Catch-22 for US in Pakistan?

America seems to be in a Catch-22 situation in Pakistan. The catch in the novel Catch-22 was bureaucratic nonsense and that has been replaced by amateurish decision making by Bush in the War of Terror. The number of bad decisions have gotten to such a high level that the catches now need to be codified with numbers. There is no stopping the mistakes even though this war effort is the biggest war US has ever waged against terrorists.

US is once again facing an awkward situation in Pakistan as the opposition parties, confident from the election results, finalize their plans to form a new government. Should Bush continue supporting Musharraf which is like going down a tunnel that has no end and hence no light, or build strong relations with the incoming government so that the War of Terror remains on track? Well, the writing on the wall wasn't too clear to start with but Bush didn't take any efforts to try to read the mood of the voters. It was widely reported that the political party supporting Musharraf would win a comfortable majority and form a government, which would be aligned to Musharraf's and hence America's goals. And hence Bush kept supporting Musharraf through the elections. But the election results were pretty disappointing sending Bush's Pakistan strategy back to the drawing boards.

This serious failure could have been completely avoided. US could have used it's machinery in Pakistan to conduct a survey before the elections. That would have helped Bush stop the 'Musharraf is our strongest ally and we stand by only him' rhetoric and US could have taken a neutral stand on the elections. That would have lightly exonerated US from its previous crimes in the eyes of Pakistanis and the public and the then opposition parties would have warmed up to Bush and US much earlier.

Now the new government has enough problems to solve at home rather than serve America's goals in their country. It will be a hard-sell for US to convince a coalition government formed from parties that won elections based on anti-Musharraf strategy, to continue supporting US in its war against terror.

On second thoughts, it may be a boon in disguise for America if it can get rid of Musharraf fast enough. The current war against terror is not going any where. It has not achieved much over last couple of years. And the new government may be as keen as US to get rid of the fundamentalists that are a big threat to Pakistan's internal security and economical stability. All US needs now is a nice way to get rid of Musharraf and get cozy with the new government.

India must be watching the current events in Pakistan with optimism. Musharraf, who attacked Kargil in Kashmir and who unequivocally supported the Kashmir terrorists, was not popular with India. He was much smarter in PR and he used every occasion with the international media to his or Pakistan's advantage. Musharraf was so convincing in his job that even today, Kashmiri terrorists are mentioned as Kashmiri separatists by international media. He was in an envious position where he was a strong ally of US in the War of Terror, even though he was a part of the reason why the war was being waged. Surprisingly India didn't say much and everybody including US conveniently looked the other way.

India will be happy to see Pakistan get rid of the frustrating Musharraf and will look forward to building good relationships with the new government. After seeing their economies grow at a healthy rate during the last 10 years, India and Pakistan both want to see their GDPs grow at the same rate in the future. The situation is very different this time and both the governments should agree that the best option for them is to solve the Kashmir problem through discussion and increase the trade between the two countries.

What would be interesting to see now as events unfold is how US will handle Musharraf (or rather how it will dump him), and how they will start working with the new government.

Stop being animals

The other day I saw a shuddering video on YouTube. An antelope was battling a fierce crocodile which had its gory teeth thrusted into the antelope's neck. The antelope didn't have much space to maneuver but it was still trying to snatch its skin from the crocodile's clutches, bit by bit every second. The crocodile was trying hard to firm up its grip and the scene was getting bloodier. If only it was accompanied with drums beating in the background, this amazing fight for survival would have got me at the edge of my seat.

I wonder if the policemen watching a man being lynched by a mob in Hajipur were thinking the same. If only there was music...

Yesterday in Hajipur, a mob dragged a murder accused out of a hospital, where he was being treated in police custody, and then kicked, boxed and thrashed him. It stopped only when the man was nearly dead. There were several policemen present there, watching the whole event but not doing anything to stop it. It seemed like they may be enjoying that man's fight for survival against an angry mob. I caught that on BBC and believe me, it was one of the most brutal and the most animalistic behavior I have ever seen. The man was not as lucky as the antelope, who did save itself from the almost lethal attack of the crocodile. That angry mob was more fierceful than that hungry animal.

This is not an isolated incident in India. Recently in Bhagalpur an angry mob beat up a chain-snatcher in front of policemen and all the action was caught on TV camera. A politician was lynched few weeks back at a rally near Nagpur because people believed that he was behind the killing of a popular local politician. Fifty-year-old Ambadas Dharrao, an employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (a state owned enterprise), was killed in heavy stone pelting on company bus in Nasik by members of a political party who were angry at their leader being arrested by police in Mumbai, 200 kms away. This incident was different because Ambadas had nothing to do with that arrest. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A professor in Ujjain was killed by a violent group of students belonging to Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad when he cancelled student elections on observing irregularities in the procedures.

Yes, this is the country of Mahatma Gandhi, the messiah of non-violence. These are examples where some wives have lost their husbands, some children have lost their fathers and some families have lost their futures. And there have been infinite occassions where angry groups have gone on a frenzy damaging public and private property, physically abusing and hurting people, displaying their animal side so proudly - making a travesty of the economic progress of India which is turning it into an important global player - not letting social progress to happen along with the economic progress. Political parties will strike at the drop of a hat and these strikes would become violent in 11 out of 10 cases. Clearly while some Indians are moving up the social ladder taking advantage of the economic boom, some are left behind and their frustrations are getting manifested in these senseless episodes. There is no logical explanation possible for such behavior that holds people, government and nation at ransom. Why would members of political parties destroy buses, trains, and public property rather than help the government build infrastructure!

What is very surprising to me and many Indians is the silence of our Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh! He has been a mute spectator aptly deserving the title of Meek Manmohan. Its hard to believe that the national government cannot force the state government to take action even though it does not have direct judiciary control over matters internal to the state. These issues affect the whole country and set back the social and economic progress, so very essential to the country. With increased international media coverage, such incidents don't remain hidden and are highlighted by every TV channel and newspaper around the world.

What India needs is a zero tolerance policy - zero tolerance towards brute display of public outrage - which has lead to loss of innocent lives and unnecessary damage to public properties. It can easily take cue from Malaysia or Singapore on how to contain such incidents. The governments in these countries have a high degree of respect for life and nation and the perpetrators of such heinous acts are meted out the highest punishment. Every citizen has the right to be secured so that they can focus on contributing towards the society rather than spend a lot of energy worrying about their and their family's security. The cost of such issues goes much beyond the physical damage. I just hope that the one replacing Manmohan will be strong and will take charge in such situations to set an example for people to not follow.

Poverty alleviation may remain a fantasy

On one hand, reducing poverty has become such an important priority for the developed nations. It has been a major issue in all of the recent World Economic Forum meetings. Global poverty is seen as a big threat to the economical, social and political stability of the wealthier nations. A staggering 4 billion out of total world population of 6 billion are below the poverty line. Poor are defined as those who do not have access to basic essentials of life - food, clothing, housing, clean drinking water, electricity etc.

On the other hand, the whole world is already experiencing a big environmental crisis and facing a question of survival, caused by the affluence of only 2 billion people (600 million rich defined as those earning more than US$20,000 and 1.4 billion medium rich defined as those earning between US$3,000 to US$20,000). Imagine what will happen when 4 billion people will come out of poverty as well?

One wonders if this world will ever be 100% free of poverty though. There are many people doing a lot of good work to achieve this goal. Millennium Development Goals (MDG) is the most important initiative of the UN and poverty alleviation is on topmost priority in that (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals). Corporates such as Cisco and Google have teamed up with UNDP to monitor the progress of MDG (http://www.mdgmonitor.org/). Bono from U2 is throwing his weight around to make rich countries give more to the poor African countries. Management gurus such as C K Prahalad are advocating market based approach that will focus on poor people as consumers and producers and on solutions that can make the Bottom Of the Pyramid (BOP) market more efficient, competitive and inclusive - so that people in BOP segment can benefit from them and move above the poverty line (http://www.nextbillion.net/).

There are many reasons though to believe that we may never arrive at that goal, unless we change our approach drastically. Natural resources are getting depleted much faster than ever before. One wonders if there are enough left to sustain poverty alleviation of 4 billion people. The price of bringing people out of poverty is going to increase with every billion. Naturally one wonders if the commitment of rich nations is going to remain the same. Will the commitment shake up in dire situations such as recession, low or no growth in their own countries, high inflation, and record high unemployment? The impending recession in US and gloomy forecast for global economy is driving prices up, further making commodities dearer and hence putting basic necessities out of reach of poor people. Will MDG sustain such testing times? Only time will tell.

To me, it seems like poverty alleviation will need a multi-pronged approach. Just generating employment or building innovative products for poor people or donating billions of dollars of charity may not be enough. A major part of the strategy will have to be reduction in consumption of non-essentials by the 2 billion people at the top. That’s what will help slow down the depletion of natural resources and keep enough for the remaining 4 billion people. Top 2 billion will have to go back to practices of their grandparents or great grandparents, when people knew how to lead life with just enough resources. People didn't have aluminum foils, plastic bags, packaged foods, big wardrobes, dozens of shoes, electronic gadgets. Excess will have to stop. In Singapore, some buildings are brought down in 20 years and rebuild to increase property gains. That seems like a lot of wastage in bringing down something that is in good condition and building from scratch a new one that is even bigger. Such wastage and excess will have to cease to exist.

Will this population that has been materialistically pampered over the last 50 years be ready to lower its standard of living, learn to accept that "less is ok" and sustain such testing times? It sounds impossible and hence makes achieving poverty alleviation of 4 billion people look like a fantasy. Only time will tell.