JFK, Nehru, Tibet, CIA and the Sino-Indian War

On 20th October 1962 war broke out between India and China along the border with Tibet. The war was disastrous to India and a crushing personal failure for Jawaharlal Nehru. The Kashmir tangle and the Sino-Indian war remain the most hotly debated topics of Nehru's regime. The popular Indian narrative is that China invaded India and routed an army that was ill equipped for a war and suffered from effete political leadership that was at best naive about Chinese intentions and at worst plainly incompetent. There is, however, much more to that story. Bruce Reidel's book "JFK's forgotten crisis: Tibet, the CIA and the Sino-Indian War" weaves a narrative of a conflict that drew into it the US, USSR, China and Pakistan.

The Sino-Indian war illustrates how nations unwittingly march towards war and how in geo-politics where nations operate out of perceived self interest and in that pursuit allies become enemies, enemies become bed-fellows. A little known fact in India about the war is how the US, with Pakistan, practically fomented the war.

Mao Tse Tung established the People's Republic of China in 1949 and within a year launched two wars, that too almost simultaneously. On October 7th 1950 Mao annexed Tibet and in November 1950 China entered the Korean war on the side of North Korea.

Nehru protested the use of force by China but conceded that China had a claim on Tibet. Miffed by China's incursion into Korea US wanted to internationalize the Tibet issue in the UN. Seidel writes, "Nehru worked quietly both to calm his agitated domestic constituency and to keep the Tibet issue out of the UN". India and Nehru played a larger role in the Korean conflict.

India was one of the few non-communist countries to recognize Mao's China, PRC and send an ambassador. K.M. Panikkar, India's ambassador to China, had good relations with Zhou en Lai. On October 2nd 1950 Zhou summoned Panikkar and informed him of China's intention to invade Korea. The pompous and megalomanic American warlord Douglas MacArthur, who was promising America that the US army will be back home by Christmas, was not only refusing to believe that China would invade the US forces via Yalu he also throttled the flow of intelligence reports to Truman. India promptly relayed Zhou's intention but was brushed aside by self styled wise heads in Washington.

India played an "important role in arranging the cease-fire between the PRC and UN and helped with the repatriation of captured prisoners to each side". A delicate issue arose when many North Korean POWs preferred to stay back in South Korea and India "supervised a careful process that ensured they were able to defect, but without too much humiliation for the communist regimes".

Dwight Eisenhower rode the Korean war issue to emerging victorious in the presidential election and took office in 1953. Ike's administration came to be dominated by two brothers, John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State and Allen Dulles as Director of CIA. The Dulles brothers unleashed a set of policy prescriptions, blessed by Ike, whereby regime changes and military alliances became the order of the day. Pakistan's Ayub Khan eagerly signed onto not one but two military alliances with US, CENTO and SEATO driven by his obsession over Kashmir and a paranoia about India. India, led by Nehru, was steadfast in not being drawn into the Cold War and focusing on domestic development.

Allen Dulles created the U2 spy plane program that flew over USSR in spy missions and over Tibet too. The spy planes took off from Pakistan's Peshawar base. Added to this was the CIAs active incitement of insurgency in Tibet, also with Pakistan's cooperation. In all of this Nehru ensured India was embroiled in any way. Nehru visited US in 1956 and was hosted by Ike at Gettysburg where they discussed for hours. Though key areas of disagreements remained they developed a mutual respect. Ike reciprocated with a trip to Asia that included India.

Amidst all of this Nehru signed a treaty with China in 1954, called the Panch-Sheel (5 principles). Though Nehru gave it the sentimental flavor of HIndi-Chini bhai-bhai the agreement was grounded in pragmatism and the lopsided military superiority of China was a critical factor. The Dalai Lama sought refuge in India in 1959. The capture of a U2 pilot, Francis Gary Powers, in 1961 by USSR plunged US-Soviet relationship to it's lowest. Further flights over USSR were stopped by US but flights over Tibet continued.

Ike departed office gifting incoming president JFK a world steeped in chaos. JFK's first year in office was rocked by the disastrous Bay of pigs invasion of Cuba. JFK retained Allen Dulles at the CIA. At a meeting held on Fenruary 14th 1961 JFK approved support for continued stoking of insurgency in Tibet. Now declassified CIA files show that by 1961 CIA had escalated the insurgency in tibet with more air drops, more arms and ammunition, use of larger C-130 planes instead of C-118 planes for air drops. Seidel says JFK persisted with this despite the objection of his ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith. "Galbraith thought the whole Tibet covert operation was too dangerous, recklessly provoking the Chinese".

Unhappy over Kennedy becoming friendly with India Ayub Khan rescinded permission for US access to air bases in East Pakistan but retaining access to those in West Pakistan. International diplomacy is an art in skulduggery.

Nehru visited US in 1961 and met with JFK. The visit was unmitigated disaster. The aging Indian leader and the charismatic young president did not get along. By all accounts Nehru was frosty, except when chatting with Jacqueline.

1961 was a watershed year that paved the year for the calamitous events next year. The Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco convinced Kruschev that he needed to supply Cuba with nuclear missiles. In India, alarmed by China constructing a road in Aksai Chin area, Nehru, in a meeting held on November 2nd 1961, initiated what came to be called 'Forward policy'. In 1959 China had proposed that India cede Aksai Chin in return for them agreeing to honor the McMohan line in the west. Nehru had rejected that.

The 'Forward Policy' was completely ill thought out. Indian intelligence bureau and CIA which were monitoring the Communist Party of India intercepted communications from China that had propaganda material meant to bolster China's case when war came.

Events moved on many fronts across the globe now. USSR had signed a treaty with India on August 17 1962 which included sale of MIGs. Alarmed Pakistan moved towards China. Pakistan had it's own border problem with Afghanistan for which Afghanistan turned to USSR for help. Pakistan was not backed up by US contrary to expectation. When the UN voted on allowing China to become part of UN for the first time Pakistan voted 'yes'.

In line with 'Forward Policy' Indian army started fortifying positions across the border especially near Aksai Chin. China responded in kind but with overwhelming numbers. On October 16th 1962 the Cuban missile crisis hurtled the world towards World War III and On October 20th China invaded Indian army positions. Thus the world was teetering on global conflict.After initial assault China withdrew giving a pause to the operations. With the nation in turmoil and facing political compulsions Nehru pressed on with ill-fated assault where the Indian army was outnumbered and outmatched in arms. By November 17th China appeared ready to overrun North East frontier and even Bengal. Nehru sought urgent help from Kennedy and practically asked US to join India in the war. Having made it's point China abruptly stopped the war on November 20th. Galbraith recorded that "peace came in the night like a thief". China withdrew to "positions 20 KMs behind the Line of Actual Control which existed between India and China on November 7 1959". The humiliation of Nehru and India was complete. Nehru never recovered from the disaster politically.

Seeking to buttress his ceasefire war Mao released a statement signed "editorial department" in the newspaper Renmin Ribao titled "More on Nehru's philosophy in the light of the Sino-Indian boundary question" on October 27th 1962. I happened to get a book released by Chinese government in US during the war with detailed maps, Zhou en Lai's letter, notes from their ministries and the above referred editorial. This rare book illustrates the propaganda effort by China. In the editorial Chinese government interestingly cited portions of Nehru's 'Discovery of India' and 'Autobiography' and other quotes to show that Nehru's position on the borders mirrored the colonial position and that his mind worked within colonial paradigms. The editorial cast aspersions on the nature of the Congress led freedom struggle and the nature of socialism in Nehru's economic policies.

A complete re-alignment of alliances happened between US, India and USSR, likewise the alliances between Pakistan, US, China also changed. JFK continued to move closer to India and military alliances were signed in addition to financial aid. USSR provided far more generous aid to India  giving, as US ambassador Chester Bowles summed up, "all that India asked for and more". Indian army became more reliant on USSR.

The death of JFK and Nehru soon after the 1962 war saw leadership changes that had great implications for Indo-US relationship. LBJ was distracted by the war in Vietnam and lacked JFK's appreciation of India. Nixon was even worse and he openly favored Pakistan. Nixon's historic opening up of relations with China recast US-India relations. China insisted on admission to UN with Nixon, its long sought holy grail, and as evidence of being a responsible global player cited it's restraint in the war with India in 1962. US, Pakistan and China now formed a triad with India left with no option but to gravitate towards USSR.

Reidel's book is patently mediocre and fails in its central mission in proving any central role for JFK in the Sino-Indian war. Reidel praises JFK for rejecting the advice of 'experts' during the Cuban crisis and in the very next page nonchalantly mentions that JFK would've done well to heed to the advice of Galbraith in stopping the covert operations in Tibet. India practically bore the brunt of US-Pak adventurism in Tibet because China suspected that India had some inkling of the covert efforts.

The book is billed as important because draws upon 'declassified CIA documents'. The new material cited is pretty much damp squib and contains no new earthshaking revelation. Those were just memos commissioned by JFK to understand the political climate of China and India.

The connection between US moving its fleet and China stopping the war abruptly on Nov 20th is very tenuous at best. From all available evidence it appears China only intended to teach India a lesson. Also, Mao wanted to send a message to USSR and US that China has to be given it's due place and it is not a vassal state of USSR.

Reidel is starry eyed about Kennedy when he suggests that Jacqueline Kennedy's visit to India healed the rift between US and India post the annexation of Goa by Nehru. This is silly. Reidel happily cites the collective chortling in US about Nehru's supposed hypocrisy when he annexed Goa. Little does he realize or contextualize Nehru's decision was rooted in pragmatism and that it came after implacable intransigence by Portugal. It was grating to read Reidel refer to Jacquiline Kennedy as JBK just to make it rhyming with JFK. Jackie was never referred as such and after all she died as Jackie Onassis.

Rider's knowledge of Nehru and India is pathetic. Referring to Nehru he writes, "he had been jailed for 13 years in British prisons...he had led the Quit India movement during World War II, seeking to sabotage the British war effort and colonial government, which ultimately helped to bring independence for his country". Nehru spent 9 years in jail, not 13. Nehru did not lead Quit India movement and what is even more egregious it was not an attempt to 'sabotage' the British war effort. Absolutely careless writing. He also says that Nehru took part in the non-aligned meeting in Cairo in October 1964. Nehru died on May 27th 1964.

Nehru famously had many amorous affairs and all of them were anything but a secret. But, Nehru was no skirt chaser. Reidel implies that Nehru was skirt chaser when he writes that during JFK's visit to India along with his 'attractive' sister Pat Nehru got bored talking with JFK and was more interested in talking to Pat. A similar canard is perpetuated about Nehru being more interested in talking to Jackie during his visit to US in 1961. This factoid comes from Stanley Wolpert's biography of Nehru. I referred the book only to find that Wolpert in turn had relied on hearsay from an Indian, possibly someone with an axe to grind. Reidel calls Wolpert a 'pre-eminent' biographer of Nehru. That's facetious.

Writing about how Allen Dulles played a role in the famous and aborted assassination attempt to kill Hitler Reidel says that the episode was "immmortalized" in the movie 'Valkyrie'. Since when was a B grade Hollywood movie considered immortal and one that was panned by critics. This is sloppy writing.

The book is readable only because it serves as a good summary of three other better books, one by Neville Maxwell, second by J.P. Dalvi and third by John Kenneth Knaus. The bibliography wrongly lists Ramachandra Guha as Ramachandra Gupta.

This book as with Neville Maxwell's suffers from a serious lacuna due to Chinese sources still being completely inaccessible. Though Indian government commissioned Henderson-Brooks report remains classified there is much information from Indian and American sources but next to nothing from China.

Nehru's policy of non-alignment served India well in those treacherous years and if anything India was an unwitting victim, as I said above, of US-Pakistan led adventurism in Tibet. The insistence by Nehru that Mao's China be included in UN is often portrayed in current India as a sign of naive idealism. On the contrary it was an important concession that China hankered after and finally got from US.

Nehru, in the opinion of legions of detractors, is pilloried for being supposedly a dove and insufficiently hawkish unlike Patel. An honest appreciation of Nehru's conduct towards threats from within and without show that he would easily be a hawk. The annexations of Junagadh and Goa, the repression of Communists, the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah, the Forward Policy all portray a more hawkish leader than is commonly realized. At the same time his non-alignment was not naive and nor was it cynical isolationism but it was pragmatic choice not to be sucked into a maddening swirl of competitive militarism. 

The Finest Week of Obama's Presidency

The gods are smiling on Barack Obama and he is basking in what can be called the finest week of his presidency. On June 24th, 25th and 26th Obama reaped victories that would cement his legacy and none was his own doing. Republicans in the Congress and Republican nominated Chief Justice John Roberts helped Obama have a legacy making week compared to a week earlier when his presidency looked not just lame duck but practically dead.

Obama rode to the White House in 2008 by presenting himself as the more populist candidate compared to Hillary Clinton. Obama shouted from rooftops about how Hillary had supported Bill Clintons massive trade bill, NAFTA. Hillary feebly protested that she had had reservations about the free trade bill that her husband continued to wave as legacy making bill and one that signifies the arrival of the new trade friendly Democratic leadership at the Oval office. Canada, one of the nations covered by NAFTA, was alarmed at Obama's shrill rhetoric and wondered if President Obama would shred NAFTA. Of course, candidate Obama was wiser and was fully aware that that was not his intentions and that his posture was just that, a posture, to win elections thanks to a gullible electorate that eagerly swallowed the bromides he freely dished while the press swooned at his feet. Nevertheless Obama dispatched, in secrecy, Austan Goolsbee, a key member of his economic policy team and one who would later serve his administration, to the Canadian embassy to assure America's neighbor that campaign rhetoric is not to be taken seriously. When news of such a visit leaked the press which should have thrown a fit at such brazen hypocrisy and chutzpah instead heaved a sigh of relief that their darling Prince was not Karl Marx after all and the electorate sleep walked into the voting booth to elect Obama as President. Unfortunately for him the dogs of war, that he unleashed against free trade bills and free trade as an economic policy, came to haunt him in 2015 as he prepared to sign a history making trade deal with a host of Asian countries.

Obama met his match in Elizabeth Warren in 2015. Warren, now hailed the new liberal lioness of the Democratic party, practically charged the hill and led a revolt by Democratic legislators against their own president in voting down the trade bill (TPP - Trans Pacific Pact). What was worse Warren made Obama look like he was a Republican out to sell the blue collar worker. Charges of secrecy and clandestine clauses flew thick and fast. Obama took to the airwaves with his signature haughtiness and addressing Warren by first name, Elizabeth, characterized her as 'just a politician'. Obama has this annoying habit of referring to everyone by their first names even during solemn occasions like their titles do not rank for him. Even when he nominated Kerry for Secretary of State he kept referring to him, not as 'Senator Kerry', but as 'John' like Kerry was a John of the street. The liberal press never minded all that until he did it one of their own idols like Warren. Obama's breaking point with his controversial pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright was when Wright referred to Obama as 'politician'. Running as one who sought to portray himself as not a run-of-the-mill politician to Obama that was a damaging characterization and a personal affront. Now, Obama uses what he considers an insult to belittle Warren. 'Just a politician'. The defeat of the TPP in the Senate sent shock waves in the Capital.

A notorious quote from Mitch McConnell, Republican minority leader of the Senate in 2008, that still circulates is one where he called on his party to ensure that Obama, the newly elected president, would be a 'one term president'. Democrats quote that remark to showcase how the GOP was unwilling to work with a newly elected president from the word go. Until 2014 mid-terms, when the GOP retook the Senate majority, the GOP was often, sometimes fairly too, blamed for blocking the president's agenda in Congress. However, there was always grumbling both within the White House and amongst GOP that the real spoiler in the senate was the pugnacious and pugilistic Senate majority leader Harry Reid (Dem-Nevada). When the GOP took over the Senate the liberal press and their ideological poodles dreaded a complete deadlocked governance. On the contrary Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan rode to Obama's rescue. They both told the White House to work on getting as many Democratic legislators on board while they use procedural tricks and plain bargaining to whip up the votes from the GOP. The White House, New York Times reported, was amazed to see the professionalism of McConnell and Ryan. Both McConnell and Ryan delivered Obama a GOP led victory on June 24th. As he touted the bill during a special press conference Obama conveniently forgot to thank the GOP.

Obama's signature legislative achievement, a pyrrhic victory when it was signed in 2009, was the healthcare overhaul that is now derisively referred to as 'Obamacare'. Hillary Clinton, who bears the scars of a bruising effort for a sweeping healthcare overhaul in Bill Clinton's presidency that almost derailed his presidency, presented a health care plan in 2008 that included mandating individuals to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Then candidate Obama blithely derided the mandate and railed against it despite every serious health care reformer saying that an 'individual mandate' is unavoidable if healthcare reform is to be undertaken. President Obama, as one would expect, gladly forgot candidate Obama's promises and overhauled America's gargantuan health care industry and the center piece of the legislation was an individual mandate. Hillary did not get a "I am sorry I was wrong" card.

Expanding healthcare to the many million uninsured was the key deliverable of the reform. America spends much on per capita health care than any industrialized rich economy with the results being just comparable to the rest. Bending the cost curve thus became a selling point. Obama went to town on both counts knowing fully well that, based on internal discussions, cost containment was not a feature of the plan and in fact it was not even certifiably possible. The healthcare roll out that happened, sadly after the 2012 election, was an unmitigated disaster. If the roll out had happened prior to the election Romney would've been elected in a landslide. Little wonder that Obama had legislated that the roll out happen after the election.

Just prior to the 2012 election a serious effort to shutdown Obamacare came in the form of a case challenging the individual mandate. When John Roberts was nominated by Bush to be Chief Justice of US Supreme Court then Senator Obama voted against him. But it was Roberts who rescued Obama that year by siding with the liberal majority on the bench to save the individual mandate, without which the entire Obamacare would collapse, by creatively and appropriately calling the fines a 'tax'. A second attempt to derail Obamacare then came up on a technicality of words used the legislation.

Obamacare, often presented as an innovative free-market reform with health exchanges where users can pick and choose insurers, also promised subsidies to those who cannot afford the premiums but, thanks to the individual mandate, are now compelled to buy insurance. Where State governments which were supposed to setup their own exchanges the federal government, the legislation stipulated, would do it for them. However, the legislation said that subsidies would be paid for those who bought insurance via 'state run exchanges'. GOP run states, naturally, did not setup their own exchanges and some Democrat run states like Maryland closed their state exchanges because they floundered and the federal exchanges served the customers in both cases. Customers now got subsidy irrespective of which exchange they bought insurance from. The law suit argued that customers are eligible for subsidies only when they bought it through state run exchanges and not when they buy from federal exchanges.

Obamacare enthusiasts like to boast about how many millions, previously uninsured, got healthcare now. 80% of Obamacare insurance customers receive some amount of subsidy from the federal government making it the largest wealth transfer in US history because the cost of those subsidies are paid by variety of people who are just a sliver of the tax payers.

While the case was grinding its way to the US Supreme Court a shocking revelation came to light. It is now commonly conceded that one of the big factors behind Romney's loss in 2012 was the video of him saying that 47% Americans do not pay taxes (a truth). Now a video surfaced of health care advocate and consultant to the White House, Jonathan Gruber, telling an audience that bending the cost curve as a reason to pass health care reform was fantasy and a cooked up one because if the truth, that only expanding access was the goal, nobody would've voted for it. In a further insulting comment Gruber praised the gullibility of the American voter, which, he said, helped in obfuscating the real goal and still being able to sell it. I'd call this Obama's "WMDs in Iraq" moment except in Bush's time nobody had indeed known there were no WMDs whereas here is a senior consultant who openly confessed that the bill was passed by blind siding the American voter by 'just politician' Obama. The revelations were a storm in a tea cup and Obama, abetted by a still fawning press, moved on.

On June 25th the US Supreme Court, again led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the man Obama voted against, saved the day for Barack Obama and the millions of Obamacare customers who are dependent on the subsidy. Roberts, aided by the liberal majority, finagled their way through with legalese and let the subsidies stand irrespective of which exchange a customer bought the insurance from. With this case Obamacare's place is secured. Many of the taxes in Obamacare actually go into effect after the 2016 presidential elections thus yet another time gullible American voters can vote for a democrat while they are blissfully unaware of the price tag of this gargantuan legislation. And even if they are aware of the price tag why should they care because, after all, its the minority hard working rich who'll pony up the price.

It is funny to watch Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and the democrats latch on the gay marriage issue in an attempt to portray the GOP as bigots. It was Bill Clinton, eager to appear as the new Democrat, who signed the now much maligned 'Defense of Marriage Act' which defined marriage as a heterosexual union. In 2008 candidate Obama affirmed his faith in marriage being the union of a heterosexual couple. It was politically inconvenient in 2008 for Obama to say otherwise and hence the politician said what was needed to win the election. 'Just a politician'. In 2012 Joe Biden, as Vice President, blurted out, as he often does, that Obama actually might support same-sex marriage. Now Obama was outed and had to come out. In a breezy interview Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage. While discussing the repeal of the even more notorious Clintonian compromise that was called 'don't ask don't tell' practice in the US army, being his own narcissistic self, Obama referred to the US army as "they fight for me". More than the backlash from GOP Obama was worried about the backlash from within the Black Churches, many of which were staunchly opposed to same-sex marriages. Obama called black pastors and asked for their support before he came out in support of same-sex marriage.

On June 26th the US Supreme Court ruled that states cannot bar same-sex marriages by passing laws against them. Now Roberts joined the minority conservative judges and demurred that the US Supreme Court had no business deciding which kind of marriage is legal because there is simply no constitutional question involved. The ruling nevertheless pretty much has ensured that same-sex marriage is here to stay in USA. And that's good.

Thus came to a close a historic week that in 3 days pretty much ensured far reaching decisions were made. This may very well be Obama's finest week before he rides into the sunset. As I write this a historic deal with Iran is closed. Whether it'll pass the Congress remains to be seen and whether the deal will deliver its promise of a nuclear free Iran, for at least decade, remains to be seen. Asked about the deep and valid concerns by many about Iran's intentions to honor the deal and the unthinkable consequences if Iran welches on the deal Obama, the narcissus incarnate, replied "the deal has my name on it" so if it goes south in 20 years "me legacy" will be tarnished. The man's hubris is breathtaking. Little does he realize that it is no consolation to the millions of Soviet dead that it was Molotov's tarnished named on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Little does Mr. Narcissus realize that the Brits who died in World War II did so thinking of Nevill Chamberlain's 'peace in our time'. For the sake of the peace of the world lets hope the Iran deal stands.

Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Ike and Lessons in Leadership

The word 'revolution' would bring to most the memories of either the French revolution or the Bolshevik revolution. To a few others there would be nostalgia of the Cuban revolution or the many eddies of revolutions in South America led by Che Guevara or Simon Bolivar. To a very few the word revolution would include the 'Bolivarian revolution' of Hugo Chavez. Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Simon Bolivar are considered revolutionaries in popular opinion. Yet none of their revolutions, including the French one, yielded a liberal democracy with individual rights and none yielded a democracy much less a prosperous one. The Indian independence, besides the American revolution, stands a glorious exception to that hall of shame.

Why do we look at Lenin as revolutionary and not George Washington? Why is Napoleon etched in romantic ideas of revolution and not Washington or Jefferson? Speak of Jefferson's 'Declaration of independence' and I'd hear, in a moment, the words 'hypocrisy' and 'slavery' yet we glorify Lenin, Napoloeon and Che Guevara whose hypocrisies cost lives in the millions and continue to do so.

Jawaharlal Nehru writing to his daughter, from prison, brushes aside the American revolution without much thought and he even ridicules the hallowed words of the Declaration, "all men are created equal" for naivety since not all created equal and that there are differences in intelligence, bodily strength etc. Then Nehru spends chapter after chapter extolling the French Revolution and later the Bolshevik Revolution. That trend persists in India till today. Indians when they look beyond native leaders look to Moscow for inspiration.

Cincinnatus, it is said, was called to lead Rome against an invading army, while he was farming. He was made dictator of Rome. He is remembered today for relinquishing his powers after winning the war. Unheard of in that era. America later commemorated him by naming a city, Cincinnati.

George Washington won the revolutionary war, laid down his arms, relinquished control and went to his home atop Mt.Vernon. Called back to preside over the constitutional convention he presides over it with saintly detachment as the framers wrangle endlessly over a simple question: "how do we ensure, constitutionally, that the President will never have so much power as to become a monarch". The framers, simple men, then devised a genius solution of 'checks and balances'. Any man in Washington's place would've tried to influence the powers allocated to the office they know that might, eventually, come to them. Having become President Washington tried to be a one term president and then remained in office, just one more term, to nurture a nascent republic. Washington's 'farewell address', remains 200 years later, a document to study by anyone who not only leaves office but is going to take one. To see another man unsullied by power or willing to relinquish it I'd have to travel 150 years to see Gandhi.

Mount Rushmore: Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln (from L to R. Source Wikipedia)

Washington begins his 'farewell address' with the words 'friends and  fellow citizens'. Leaders and rulers in 1792, even today, don't speak like that. Less than a decade later Napoleon, the son of revolution, declared himself Emperor. The transition of power to John Adams and then Thomas Jefferson proceeded peacefully, a miracle in the early 19th century.

Lincoln at Gettysburg coined the immortal words, "a government of the people, for the people, by the people". Fully aware that the Republic could still be torn apart and well aware that he could still lose the war Lincoln reaches out in deep and sincere humility. "The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here but it can never forget what they did here". Lincoln with his land grants lay the seed for one aspect of American supremacy that'll remain unchallenged for another two centuries: American Universities. China may surpass US GDP but never its per-capita or have a Harvard in Beijing. There will never be an MIT or Stanford in Shanghai or Delhi.

Thomas Jefferson was 32 when he wrote the words that would define America for centuries to come. 'Pursuit of happiness'. He would agonize over religious freedom, individual liberty and education. His  constitution for Virginia would later inspire the US constitution's bill of rights. Writing what his epitaph would say Jefferson would refer to himself as 'author of declaration of independence','statute of Virginia for religious freedom' and finally 'father of the University of Virginia'. No mention of the fact that he was President of US or Ambassador or Vice President or Secretary of state.

I came to US in 1998 and as much as I loved this country I looked their admiration of some US Presidents as just jingoism. When Time Magazine in a centennial issue included Teddy Roosevelt I chuckled "what did he do beside lending his name to a toy bear". By ending the Russo-Japanese war Teddy Roosevelt earned a Nobel peace prize thus becoming the first US President to do so. He created the Panama Canal, laid the groundwork for America's famous national parks amongst many others. There is a reason America honored him by including him along side Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln by carving his visage on Mount Rushmore.

The made-for-TV movie 'Ike:Countdown to D-Day' has a pivotal opening scene with Eisenhower pressing Churchill to declare him 'Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary force". Churchill demurs and says "you are asking for power that not even Caesar and Alexander had". Exactly. And Ike wields that power carefully later relinquishing it voluntarily. No general in history ever commanded such a vast and successful army only to relinquish his power answering to Harry Truman, born to a farmer and livestock trader. Ike had earlier benched legendary general Patton for the offense of slapping a soldier. The Red Army would've rewarded Patton. Patton was asked to apologize to not just the soldier but to the entire platoon. Ike would again rap Patton for claiming that when the war was over the Anglo-Saxons would rule. When a top ranking General rats out, intemperately, about the upcoming D-Day landing at Normandy Ike demotes and sends him back home. The general pleads "am I not in the inner circle". Ike expresses disgust and reminds him of the thousands that are about to die. Ike would agonize over the expected casualties.

On this day when America celebrates "Presidents Day" in memory of Washington and Lincoln I invite all to learn about these leaders who created the freest country and most prosperous. Thank you Sirs. And so may we add a 'Thank you Madam'. 

Does Satya Nadella Owe Thanks, if Any, to India (or US)?

'Let the brains drain out of India lest they go down the drain'. So said I in a debate on brain drain in 1993 at a college in Coimbatore. I proceeded to point out how scientists fleeing Nazi Germany provided a turning point in US scientific supremacy. The torch of scientific supremacy decisively passed over from Europe to US only after 1945.

Indian-Americans now head two iconic American corporations, Pepsi and Microsoft, amongst a few others. Do these expatriates owe thanks to the motherland they emigrated from? Do they owe thanks to the alma maters of their homeland? And, finally, do they have any debt of gratitude to America, the land where their dreams took flight and ambitions were realized despite being immigrants from a third world country?

In a nutshell no individual owes it to any country, India or US, for where he/she is today. If anything they may owe to it to their families after themselves. They can, if they wish to, tip a hat to a country that, unlike India, gave wings to their dreams and provided an atmosphere where they flourished and in returned enriched the country that allowed them in.

Indira Nooyi studied in Madras Christian College and, I hear, has donated to the institution. An ex-professor asserted that Nooyi owes it to MCC and based his assumption on the courteous statements that Nooyi has made of MCC. I don't confuse politeness for factual evidence. Fact is Nooyi will never  go back to India, not even in her dreams would she consider sending her children or grand children to MCC to study. The number of CEO's from the portals of MCC can be counted on one hand. The only other illustrious alumnus from MCC was Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. Established in 1837 MCC is famous for having the trees in its luscious gardens labeled with botanical names. Beyond that the few illustrious alumni, listed in wikipedia, mostly belong to a bygone era and not many in the recent past when MCC shared an intellectual decline along with most other such institutions that date from the Colonial era. MCC is not Harvard or Yale where identifying, nourishing and producing leaders is a tradition.

Satya Nadella (from Wikipedia)

When CBS 60 minutes ran a program on IITs calling them more selective than Harvard every Indian-American, barring a few like me, irrespective of whether they went to IIT or not, patted themselves and proudly proclaimed that they are from the country of IITs. Till today IIT graduates, expatriate and those who remain in India, don't count a single Nobel laureate amongst them in any discipline. We can count on one hand, possibly two, the number of revolutionary ideas in technology that have come from IIT graduates. Incidentally graduates from Osmania University hold more patents in US than expatriate graduates of all IITs (refer article in The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/move-over-iitians-ou-grads-make-it-bigger-in-us/article5056307.ece ). The fabled selectivity of IIT is just a function of demand vs supply and has no bearing on the quality of the graduates produced. Most IIT'ians are nothing more than diligent rote learners in 12th grade and they turn out as mediocre graduates.

Being a nation of a hoary and very rich civilization, including treatises in grammar and mathematics, that predates recorded history Indians have an unfathomable inferiority complex given the near total lack of international achievement in present day. Hence at any semblance of achievement Indians rush to envelop that in the tricolor flag forgetful of the fact that Nooyi, a woman from middle class, and Nadella born to middle class parents would not have achieved what they did in US. A more pertinent question to ask would be if a middle class Afro-American choosing to study and work in India would ever become the head of any Indian company like Microsoft? I said 'like Microsoft' only as hyperbole. There is no Indian company like Microsoft or Apple. Not yet. I chose 'Afro-American' to rub in the racial barriers.

Yes, some Indian universities and colleges are more than decent compared to some community colleges in America or universities in other third world countries. That said let's not forget that at best Indian institutions can only be pipelines for the most brilliant to reach world class higher education centers mostly in US. Nadella may very well compliment his college or school but nobody need be fooled for when it comes time to recruit managers he will head to Chicago Booth or Harvard or Yale or that unpolished gem that lies buried in the crusty corridors of some Indian university.

One thing that America, more than any other country, does well is to ferret out talent, worry about identifying talent, then nourishing it, then seeing it achieve the best that that human being can be. Indian universities have no idea of what it is to identify talent. Indian universities sit back, wait for applications to pour in, select the top most scorers and rest on their palms watching the top scorers go out and ace examinations or get ahead in life. Today, more than ever, American university admissions officers worry about racial, gender and economic diversity. Ivy league universities reach out to schools in poor neighborhoods to impress upon their students that lack of money should not inhibit them from applying. The top US universities can very well, like their Indian counterparts, sit on their hands and wait for applications. But they don't. And thats the cultural difference.

The MacArthur grants, popularly called 'genius awards', showcases America's culture of excellence like nothing else can. Many of the MacArthur fellows go on to win other prestigious prizes like the Pulitzer or accomplish something of note. See my earlier blog titled "America's Geniuses:John Dabiri and a culture of nourishing excellence". Raj Chetty, economist, L. Mahadevan, mathematician, Vijay Iyer, musician have all been awarded the Mac Arthur genius awards in the recent past.

Before anyone can say "if only Indian universities had money like Harvard and Princeton" I'd add "fat chance. even with all the money in the world IIT and IISc will not produce two Nobel laureates". It is never about money. Money is secondary or even tertiary. Its the Indian culture that has a problem.

After Macaulay the only person who worried about educating Indians was Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru was the last Indian politician who wanted his citizens to have an education like he did. Homi Bhabha was tasked with forming world class educational institutes, autonomy was enshrined by a parliamentary bill, when foreign investment was an anathema IITs were a joint venture, when foreign exchange was doled out miserly international science journals were imported tax free and yet nothing great came out.

Nobel laureate S.Chandrasekhar was groomed in Cambridge and later achieved greatness in America as an American citizen but he would show a typical Indian hypocrisy by prescribing to others, without batting an eyelid, what he had no intention of ever doing in his life. Chandra would narrate how faction ridden the scientific and educational community in India was in the 1930's when giants like Homi Bhabha, Meghnad Saha and S.N.Bose lived. Chandra, while sympathetic of Bhabha, would narrate with disgust how Bhabha enjoyed showing power. Homi Bhabha would derive joy in making people wait, including a person like S.N. Bose. Einstein impressed by Bose's paper translated it into German and had it published. And Bosons came into being.

Quoting Nehru Chandra would say that though Indians chased away the British they retained the sense of hierarchy and entitlement attitude that colonial era officers showed. His comments to his biographer, Kameshwar C Wali, show nothing but contempt for the then Indian scientific environment. He even jeers at the notion of being expected to remain in India taking a lowly position as head of an observatory after a stint at Cambridge. Yet, the same Chandra asserts, rather shamelessly, that there is nothing "wrong if a developing country like India attempts to stop this 'brain drain'. China, for instance, has been able to develop its internal resources to a point. Human beings are also internal resources". His hagiographer Wali thankfully adds, referring to US, "it is silly to talk about free right to emigrate when this (USA) country is so selective about who it wants to take. There are no open borders. The poor starving Haitian refugees, it is so inhuman to send them off". Fascist nonsense. No wonder Chandra and his wife campaigned for Adlai Stevenson, twice.

Arrant nonsense. Hypocrisy with a blindness that's appalling in a man who swore by science and could not even look at how illogical he was. Chandra justifies preventing emigration because many emigrate just for money and take even lowly positions. So what? His mother seeded him with an ambition and a dictum to keep away from C.V.Raman's 'orbit'. Each man to his own needs. Who a country chooses to allow is its own prerogative that does not mean that other countries should ban emigration. Both USSR and China banned any emigration yet they lag technologically and economically far behind US. Until 2001 China was far behind US. USSR had talent but chose to prevent free travel and emigration only to send its brilliant scientists to Gulags. When USSR collapsed its scientists were reduced to surviving on a bag of potatoes. Thanks to a closed system their scientists often re-invented the wheel not knowing somebody else had done it already.

Ever since India opened up its economy many of those who emigrated have invested back in India as entrepreneurs. The traffic of emigrants is a cash cow for India. Foreign remittances are a key source of revenue for India. The US, of course, wins hands down with its open door policy for talent. Actually the policy is less than open door and needs to become one.

It is a measure of US' openness that first generation immigrants have risen the fabled American corporate ladder to the very top. This is unique to USA. No other country does it as well as America. No other country attracts talent and the mediocre alike as much as the US does. More than 50% of Phd's in US are foreign born. The annual Nobel laureate list features many immigrants. A culture of openness, respect for talent, lack of rigid hierarchies, a culture of innovation, risk taking, rewarding risk and other key ingredients make US the place to be for immigrants, skilled and unskilled, legal and illegal, alike.

Bill Gates, the world's richest man, the founder of the iconic company that changed the world, has stepped down as Chairman and will continue to be an 'advisor' to Nadella. I cannot imagine this happening in any other part of the world. Scion of Henry Ford, another quintessential American icon, stepped aside and brought in external talent, Alan Mulally, to turn around Ford. Can we imagine any Indian business founder doing that? These are not exceptions but rather routine in US and thats the key defining feature.

All that said would I say Nadella owes a debt of gratitude to USA? No. That's cheap. If Nadella turns around Microsoft from a lumbering behemoth to a nimble competitor and in the process unleashes great revolutionary technology or products it is America that will have to thank the immigrant. The proper function of any society that desires progress, economically and otherwise, is to be an enabler for any individual to realize his/her potential to the fullest extent. When an individual succeeds if society thinks it is 'entitled' to his scalp then in the long run the society will decay. Exhibit A: USSR. Did Einstein owe his life to US? No. US owes Einstein a big thanks. If US had said no to Einstein he may have perished somewhere but the loss would have been more to US than to Einstein.

Andy Grove came to US as a penniless refugee fleeing Nazism and then communism. America and the world need to thank Andy Grove for Intel. While Americans can justifiably feel proud about being, as Reagan said, a 'city on the hill' we cannot lose sight that it was Andy Grove the individual who made himself what he became out of the millions who emigrate to US. Its always the individual that counts. The day a society becomes greedy and titular thinking that the individual is at its service that day the death knell will sound for that society.

Liberals Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren made it fashionable to speak of the duty of an individual to society. 'Giving back', they call it. I say, 'bollocks'. The only duty of an individual is to be a law abiding citizen and work towards one's own dream. The rest is corollary and incidental. So many thousands of students attended the same school before and after Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Alan Mulally or Indra Nooyi or Satya Nadella yet only they became what they did. So many attend Harvard and Yale yet not everyone becomes Mark Zuckerberg or, as for that matter, Obama.

American universities recognize that while they are incubators or catalysts of talent they do not fancy themselves as entitled to the achievements of their alumni. Thats why universities, recognizing the value of alumni, go to great lengths to nourish that relationship as symbiotic equals. Pushing oneself to deliver the best within himself is the greatest tribute any individual can pay a society.Without Bill Gates the capitalist Bill Gates the philanthropist would not exist. The latter is a bonus. The former is his tribute to himself and then to America.

Let me be to Indians what John Galt was to Hank Rearden. Chandra won accolades of high order in UK and USA before India gave him a paltry Padma Vibhushan. NASA has named an observatory after Chandra. Kalpana Chawla was richly remembered by a grateful America when her space mission ended in tragedy. A Congressional space medal of honor was bestowed on her, Texas university named a hall after her and an asteroid was named for her. All that for an immigrant who perished in the skies. C.K.Prahlad won an American award before India even recognized him. Indian-Americans head two of America's most prestigious schools of business, Harvard Business School and Chicago Booth School of Business. I hope Indians now don't think that they run America.

A Delhi girl was spurned admission at Delhi colleges thanks to ludicrous cutoffs at 100%.  The middle class girl, New York Times article said, was accepted at Dartmouth with scholarships (New York Times Article 'Squeezed out in India, students turn to United States' http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/world/asia/squeezed-out-in-india-students-turn-to-united-states.html?_r=0 ). The key sentence of that article was that US universities are making efforts to reach out to Indian students. Its the 'reaching out' that differentiates Dartmouth from Delhi colleges. Brown University intended to open an office in Delhi to recruit Indian students. Brown had 86 Indian students in 2008. In 2011 it was 300. Indian higher education is in shambles.

Atul Gawande, born to Maharashtrian immigrants, straddles the worlds of politics, public policy making, surgery, journalism and administration. A total impossibility in the suffocating strait jacketed Indian system. Then there is Siddhartha Mukherjee who won a Pulitzer and a National Book Award for his debut book 'Emperor of Maladies'. I can bet most Indian doctors cannot read more than 10 pages of that book let alone be capable of writing one sentence in that. Another impossibility in creativity stifling Indian system. Mukherjee won a Rhodes Scholarship, a Cancer leadership award (shared with a US governor and senator), Pulitzer, Time magazine notice and then finally in 2014 a Padma Shri.

At a retreat for Governors Thomas Friedman told them to lobby for reforming the immigration mess in America. Friedman and a University President pleaded for green cards to be stapled to the graduate degrees awarded to foreign students. A Republican governor cheerfully agreed. Thats how much America recognizes and yearns to retain talent.

I'd tell every Indian to emigrate to US if opportunity presents itself. Come to America and prosper. As you prosper you will enrich this country, not just economically. I invite every Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Math, Engineering and Medical student to set his sights on MIT or Harvard Medical school or Princeton and settle down in this great country. India does not deserve you. At least not yet.

An Evening with Nanjil Nadan

Nanjil Nadan won the Sahitya Akademi award for "Do not adorn the flower that was adorned" ('Soodiya Poo Soodarka). He is currently touring USA at the invitation of some literary enthusiasts. I met him at a friend's home and had an entertaining evening. I've read some of his stories on his web site and had a liked him. Many times I face the question "why do you hate Tamil literature, its culture etc". I love literature. Period. How can I hate a language with one of the richest heritage in human civilization and one which I happen to speak and write too? The 2 hours I spent listening to Nanjil Nadan was sheer pleasure.

Nanjil, as I wrote in another context recently, is a Mathematician by training and studied Tamil literature as a passion. While at Mumbai the library operated by Mumbai Tamil Sangam was his refuge. He learnt Kamba Ramayanam for 3 years from another person (not a literary academician either). Nanjil's love and knowledge for the epic knows no bounds. Ask him any question out of ignorance or curiosity about Kamba Ramayanam and the answer will make it clear within a minute that you are in the presence of someone who has not just studied the epic but has imbibed it in his veins. The best part, at least in that evening, is no answer would mixed with the mindless asinine chauvinism common amongst Tamil enthusiasts. Never did I hear him say "only Kamban not even xyz", or "only in Tamil".

Nanjil explained with great admiration of how Kamban would use words. He picked a word that has 40 variants and said Kamban had used it all. Nanjil is collecting such thoughts for a lecture titled 'words' to be delivered. If he had lived in USA and if Kamban was a westerner such a lecture would be given in the auspices of the 'National Endowment of Humanities' as the prestigious 'Jefferson lecture' and a publisher would be bringing out a nice booklet. Ah the curse of being a Tamil.

There are thousands of translation of Homer's epics but when Princeton professor Robert Fagles released his translations they became a sensation and set a new bar. I asked Nanjil why we do not see such continued research and re-interpretation of Tamil classics. He said that that's not true and cited a few works which, unsurprisingly, remain obscure. I asked him what about something similar to 'definitive editions' that we see for classics here. He referred to a particular edition of Kamba Ramayanam as being excellent, only one copy is available in Annamalai University.

Nanjil expressed his displeasure at the pathetic level of interest in anything beyond movies and TV serials for the average Tamil citizen. It has been the grouse of many a literary person. Trichy is what in USA would be referred to as University town. I spent an entire afternoon roaming around Trichy for a good book store. A guest shocked the rest and Nanjil by saying "well you guys must write what interest the public". Najil, being a gentleman, just smiled. At the beginning I asked Nanjil if he was here in connection with the annual Tamil Sangam convention hosted by FeTNA. He did not ignore that question but glided over it with a smile.

I wrote an article for FeTNA 2008 in which I had lamented the lack of a good dictionary akin to 'Oxford English Dictionary' for a 3000 year old language. Nanjil referred to R.P.Sethupillai's dictionary of Tamil words, compiled at Annamalai university, in the 20's as the only remaining definitive work. I did not dare to ask him what is Tamil University doing.

Last year a speaker in FeTNA 2011 lamented the dismal state of research in Tamil. He chided fantasy theories like Tamil originating in Lemuria. How did such crass mediocrity, nay, stupidity happen. An incident narrated by Nanjil showcased it and strangely Jayakanthan had written about such an incident 40 years back.

In the 60's a Writer's Conference was conducted in Trichy and E.V.Ramasamy Naicker was the chief guest (don't even ask me what is his credential). EVR, in his true gadfly nature, made a mockery of Mahabharatham asking 'should we not tear apart an epic that celebrates a polyandrous woman (Draupadi)'. Jayakanthan in his reply objected to such an attitude. EVR's minions who had crowded the hall tried to shout down Jeyakanthan. EVR then said "well we hurt a lot of sentiments of others by our opinions he should be free to say his opinion".

 Nanjil was invited, along with other contemporary writers, to speak on "the book that most influenced" him. Nanjil spoke about Kamba Ramayanam. Annathurai, DMK's idea of literary person, had made a name for himself by lecturing what a pornographer Kamban is and DK/DMK have made Kamban their ideological football with half assed ideas of literature etc. Just like the 60's now in 2010's EVR's successor Veeramani was invited too. Now Veeramani's minions, actually women, raised a ruckus. Nanjil said he was livid at this bunch half baked idiots maligning an epic and was ready to stand up and even take blows. He said "I know I'd be beaten up and next day paper would say 'Nanjil roughed up' so what". Veeramani echoed EVR in silencing the minions. In his reply Veeramani devoted almost the entire time to rebut Nanjil. My friend asks me "why do you have to drag Mu.Ka, EVR, DK, DMK" into anything about Tamil Nadu. To their credit no discussion of anything about Tamil Nadu is impossible without mentioning those.

Talking about Tamil music Nanjil was happy to see how Sanjay Subramaniam incorporates Tamil songs in his performance. He said as much it is reprehensible when carnatic musicians relegate Tamil songs to the last in a performance and refer to it as 'tail pieces' ('thukkada') we should also recognize how Brahmins have nourished and protected our music. He also was aghast referring to an interview of T.M.Krishna who said "singing 'Krishna nee Begane' ('Krishna please come') is the same as singing 'coca cola nee begane'". Saying music is universal Nanjil recalled how tears welled up in his eyes listening to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.

My only disappointment of the evening was Najil's reply to my question on whether he read any books about USA prior to his visit here. Just 2 days before my meeting I had read an interview by Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust. Faust is visiting India more frequently to market Harvard and she is reading Katherine Boo, Rohinton Mistry, Salman Rushdie etc. Nanjil had read Pa.Raghavan's 'Dollar Dreams". My heart just sank. I did not expect him to say 'Alexis De Tocqueville' but saying Pa.Raghavan was just a low blow. In his visit to Boston he had expressed his appreciation for the politeness for American people "Americans are different from America the country which is a hegemony. I don't know enough to talk about the Wall Street power etc". This is a cop-out I've heard this a lot of times. American's elect their government. To see America only through the prism of foreign policy does gross injustice to the greatest country on earth. This deserves a separate blog.

People like Nanjil lack financial independence to undertake a study tour of USA to understand its vibrant intellectual nature and its deep structural greatness. Whether it is Nanjil or Jeyamohan they go around USA courtesy of some enthusiasts. A visit to MIT in an after noon, a stop at a grocery store (Nanjil went to Farmer's market), a train journey from New Jersey to NYC gives not even a glimpse of this country. He will have to stay and study the country, visit Kennedy Center, learn about Jefferson lecture, study about National Endowment of humanities, understand about the responsibilities of a Super Power by learning about how Herbert Hoover fed impoverished and vanquished Germany, understand how Ms Faust a civil war scholar conducts business at Harvard. At least he has gained a glimpse and is taking back nice memories of America. 

IBM Shatters The Glass Ceiling

On October 25th Virginia Rometty, 60, was chosen to be the CEO of IBM. She is the first woman CEO of IBM in its 100 year history. It came shortly after HP, another venerated tech giant, chose Meg Whitman as its CEO, its second actually after the unceremonious ouster of its first woman CEO Carly Fiorina.

Ginny, as Virginia is referred to, joins a select club of woman CEO's. Indra Nooyi, Indian born, at Pepsico; Ursual Burns, first Afro-American and second woman CEO to head Xerox, Xerox has had two women CEO's in succession with Anne Mulcahy as the first; Ellen Kullman heads the bicentennial giant Du Pont, a first in 200 years of that company's existence. Compared to corporations the supposed guardians of progressive politics, the universities, are slow to move. Princeton got its first woman president, Shirley Tilghman a molecular biologist, in 2001. Harvard appointed Drew Gilpin Faust a Civil War scholar to its presidency in 2007 shattering the proverbial glass ceiling after 350 years.

Sam Palmisano, the outgoing CEO of IBM, is quoted by NYT as rejecting the notion that gender played any role in selecting Rometty. Palmisano was full of praise for Rometty. No nation on earth is free of prejudices and biases that disadvantage sections of the population but how they evolve from it is what differentiates the substantive from the chaff.

The rise of women, by merit, in US is irreversible and marks a progress that is substantive. Drew Gilpin Faust illustrated how women outgrew their traditional roles in the crucible of the civil war in her book "Mother's of invention". When men had to leave for battlefields it was the women who stepped out and filled in the shoes of men. Teaching, seen today as a woman's profession, was out of bounds for women in pre-civil-war era in USA. In the decades after women were assigned to traditional jobs like nursing and teaching. Many other occupations were out of bounds for women. Especially Science and Math. Faust herself faced jeers from male professors as a student. Faust had completed all requisite coursework for her PhD and the work that remained did not need her to be at the university. Newly married Faust asked her professor if she can complete the thesis from remote as she had to accompany her husband. The professor sneered that as woman she was only focused on marriage. When many women won Nobel Prizes in science in 2009 I wrote http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2009/10/2009-nobel-prizes-stellar-year-for.html and emphasized that women started entering top research positions only in the 80's and their researches are only now coming to notice and that this is only a beginning.

The incident in Faust's life illustrates a key difficulty for women. I remember reading an article in Harvard Business Review citing IBM studies that women lose 7 years in their career life due to child bearing and bringing up children. Corporate America has been negligent in this regard. In an age when jobs are being sent across oceans allowing women to work from home where the function can afford it is still in the minority. Corporate America is stuck in the 60's when it comes to workers and work practices.

Corporations are rarely, rather never, given credit for ushering in social change, politicians corner it. IBM has been a leader in ushering in social change. As an employer of hundreds of thousands over decades its policies are an illustration of how Corporations are often painted with the same brush and very unfairly. IBM's President Thomas Watson, in 1953, sent out a letter to his employees that IBM needed the best people irrespective of color. He also sent notices to two southern governors that IBM will NOT have a segregated workplace. Only those who know the race politics of US would appreciate the monumental courage for a company CEO to do that. IBM is rated highly for its support of Gay and Lesbian rights. When Atlanta natives demurred over a function to honor Martin Luther King Jr who had won the Nobel Peace prize Coca Cola threatened to walk out of Atlanta if the city did not honor its most famous son. A note, both IBM and Coca Cola were thrown out of India when Janata Party came to rule, George Fernandes broke coke cans in the streets.

When Time magazine chose to highlight whistleblowers for their courage to speak truth to power, not coincidentally all three that were chosen were women. Michael Lewis in his latest bestseller about the crises sweeping Europe, "Boomerang", writes that maybe Wall Street would not have been so reckless if there had been more women at the helm. Testosterone driven men drove Wall Street off the cliff. Michael Lewis, I could say with my tongue in my cheek, has not heard about Jayalalitha or Indira Gandhi and has forgotten Imelda Marcos.

American politics is still chauvinistic. When Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama dueled for the Democratic party nomination a WSJ poll said more Americans were ready for a black president and not yet for a woman president. The poll was taken about a hypothetical without referring to Hillary or Barack. However I am sure people responded with those two in mind and it certainly skewed the results. Hillary is the first woman to 'win' votes in a primary. She gave many a sleepless night to Obama. When Hillary spoke at a rally in New Hampshire two guys stood at the back of the crowd with t-shirts that said "come do my laundry". Obama never faced such a racism at close quarters those such comments surfaced in commentary. Hillary finally lost due to her own mistakes. However today she is the most admired cabinet member of Obama with a Time magazine cover story this week gushing over her work. She is the third woman as Secretary of State.

Many men who swear by gender equality still betray traces of male chauvinism. I've seen this especially amongst Tamil Nadu men, particularly those who dislike Jayalalitha. Jayalalitha's marital status is often fodder for jokes and snide remarks. That she was an actress adds fuel to the fodder. As Elizabeth, the Virgin queen, was mocked for her supposed virgin status so is Jayalalitha mocked.

Hillary Clinton suffered many an unkind remark about her pant suits, her girth, her make up, how she dressed, if she dressed conservatively she was stuffy, if she dressed with an open neck she flaunting cleavage, if her eyes had dark lines she had a bad night dreaming of losing, if she had her makeup perfect perfect she was 'unconnected and distant'. Damned if she did it, damned if she did not.

After Iowa when blacks realized that Obama is not Jesse Jackson and rallied to him in a historic candidacy women refused to do the same for Hillary. Oprah chose race over gender. Hillary plowed on and won 18 million votes in primaries and later referred to it in her concession speech as '18million cracks in the glass ceiling'.

That women of high merit are chosen because of their merit is what makes these breakthroughs as admirable. Drew Faust is a sheer scholar. Rometty is a high achiever. They are not, to be blunt, affirmative action cases or quota cases. In a not too distant future a woman would certainly become the President of USA. 

9/11 And The Vietnam Albtaross: The story of George Coker

America's engagement in Vietnam is a sordid saga of venality and war crimes. It was an age and time that makes current partisan discord look like exemplary brotherhood. The civil rights struggle, the anti-war movement, military drafts, a president assassinated, the air thick with conspiracy tales, America was a cauldron. When many rushed to scold US on 9/11 with a thinly disguised criticism of its foreign policy what drove most were the memories of Vietnam, especially of a little girl running naked, screaming, when her village was napalmed. 

Nothing has weighed heavily on US foreign policy as Vietnam. The nation's psyche was wounded for decades. US never again got into a full fledged war until the Gulf War of 1991. In fact Saddam had calculated that America with its aversion to seeing soldiers return in body bags would not venture into a war. That US had scurried out of Somalia in between Vietnam and Gulf War emboldened not just Saddam but Osama too.

Robert McNamara, LBJ, Nixon are the three most culpable individuals in what turned out to be America's shame ranked probably only next to the original sin of slavery. That they were not indicted as war criminals is not indicative of any exclusive power of America but symptomatic of how weak the world bodies are in prosecuting any such person. If those deserved to be prosecuted they should very well be along with so many others.

While most of the above is common knowledge what is less known is how America got dragged into this body quagmire. Eminent historian and two time Pulitzer winner Barbara Tuchman, author of bestseller 'Guns of August', traces how America slid into this mess that was not of its making in 'The March of Folly". During the days of World War II the Allies had an uneasy relationship which on some counts was even blatantly hypocritical. Churchill was calling for the defense of liberty while he jailed Gandhi and declared that he had not become "his majesty's first minister to preside over the liquidation of the British empire". De Gaulle while mourning the loss of France and yearning to be its leader again was clear that France will remain a colonial power. Stalin, as historian Robert Conquest labeled him, was the 'breaker of nations'. The least guilty in this was US led by FDR. FDR would plead with all three, Churchill, Stalin and De Gaulle to be fair to nations in their post war plans.

What is now known as Vietnam used to be Indo-China. It was the playground of the French, the Japanese and Chinese. The French ruled Vietnam with an iron fist and in true colonial fashion. Try watching the movie "Battle of Algiers" to get a sample. With Ho-Chi-Minh in saddle North Vietnam slid into the deadly embrace of communism. In a conflict that drew a wide array of nations and competing agendas Vietnam became America's "Bloodland", to adopt the phrase of a historian. America went headlong into Vietnam when the French sowed chaos and sought to exit out. With the passage of time what remains in most  people memory is only the carnage that US left behind and that is married to notions of a superpower trying to bludgeon a country of bicycle riders under the pretext of saving them from Communist stranglehold.

If one traces the role of countries in Vietnam its mindblogging to separate friend from foe. In what is characteristic of wars at various junctures both US and China had allied with the murderous regime of Khmer Rouge in the background of the Vietnam war.

With such stories to be told Hollywood was not far away. The anti-war movie "Hearts and Minds" was highly critical of US policy in Vietnam. A scene featured a Vietnam veteran,  George Coker, saying "If it wasn't for the people, it was very pretty. The people there are very backwards and primitive and they make mess out of everything". The movie in Hollywood style omitted to mention who Coker was. Wikipedia notes aptly that this was a propaganda movie. Not surprisingly it garnered an Academy Award. What the movie omitted was George Coker has been prisoner of war in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton". Coker had suffered inhuman torture that would make water boarding and Guantanamo look like five star facilities. Wikipedia details:

"While in a facility on the outskirts of Hanoi known as "The Zoo", he was forced to endure a torture called "the wall", in which he, as well as other prisoners, was forced to stand facing a wall in his cell with his hands above his head from the time a gong sounded at 5:30 in the morning until it sounded again at 10:00 at night. After two weeks, the knee injury he suffered when he ejected had worsened, and he was taken to a hospital where the infection was drained. After a two day respite while he recuperated, "the wall" torture continued for two more months. Coker called this "probably my worst experience in Vietnam".^[1

Another Prisoner of War who was famously incapacitated due to torture in Vietnam is Arizona Senator and former GOP Presidential candidate John McCain. While critics of US foreign policy breathlessly recount tales of My Lai and napalming of villages the narrative becomes too stilted and blatant propaganda when it completely ignores the brutal realities of tortures by Vietnamese.

In what can be the very epitome of irony today US and Vietnam are close allies. John McCain and Hillary Clinton have visited Vietnam. Vietnam is a major outsourcing hub for software. Ultimately it was the market that triumphed. The victorious North Vietnam gobbled the south and the united country plunged into socialist abyss until recent times. The US failed to save South Vietnam unlike South Korea. South Korea under American tutelage (or hegemony as the critics remind us) became an economic power house. TOday South Koreans, thanks to American soldiers still dying in the DMZ ( I met a veteran wounded recently in South Korea), enjoy a free society that they can organize marches decrying US hegemony. The icing on the Vietnam-US detente is Vietnam requesting US help to stave of Chinese threat in the seas, New York Times, reports, quoting Nguyen Manh Hung, director of the Indochina Institute at George Mason University in Virginia, "Vietnam worries about Chinese in the South China Sea and America worries about interference in freedom of navigation,” Mr. Hung said. “Because of this, the strategic interests of Vietnam and the United States converge.”


The more and more I read on US foreign policy the angrier I get at the shibboleth of citing US foreign policy as reason for 9/11. That girl running naked with burning skin from a Napalm attack had more reason to be angry at US than the polygamist turned fundamentalist Osama Bin Laden and his thugs ever had. China, Japan, all of Western Europe, Philippines, India, Simgapore, Vietnam, South Korea are all beneficiaries of US economic policies and many owe their prosperity to US. It was US leadership, or hegemony, that saved Western Europe from Stalin. Communism laid waste continents and impoverished millions and it was US to the rescue almost always. What prompted Bin Laden was not any articulation of high liberal principles but sheer religious fundamentalism that was unique in that region. After the July 2004 London subway bombings Granta magazine ran an issue titled "the rise of British Jihad". That and about the apologists for terrorism in my next blog.

Road to 9/11: Harold Pinter's Anti-Americanism

On September 11th 2001 while America mourned several parts of the world mourned and in the same breath muttered "you had it coming". Sujatha wrote that the days USA's "gun boat diplomacy" are over and like a good father sent his son to USA to live and become, I guess, an American citizen. Aijaz Ahmed, living in USA, writing for Frontline divined that the 19 hijackers were thinking of the so many past injustices of USA.

When people complain of US foreign policy I hear the usual litany starting with Vietnam meandering through the past as far their erudition goes, perhaps the coup Teddy Roosevelt engineered to build the Panama Canal, to every present day conflict weaving an ugly tapestry of a hegemony run amuck. Yes, as in Vietnam, there are very justifiable blemishes on US foreign policy. No country in history with the economic and military size of USA could have an unsullied record. But to place America in the company of Nazi Germany or malign the US army like they were murderous blood lusty terrorists alone only betrays the pathological hatred of such opinion holders.

In spring of 2002, while the fires were barely put out and WTC was just mangled steel with 2500+ bodies still buried, Granta magazine asked eminent intellectuals across the globe to share their thoughts for an issue titled "What We Think of America". Orhan Pamuk, Ramachandra Guha, Amit Chaudhuri and many more including Harold Pinter.

Orhan Pamuk and Harold Pinter, both Nobel Laureates, perfectly bookend the range of emotions most feel about America. Pamuk, coming from Turkey, has a gentle portrait of USA told through a story of his childhood involving an American boy. Pinter's essay was an address he delivered On Sep 10th 2001, a day before 9/11. Pinter said the address is still relevant. Pinter eviscerates USA for the NATO bombing of Serbian forces of Milosevic. Pinter called the USA a 'rogue state', 'a fully fledged, award-winning gold plated monster...it knows only one language-bombs and death". Doris Lessing, another Nobel Laureate, wrote a meandering piece, "America, it seems to me,has as little resistance to an idea or a mass emption as isolated communities have to measles and whooping cough".

Harold Pinter scolded the USA for the NATO bombings in Bosnia and went on to organize funds for Slobodan Milosevic, need I add a word after that. Doris Lessing was a communist, a typical worshipper from afar who never lived under communism.

It is this 'gold plated monster' that sent thousands to the beaches of Normandy. Flagging off the D-Day landings Eisenhower said "half of them will not come back alive". America, Lessing says, allows ideas and emotions to wash over with little resistance like a populace stricken by measles. Sure, is that why America put its money and men defending Western Europe and her own beloved England. Referring to FDR's 'lend lease program' to England, Presidential historian Robert Dallek, chuckled, "what lend lease, there was no collateral to be lent against. FDR basically hoodwinked the people and supplied Churchill". Lessing jeers that Americans have short memories. She with a long memory forgot that US had to be dragged into both World Wars. It is a matter of conjecture that had US entered, what was seen as European conflict, earlier in WW-II much loss of life could have been stopped.

Torn between two wars, a terrorist attack that reshaped the psyche of a country and an economic recession, it was only USA that rushed its C-14 helicopters across the globe to save the thousands battling for life in Tsunami stricken Banda Aceh in Thailand. Note, there was no oil or any strategic advantage in Banda Aceh.

George W. Bush hiked the aid given to Africa to combat AIDS. A 2006 Washington Post article says he tripled the aid. Bill Clinton, through his 'Clinton Global Initiative', has negotiated with drug companies to supply AIDS drugs at a fraction of their prices. Why should American companies sacrifice their hard earned profits?

"Black Hawk Down" is a famous blockbuster that portrayed the infamous incident in Somalia. UN aid to famine stricken impoverished Somalis was being hijacked by war lords. US decided to take out one notorious war lord and the ensuing scuffle was absolute humiliation. The black hawk helicopter was shot down, the soldiers were killed and their bodies were dragged in the streets. This is the incident that is said to have crystallized Osama's vision that America could be hit. 1993 America was a different place. Cold War was won. NASDAQ and DOW soared, American economy was overheated. Clinton was battling for re-election. America was in no mood for war in a war ravaged Africa which had nothing to offer. Today millions of children face near certain death in Somalia due to continued famine.

When Russia imploded after the failed coup by the hardliners again it was America that rushed in to prevent USSR from self-incinerating. Yet again during a recession precious money was funneled to USSR to secure the nuclear war heads. David Hoffman, Pulitzer winner for his portrayal of Cold War arms legacy in 'Dead Hand', writes scathingly 'not one of USSR nuclear facilities met Western standards".

The Marshall Plan, Reagan's "Mr Gorbachev bring this wall down", Nunn_lugar aid for USSR, saving South Korea, rebuilding Japan, rebuilding Western Europe, saving millions in Bosnia and much more was all America.

Indira Gandhi came running to LBJ for wheat to feed India. USSR too, depended on US for food. Yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat could not feed itself. Well after the bloody collectivization drives in Ukraine and killing millions of Kulaks it was the Yankees to the rescue. By the way but for US Zhou-En-Lai would have marched to Delhi and given a Bhai-Bhai lesson to Nehru.

Ask anybody today, including most Americans, who started the Vietnam war. The answer would be America. Truth, of course is different. America was dragged into it by France and brought itself great shame by its conduct. However here too a wrinkle is often ignored. We only hear how USA napalmed villages. We never hear how American GI's were brutally tortured by Viet-Cong, torture that makes Abhu-Ghraib, however shameful, look like picnic. Google the words "Hanoi Hilton". I'll blog on this separately.

Every international institution owes its independence (however arguably) and robustness to American taxpayer money. USA pays more than 60% of UN's bills. No other country comes close. IMF and World Bank, both born out of US leadership, have saved millions across the world, unarguably unless  you are a bleeding heart liberal and a closet communist.

Hearing criticisms of inciting a coup in order to build Panama Canal Teddy Roosevelt reminded his critics that the coup he  incited were only 51st in a steady stream of coups. The canal helped world trade for 100+ years and was recently turned over to Panama. For over 200 years it was dream and TR, in what would be the 'American Century', turned it to reality. Of course one could argue over the morals of the coup. What would miss the point is that coups were par for the course and TR's coup, not entirely engineered by him but only aiding what was already underway, helped world trade and millions.

The Granta issue highlighted a critical dichotomy. Those from erstwhile communist countries were more sympathetic to USA than those from well heeled western democracies. Only a pathological hater like Pinter could call NATO bombings as evil and fund raise for Milosevic. He and others like him are beyond the pale of reason.

An American GI was distributing sweets to children in a street side in Iraq. They were ambushed in a terrorist attack. When Time magazine interviewed an insurgent and referred to the incident asking "what about the many children", the insurgent replied "Allah will understand, we had to get that one soldier". To equate both is not just fallacious reasoning but a very facetious reasoning.

So was really US foreign policy the angering element in fashioning the ghastly attacks? Osama had zero interest in anything as remote as articulating an alternate world vision or in standing up for some high liberty. He launched a religious attack, pure and simple. One can keep papering over it but thats what it is. One crude question to puncture the logic would be this:"If US foreign policy begets terrorism then how come it was not the Vietnamese or Filippino's or Grenadans or Haitians or heck even Panamanians or Cubans, why was it only the Saudis?". A peek into Osama's persona and his evolution into a jihadist is for another day.

Road to 9/11: Fundamentalism Run Amuck

In the days after 9/11 it was fashionable to say "we condemn the atrocity but..." and then lecture down to America that America practically invited the attack. The reasons offered were projections of each persons own animosity towards America. Ranging from Sujatha Ranagarajan writing for a South Indian vernacular magazine to Noam Chomsky, considered the greatest genius in Cognitive psychology, the advices were variations of a meme: America's super power attitude, propping up dictatorial regimes, middle east policy, military adventurism etc. That the 19 suicide attackers left no note made it convenient for each person to trot out his or her own theory as to why they did it. Recently I finished reading Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer winning "The Looming Tower:Al Qaeda and The Road To 9/11". Around the same time Osama's killing happened and Washington Post published an article titled "Five Myths about Osama Bin Laden". The first myth was that Osama was trained by CIA.

A columnist for Frontline, a fortnightly from Chennai, helpfully wrote about the possible motivations of the hijackers, "Betrayal of the Palestinians, the destruction of Iraq! One can reasonably assume that these two great devastations of the Arabo-Muslim world were vivid in the memory of those 19 hijackers on September 11 this year". (Note the Iraq war the author refers here is the 1991 Gulf War that was fully supported by UN, Gulf States etc). Palestine. Iraq. Support of US to middle east potentates were all the most repeated reasons.

Lawrence Wright, based on extensive interviews and deep research, unravels the puzzle of who the actors and what were  their 'possible' motivations. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches I thought I shall write a few blogs on this topic and allied issues not just as a book review but as a history that not many are aware of and would lack the patience to accumulate by reading a 600 page book (its a page turner).

The suppression of free speech, the military state etc are offered as reasons that fueled terrorism since legitimate expression of dissent was prohibited. The support offered by US to such middle east oligarchies notably the Saudi Royal family is cited as cause. Bollocks.

Anger at suppression of democracy or democratic processes was the least of concerns for the hijackers or Al Qaeda. In fact Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Azzam all pay fealty to fundamentalist Wahhabi sect that was founded by US educated Sayyid Qutb. Sayyid Qutb quit USA only because he was disgusted that USA was un-Islamic. Most left wing people who espouse social justice, affirmative action etc decried what they called US hegemony and used 9/11 to pillory US. What is worse is that they did not realize that Al Qaeda'a intellectual godfather Sayyid Qutb,Wright notes, hated egalitarianism. Qutb used to quote the Koran, "we have created you class upon class".

Sayyid Qutb rebelled against Nasser, not for more democracy, but because he said Nasser's Egypt was not Islamic enough and required to be overthrown. Sayyid was arrested, tortured and finally hanged.

Anwar Sadat is supposed to have told Golda Meir, "if you make peace with me you will go back to Israel a hero. If I make peace with you when I go back to Egypt I will be assassinated". Sadat's wife had made it easier for women to get divorce. Sadat, after the Yom Kippur War, made historical peace with Israel. His prophecy came true tragically. Sadat was assassinated. How was his killing justified? How did they justify killing a fellow Muslim? Sayyid Qutb's ideology of 'takfir' helped. By declaring that a muslim has become un-islamic by his/her acts, a takfir, the respective person is removed from being protected as a fellow muslim. Wright acidly notes, "the pious Anwar Sadat was the first pro-medern victim of the reverse logic of takfir".

Democracy was repugnant to the followers of Qutb. "Democracy was un-islamic. Therefore anyone who voted was an apostate and forfeited his life". Naguib Mahfouz, Egyptian Nobel laureate, was declared an 'infidel' and suffered a near fatal knife attack.

Often the apologists for terrorism speak fondly of how youth get attracted to terrorism due to lack of education and opportunities in life. Wright quotes a study of political prisoners in 1970's Egypt, "majority were sons of middle-level government officials, educated in science and engineering,...,They were not the alienated, marginalized youth that a sociologist might expect. While tomes are written excoriating the CIA coup in Iran to install the Shah as examples of US hegemony and US support of totalitarian regimes little have we heard on how Islamists engineered a coup in Sudan to install a Islamic regime. It is Sudan that was home later to Bin Laden before he ventured to Afghanistan.

In the murky world of middle east the attempt on Mubarak was another watershed event. Egyptian police abused a thirteen year old boy and blackmailed him into infiltrating Zawahiri's organization that was suspected of a hand in the attempt on Mubarak. The boy and another friend were used by Egyptian agencies to kill Zaawahiri and his associates in Sudan during a meeting. Sudanese intelligence discovered the plot and the boys were abandoned by the Egyptians. Many members of Al Qaeda objected to putting the boys on trial. Zawahiri, to prove that the boys had attained manhood, stripped them and then shot them. The boys confession and shooting was videotaped. The outrage infuriated the Sudanese government which chased Zawahiri out.

Bin Laden's own journey was an odyssey that culminated in 9/11. Incidentally, Wright says, Bin Laden hated Yasser Arafat. In Bin Laden's opinion Arafat was a secular and not islamic enough.

The presence of American troops in Saudi after the 1991 Persian Gulf War is cited consistently by Bin Laden as something that offended him. It did not matter that American army was stationed in Suadi at the behest of the government which feared Saddam more. Bin Laden loathed the fact that the gulf states took US help to stop Saddam Hussein. Incidentally Bin Laden hated Saddam (Iraq was more westernized than any other gulf state). Bin Laden tried convincing the Saudi king that he would stop Saddam with his mujahideens from Afghanistan. By the way nowhere in the book Wright establishes any link between CIA and Bin Laden (a fact confirmed by Peter Bergen, the only US journalist who interviewed Bin Laden).

What not many lay readers know is that Americans troops stationed in Saudi, not anywhere near Mecca, is nothing compared to how French troops entered Mecca itself at the behest of Saudi king. In 1979, yet another Islamist group, took Mecca by siege during Haj period. It shook the Islamic world. Saudi King after vacillating and unable to clear the holiest shrine invited French troops who then entered Mecca where no non-Muslim could ever go. (Saudi Arabia denies this happened). For something that the US had nothing to do with Khomeini blamed US and for good measure blamed Israel too. Needless  to say Anti-American demonstrations including burning down of an embassy ensued. It was the Bin Laden family that provided vital clues to the French on the building details.

An event that crystallized Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization was, according to Wright, the botched bombing in Amen on Dec 29th 1992. The bombing was supposed to kill American soldiers going to Somalia as part of an international relief effort to that impoverished country. The bomb went off but killed no American. A Yemeni and and and Australian had died. Bin Laden's deputy and mentor, Abu Hajer, justified it based on a fatwa by Ibn Tamiyyah. In a chilling rationale that defied any sane logic killing of innocents was justified. Wright, ends the chapter with a ominous note, "Al Qaeda would concentrate not on fighting armies but on killing civilians".

The last chapter, titled, "Revelations" rounds it all of. On 9/12, the day after the carnage, Soufan a Muslim FBI agent went to interrogate Abu Jandal who was apprehended for the Nairobi Embassy bombing. Abu Jandal, Wright says, 'was confounded by Soufan and what he represented: A Muslim who could argue religion with him, who was in the FBI, who loved America'. Sofan asked about the innocent women and children who died in that bombing. In particular Soufan asks about a woman on a bus 'who was clutching her baby, trying to protect him from the flames. Both had been incinerated'. Jandals reply was "God will give them rewards in the Hereafter". About them being innocent he reasoned cruelly, that the bombings took place on a Friday when Muslims were supposed to have been in mosques. If she was not in a mosque what was she doing on a bus. She was not a Muslim then but a 'takfir' and deserved to die.

Time and again the recurrent theme in the biography of each actor is a fiendish fundamentalism that cloaked itself in causes that were never consistent or helpful to the people they were supposed to help. Palestine, American imperialism etc were all fig leaf causes only to hide their desire of establishing a Caliphate. Re-establishing an Ottoman style Caliphate was their desire. In a post cold-war world the only remaining obstacle was USA.

No wonder Lawrence Wright got a Pulitzer for a landmark book. Wright patiently pieces together the jigsaw puzzle and leads us through the twisted world of terrorism. I shall continue with a couple more blogs. The 9/11 hijackers chose to meet in Hamburg for a reason. After 9/11 US citizenry was aghast at how agencies did not share information. The reasons for that and more await a little.

Anna Hazare and Ambedkar's constitution

As I was mulling over the Hazare drama that unfolded over a day I picked up Donald Kagan's "Pericles of Athens and the birth of democracy". Kagan, Yale history professor, is the foremost authority on the Peloponnessian war and Athenian history. Kagan states democracies "need to meet three conditions if they are to flourish. The first is to have a set of good institutions; the second is to have a body of citizens who possess a good understanding of the principles of democracy;the third is to have a high quality of leadership, at least at critical moments". India suffers from a serious deficiency of the first and the third conditions leading to an erosion of the second.

I remember vividly the attempts by Subramanian Swamy to prosecute Jayalalitha based on prima facie evidence. His stumbling block was the Indian constitution that made it necessary for a litigant to get the 'permission' of the Governor to prosecute a Chief Minister. India's constitution framers retained the feudal mindset of protecting the ruling elites despite overthrowing feudal colonialism. While the framers of US constitution agonized over separation of powers and checks and balances the framers of Indian constitution gladly concentrated power in the hands of very few with no checks. Paula Jones, a literal nobody, sued the US  President who is often referred to as the most powerful man on earth. Bill Clinton had to testify before a grand jury. He was reprimanded too for his perjury. Let's not nitpick his impeachment and find faults with the US system. What is to be gleaned here is that a common woman could sue and bring to court the President. There is no constitutional bar. If Americans, even in 1776, were told that a President is beyond the reach of the law until he demits office in order to maintain decorum, they would reject it outright as laughable.

The Karnataka spectacle was shameful. That a corrupt chief minister had to be cajoled into leaving office is despicable. What is even worse is that he could dictate the choice of his successor. Corruption and politics are inseparable in any corner of the world. US politicians have paid a high price for corruption. Governors and Congressmen have been charged and sent to jail.

The Lok Pal exemption of the Prime Minister is ridiculous. The excuses given for the protection are childish. It is said that the office of  PM is dignified and hence should not be subject to litigation. The dignity of an office is in the transparency not in how the office holder is shielded. As always, national interest, is another excuse trotted out. We are told that foreign powers would instigate law suits and destabilize the country. Silly. It shows a complete lack of faith in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies. The ever present excuse is that PM should be protected from frivolous law suits. Yet again it shows a complete lack of faith in the judiciary.

Every August 15th a handful of Tamil bloggers with DK/DMK allegiance would decry India's independence and the Union itself. A throwback to the Dravidanadu days of C.N.Annathurai. Their chief grouse is the many shortcomings of the Indian state. Kashmir, step motherly treatment of North East, Tamil Nadu's perennial riparian problems with neighboring states etc. Nobody has paused to reflect on the simple fact that their beloved idol Ambedkar is the architect of a shoddy constitution from which all these flaws emanate from. Ambedkar learned law in Columbia University under the aegis of none other than John Dewey.

That Indira Gandhi could dismiss governments at will, that corrupt ministers cannot be prosecuted by an independent authority, that government servants can never be fired for any misdeed, that authority is centralized with no respect for federalism etc etc are all features of the constitution is lost on many. It took just 3 days for Indian parliament to ratify the constitution. That Indira Gandhi could paralyze democracy by declaring Emergency signed off by a pusillanimous parliament and a weasel of a President is a shameful feature.The ratification of US constitution itself is worth volumes of Pulitzer prize winning books. The furious debate, the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist papers are all stories worth reading and learning from. Sadly, even a US educated lawyer failed to give his countrymen a good constitution. Every so called safe guard in the Indian constitution has caused more havoc than serving the intended good purpose. 

The founding fathers of US agonized endlessly over writing laws in such a manner as to avoid a monarchy. They deeply distrusted human nature to do good. The very Bill of Rights was written only because they felt that rights were not sufficiently guarded in the original constitution. 

How many of us have reflected on the fact that Indian Penal Code is very draconian and gives very wide powers to the police? Pre-emptive arrests alone exceeded 1000+ yesterday. That a government can arrest people preemptively before they start a peaceful protest is an anachronism in civilized world. When the Patriot Act was passed in USA, addressing serious loopholes in national security, it was debated hotly to protect individual rights. It is still not set in stone. The act needs to be renewed by the Congress. Rajiv Gandhi passed TADA without a murmur of protest. NSA, MISA, TADA, POTA all were done within the framework of the Indian constitution. Remember it was the Supreme Court that sanctioned suspending habeas corpus during Emergency. Habeas Corpus is considered the corner stone modern law. Even today a producer of a stage play has to submit his/her script to the local police station in order to secure permission to stage the play. A remnant from the British Raj days when dramas were considered seditious. 

Ambedkar. US framers were particular in designing a system of polity that was very unlike the British. Whereas Indian framers were content to mostly do a copy and paste of various constitutions finally rendering a mish-mash. Until a recent high court ruling the common man in India could not fly his national flag whereas every minister and government functionary could. In Ambedkar's constitution retains the spirit of the colonial midst that thee rulers are to be judged by a different law if at all they are to be judged.The Indian constitution fully qualifies for the cliche that what is good is not original and what is original is not good. 

In fact I wonder what if any is Ambedkar's original thinking other than the quota system. Even that was not designed well. It was originally envisaged only for 10 years. Its in vogue for 64 years. The constitution stipulated that quota should not exceed 50%. Tamil Nadu has a draconian 69% and is tucked sneakily into the 9th Schedule.

Ahhh the 9th schedule. ONLY the Indian constitution has got a section of the laws walled off from judicial review. 9th Schdule is non-justiciable. The 9th schedule was created to prevent judicial review of the Urban land ceiling act. Protecting ULCA from judicial review was necessary in order to prevent courts from overturning laws that were promulgated to redress the Zamindari system. Today that spirit of 9th schedule is violated and the 9th schedule is used as a catch all bucket for any legislation that Parliament does not want the courts to review. The inclusion of TN's oppressive quota regime is pending before a constitution bench for over a decade.

Most of the ills that plague Indian politics can thus be traced to an effete constitution written by unimaginative people who were only fit to be clerks. Everything highlighted above has contributed to corrupting every facet of the society. Indira's dismissal of Farooq Abdullah fomented Kashmir's problems. Quotas have generated the most shameful vote bank politics. Stifled freedom of opinion has often suffocated ideas and engendered mediocrity. 

A tamil blogger today tweeted "A taste of Indian democracy for the middle class, arrest of Anna Hazare". What eventually happened was UPA getting a taste of democracy. The upsurge in spontaneous protests brought the gargantuan Indian state to its knees to release Hazare. This is democracy at its best moment. It is extremely shameful that Harvard educated Chidambaram, Harvard law school alumnus Kapil Sibal and Oxford educated Manmohan Singh have perpetrated this despicable arrest. 

At the end of the day whether its Columbia educated Ambedkar or these Harvard and Oxford alumni they all remained just Indians at soul and never learned anything from their US education. I don't know if its a failure of education or of the pupils. That they had lived in societies far more free has done nothing to their spirits to give their fellow countrymen good governance or the framework for it.