it the largest and most powerful state in the tenth and eleventh centuries of European history. The Golden Age of Kievan Rus' began with the reign of Vladimir the Great (980–1015), who turned Rus' toward Byzantine Christianity. During the reign of his son, Yaroslav the Wise (1019–1054), Kievan Rus' reached the zenith of its cultural development and military power.
Then, Crimean Khanate, Ottomans, Russians (and even Lithuanians at a time) vied for domination of the fertile land under Kiev. Its famed churces, most notably the St. Sophia's Church, proclaiming Eastern Orthodox Christiandom attracted Ottomans who wanted to convert it for Islam's gain, Russians who had proclaimed independence from Roman Catholic papacy, Prussians and French who wanted their own converts besides obvious geopolitical gains. In 1654, Khmelnytsky signed the Treaty of Pereyaslav, forming a military and political alliance with Russia that acknowledged loyalty to the tsar. In 19th century, Ukrainian nationalism became more forceful than ever before as Russian aristocracy failed to develop industrially at a pace comparable to Ukraine's Western neighbours in Europe. During Catherine's reign European immigrants were welcomed in Ukraine, especially Crimea to thin out the dominant Turkish population.
First World War was particularly disasterous for the Ukrainians as it fought on both sides of the deluge. 3.5 million Ukrainians fought with the Imperial Russian Army, while 250,000 fought for the Austro-Hungarian Army. Then Bolshevik Revolution produced a new and far more powerful Russia and According to the Peace of Riga, western Ukraine was officially incorporated into Poland, which in turn recognised the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in March 1919. With establishment of the Soviet power, Ukraine lost half of its territory: the eastern Galicia was given to Poland, Pripyat marshes region – to Belarus, half of Sloboda Ukraine and northern fringes of Severia were passed to Russia, while on the left bank of Dniester River was created Moldavian autonomy. Ukraine became a founding member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Soviet Union in December 1922.
During Soviet era Ukraine saw famines responded by heavy industrialization. Stalin was particularly infamous for not trusting Ukraine's Russian sentiment though two future leaders - Khruschev and Brezhnev hailed from this region of USSR.
Second World War saw some of the most fierce fighting of human history on Ukrainain terrotory. The number of ethnic Ukrainians who fought in the ranks of the Soviet Army is estimated from 4.5 million to a staggering seven million. The win was hard-won and extracted great toll in man and material from all of USSR. But Ukraine was hardest hit and its woes did not subside with the war. Heavy deportations to Siberia by Stalinist regime led a permanent bad-taste in its populace' relations with Moscow. It was left to less mercurial Khruschev, an old Ukrainian hand, to emphasize the friendship between the Ukrainian and Russian people. In 1954, the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav was widely celebrated. Crimea was transferred from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.During dissolution of USSR, A referendum and the first presidential elections took place on 1 December 1991. More than 90% of the electorate expressed their support for the Act of Independence from Moscow.
Present confrontation between Kiev and Moscow has its historical roots but can be said to start in earnest in 2004 Orange Revolution when Russia-leaning President Yanukovich was removed to bring West-leaning Yushchenko and Tymoshenko to power. This was a hang-over of earlier Cold-War and has continued as such since then.
That President Putin was more than a match for EU plus Big One in brinkmanship was evident in the way he allowed the situation in Kiev to deteriorate to the point that Yanukovich's eastern base saw it necessary to request for Moscow's military intervention. Once Soviet-era fleet of Black Sea and Crimea welcomed Soviet-era tanks, Part One was won by Russia and it generated such nationalistic fervour in Russia that West was forced to take it as a wake up call. Then, US led usual moribund reaction of economic sanctions and unspecified "other measures." Now, as rebels in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Mariupol are threatening to start mobilising 100000 soldiers to save fatherland from Kiev's and West's machinations, Washington is working to supply different kinds of missiles to ill-prepared and low-morale Kiev army. Moscow has sights on no less than Kiev itself while Brussels shudders in imagining an actual war with Russians. Minsk, Riga, Vilnius, and Talinn know that if Kiev is down, so will they. UN is as powerless as always in dealing with real issues.
So, suddenly, world geopolitical epicentre has shifted from desert of Iraq and Syria to steppes of Ukraine. To an outsider commentator, this is far more "entertaining" than new Caliphs and bin Ladens and Haqqani networks - here are modern weaponry with their unusual lethal power. To those having the misfortune of living in the war-zone, it is nothing less than a nightmare. Significance of Ukraine is not just in Donbass region or so being occupied by a particular protagonist. It is just the first of a new phase in Latent War between old foes of Cold War. May be, some bright day, smart diplomacy may just be able to stop a war but a new war-zone has been already created which is far more difficult for US to win. Here no no-fly-zones can be enforced, for obvious Russian presence - and economic sanctions won't work for the same reason. Washington knows this, Moscow knows this, and Brussels knows this. Hence the tension.
Kievan Rus made it the largest and most powerful state in the tenth and eleventh centuries of European history. The Golden Age of Kievan Rus' began with the reign of Vladimir the Great (980–1015), who turned Rus' toward Byzantine Christianity. During the reign of his son, Yaroslav the Wise (1019–1054), Kievan Rus' reached the zenith of its cultural development and military power.
Then, Crimean Khanate, Ottomans, Russians (and even Lithuanians at a time) vied for domination of the fertile land under Kiev. Its famed churces, most notably the St. Sophia's Church, proclaiming Eastern Orthodox Christiandom attracted Ottomans who wanted to convert it for Islam's gain, Russians who had proclaimed independence from Roman Catholic papacy, Prussians and French who wanted their own converts besides obvious geopolitical gains. In 1654, Khmelnytsky signed the Treaty of Pereyaslav, forming a military and political alliance with Russia that acknowledged loyalty to the tsar. In 19th century, Ukrainian nationalism became more forceful than ever before as Russian aristocracy failed to develop industrially at a pace comparable to Ukraine's Western neighbours in Europe. During Catherine's reign European immigrants were welcomed in Ukraine, especially Crimea to thin out the dominant Turkish population.
First World War was particularly disasterous for the Ukrainians as it fought on both sides of the deluge. 3.5 million Ukrainians fought with the Imperial Russian Army, while 250,000 fought for the Austro-Hungarian Army. Then Bolshevik Revolution produced a new and far more powerful Russia and According to the Peace of Riga, western Ukraine was officially incorporated into Poland, which in turn recognised the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in March 1919. With establishment of the Soviet power, Ukraine lost half of its territory: the eastern Galicia was given to Poland, Pripyat marshes region – to Belarus, half of Sloboda Ukraine and northern fringes of Severia were passed to Russia, while on the left bank of Dniester River was created Moldavian autonomy. Ukraine became a founding member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Soviet Union in December 1922.
During Soviet era Ukraine saw famines responded by heavy industrialization. Stalin was particularly infamous for not trusting Ukraine's Russian sentiment though two future leaders - Khruschev and Brezhnev hailed from this region of USSR.
Second World War saw some of the most fierce fighting of human history on Ukrainain terrotory. The number of ethnic Ukrainians who fought in the ranks of the Soviet Army is estimated from 4.5 million to a staggering seven million. The win was hard-won and extracted great toll in man and material from all of USSR. But Ukraine was hardest hit and its woes did not subside with the war. Heavy deportations to Siberia by Stalinist regime led a permanent bad-taste in its populace' relations with Moscow. It was left to less mercurial Khruschev, an old Ukrainian hand, to emphasize the friendship between the Ukrainian and Russian people. In 1954, the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav was widely celebrated. Crimea was transferred from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.During dissolution of USSR, A referendum and the first presidential elections took place on 1 December 1991. More than 90% of the electorate expressed their support for the Act of Independence from Moscow.
Present confrontation between Kiev and Moscow has its historical roots but can be said to start in earnest in 2004 Orange Revolution when Russia-leaning President Yanukovich was removed to bring West-leaning Yushchenko and Tymoshenko to power. This was a hang-over of earlier Cold-War and has continued as such since then.
That President Putin was more than a match for EU plus Big One in brinkmanship was evident in the way he allowed the situation in Kiev to deteriorate to the point that Yanukovich's eastern base saw it necessary to request for Moscow's military intervention. Once Soviet-era fleet of Black Sea and Crimea welcomed Soviet-era tanks, Part One was won by Russia and it generated such nationalistic fervour in Russia that West was forced to take it as a wake up call. Then, US led usual moribund reaction of economic sanctions and unspecified "other measures." Now, as rebels in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Mariupol are threatening to start mobilising 100000 soldiers to save fatherland from Kiev's and West's machinations, Washington is working to supply different kinds of missiles to ill-prepared and low-morale Kiev army. Moscow has sights on no less than Kiev itself while Brussels shudders in imagining an actual war with Russians. Minsk, Riga, Vilnius, and Talinn know that if Kiev is down, so will they. UN is as powerless as always in dealing with real issues.
So, suddenly, world geopolitical epicentre has shifted from desert of Iraq and Syria to steppes of Ukraine. To an outsider commentator, this is far more "entertaining" than new Caliphs and bin Ladens and Haqqani networks - here are modern weaponry with their unusual lethal power. To those having the misfortune of living in the war-zone, it is nothing less than a nightmare. Significance of Ukraine is not just in Donbass region or so being occupied by a particular protagonist. It is just the first of a new phase in Latent War between old foes of Cold War. May be, some bright day, smart diplomacy may just be able to stop a war but a new war-zone has been already created which is far more difficult for US to win. Here no no-fly-zones can be enforced, for obvious Russian presence - and economic sanctions won't work for the same reason. Washington knows this, Moscow knows this, and Brussels knows this. Hence the tension.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
INDO-AMERICAN BONHOMIE
It is fairly certain that U.S. President (pardon me for not referring him as simply President and adding the qualifier "U.S.") Barack Obama's visit to India as chief guest on Republic Day shall be viewed as a defining moment in Indian nation's long quest for being counted among Big Powers of the geopolitics. For all its pomp and show, reminiscent of Curzonian colonial grandeur conspiring to awe Indians, it was such a big news for Indian news-hungry media. Full page articles about "The" President's airplane and car showed media's devotion to colonial-era sycophancy. Just like 1911 when Rabindranath Tagore wrote George V being "bhaarat-bhaagya-vidhata" on emperor's maiden visit to his most important possession.
Still, there are multiple positives that are poised to be cornerstone in India's quest for a full-scale powerhouse on world-stage.
A permanent seat in UN Security Council shall come in due course though it is implausible that India shall be elevated to the coveted table singularly. That U.S. finds India eligible removes the biggest impediment in this aim. It is another matter that U.N. itself has rarely been decisive since its formation and its lip-sync has been a tool by more powerful elite nations. Generally it has reflected the truism of life.....some are more equal than others. Still, it is better to have a seat than not to have one. Prime Minister Modi shall do well to see that not an overwhelming price is paid by the Indian nation in search of this pseudo-powerful seat.
The "nuclear deal" ( we are so capable in inventing phrases that reflect our fantasies more than a crass reality) is also a tangible benefit, for, we are woefully short of energy (and also the idea to remove this single most important impediment to our material progress). But its exorbitant price and obvious security concerns should make us cautious enough to tread carefully here.
More Indian students in U.S. and vice-versa is also a credible move (it has been the dream of most Indians to go abroad !). This should help build a better educational and technical infrastructure than we currently have. In fact, education is a big area where we have actually bogged down over last few decades.
Still, there are multiple positives that are poised to be cornerstone in India's quest for a full-scale powerhouse on world-stage.
A permanent seat in UN Security Council shall come in due course though it is implausible that India shall be elevated to the coveted table singularly. That U.S. finds India eligible removes the biggest impediment in this aim. It is another matter that U.N. itself has rarely been decisive since its formation and its lip-sync has been a tool by more powerful elite nations. Generally it has reflected the truism of life.....some are more equal than others. Still, it is better to have a seat than not to have one. Prime Minister Modi shall do well to see that not an overwhelming price is paid by the Indian nation in search of this pseudo-powerful seat.
The "nuclear deal" ( we are so capable in inventing phrases that reflect our fantasies more than a crass reality) is also a tangible benefit, for, we are woefully short of energy (and also the idea to remove this single most important impediment to our material progress). But its exorbitant price and obvious security concerns should make us cautious enough to tread carefully here.
More Indian students in U.S. and vice-versa is also a credible move (it has been the dream of most Indians to go abroad !). This should help build a better educational and technical infrastructure than we currently have. In fact, education is a big area where we have actually bogged down over last few decades.
Monday, January 7, 2008
On Faiz
Faiz Ahgmed Faiz was the quintessential poet of romanticism and revolution simultaneously who , through his tender but firm pen , gave voice to millions of disprivilaged souls all the world over. Only Urdu poet to be nominated for Nobel Prize.......
Thursday, December 27, 2007
ON BENAZIR'S DEATH
They made a wasteland and called it peace -(Tacitus). I was just strolling in busy market lanes of suburb Delhi when my boring eyes stole a view from a news scene running on TV in a small shop. It flashed, "Benazir killed." I had a sensation that 'history was being made' and rushed back to my room and glued to Internet to listen and watch what BBC had to offer. I was also reminded of 14th February 2004, when a political assassinaion of another former Prime Minister and potent Opposition leader Rafiq Hariri in far away Lebanon, had created a similar sensation in me, and , before that, on 9/11 when BBC Hindi flashed the news that 'world trade centre towers have been hit in terrorist attacks" (it was a political violence at its worst), Even before that Rajiv Gandhi was murdered on May 21, 1991. List of political murders, gruesome as they are, can be multiplied but I will be lying if I say that I have personal memories of more such incidents than just alluded to. So why does a political act of ultimate violence affects me, an Ayurvedic doctor, trying to find his feet in society by trying to pursue an MBA , one would ask ? And especially when the political leaders are not blemishless in conducting their affairs ? Basic answer to such question lies in fundamental human craving for curiosity, to be a part of history, and of course, to make sense of the weird world we have to live in. Bhutto family's political fortunes in Pakistan have seen much ebb and tide right from Zulfikar's rise on socialist plank in 1960s through to his judicial murder by Zia's hangmen in 1979, his daughter's triumphant entry in Pakistan in 1986, (she twice became PM, both time failing to complete term), murder of her brother Murtaza by police in 1996, self-imposed exile in Dubai in 1998, again grand welcome to political turf 'in' Pakistan on 18th October 2007 (marred by terror attack on her political rallies) and finally this ultimate violence on human soul. Pakistan has a unique gun-culture to settle political questions and Benazir is its just the latest victim. Many will point fingers twards Musharraf, many will say that it is Al-Qaida, and still others will point out petty inter-party feuds as reason of grisly act. In each case stolid political process of reviving a dream of democracy suffers, for, though death is supposed to affect human conscience as nothing else can ; when death is so ubiquitous as it is in Pakistan today, it losses ability to provide a possible opportunity for better senses to prevail. Pakistan has to endure this trauma because its citizens have allowed repressive, regressive, and stultifying regimes to overshadow and overwhelm people's democratic urges. If political class tolerates military dictators and allows fundamental paranoia to direct tribal nationalism, it is the politicians who have to face the consequences. Benazir Bhutto's life story has had a tragic blend at many turns but this final tragedy is a tragedy for all democratic forces in Pakistan. When she became first woman PM of an Islamic country, she was a great hope who soon gave way to desperation through petty compromises ; now again she was a great hope for democratic, moderate and progressive forces of her nation , but assassin's bullet did not allow her to play her part. Yet one must agree that she is a martyr in path of saner forces and martyr's blood seldom goes in vain, so Pakistan's people must unite to defeat forces that create such havoc in country
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
ON ATHIESM AND GODS
Speculating about natural phenomena is one of the privilages that Nature has pleased to afford us human beings. But what a mess we have created, out of the potential of understanding nature and its myriad ways ! It is astonishing that many of the specialities of which human race can boast of, have a demeaning effect on that very race. One would cite the example of nuclear bombs; but that is a rather recent occurence in humanity's psychological hostory. A more subtle but potent concept that has degraded human life is the presence of an omnipresent,omnipotent, and omniscient God in collective human psyche with its multifarous effects. Such has been the effect of THE GOD CONCEPT that no field of human activity has stayed clear, unstained and unconditioned of it. Many would argue that humans are humans because they believe in God and in a surreal way of talking that may well be true, for, we have no evidence whatsoever that any biological species than Homo sapiens has such fantastic notions as 'the god concept' , but , then, no one has any positive evidence that ants and donkeys (less fortunate as they seem to us, for no objective reason) do not have a God. In fact, I have long speculated that if donkeys have a God, that can't be in a human form; that has to be an impressively strong, omnipotent, omipresent, and omniscient donkey, having all conceivable rights on all lving and non living being around them. But, of course, human conditioning and 'pride of race' rebel against allowing donkeys a God of their own and, just as we presume that donkeys are to serve humans because we take care of them, we also presume that our God will also take care of donkeys. If this smacks of human imperialism,you are bang on target. God has long been a convenient concept for imperialists of different ilk and has been much abused to allow and justify much of the injustice present in the world. So, MANY PERSONS GAIN IN MATERIAL TERMS. Thus, many claim special knowledge of God and his ways, many claim to protect God's and his followers' interests, stll others claim to spread his word to the pitiable ignorants. And they generally do this for some worldly gain, direct or indirect. This is one of the chief reasons of persistence of 'the god concept' in discourse of human affairs. Then, human beings can speculate about future. As we are condemned to have a better memory than any other species,we know our past better and seek to establish cause-and-effect relation between that past and speculated future. But experience soon shows that prediction of future is fraught with dangers and seldom accurate as human behaviour and surrounding environment is multivariate, thus leading to different outcomes in seemingly same obtaining conditions and same outcomes in seemingly different conditions. In a nutshell even the nearest and most mundane FUTURE IS UNCERTAIN otherwise God would have lost much of his ( it is a predominantly male concept) sheen. Then, human life,like all other life forms, is essentally perishable,and often without notice; and though there have been long talks and complex theories regarding possibilities of life after death. In solemn moments of approach of death, human mind is constrained to concede ignorance regarding such fancies. This IGNORANCE ABOUT STATUS OF CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER DEATH further fuels weak minds to cling to some notion of continuity after death, for, if everything ends with death, life is bound to be absurd (a concept championed by Camus). So, we have heavens and hells and their administrators and our life continues after death, though in a rather mystified state. Thus, God concept helps PROVIDE MEANING TO AN ARGUABLY ABSURD LIFE. As humans are condemned to seek meanings even in most innocent and natural phenomena, they create concepts that help them find meaning, howsoever erroneous, in life; and God concept helps many people live according to some principles that are easy to grasp, handy to practise.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
