Arab Spring: Shifting Sands, Convulsing History

During the Egypt uprising, one reporter after another repeated the same mantra: the barrier of fear had been broken. And yet, once Mubarak stepped down and the media eye moved elsewhere, that mantra has not been heard nearly as often.

However in the month since Mubarak's downfall, there is ample evidence that the barrier of fear has indeed been broken. Along with that loss of fear, other walls have come tumbling down: of shame, false pride, hypocrisy: as Egyptians stormed the offices of secret police, people re-lived their torture, keen to explain and share.  They stepped inside torture devices to demonstrate the pain and humiliation they had experienced.  Men who had been raped as part of the ritual shaming by secret police spoke of their ordeals, often with heart-breaking humour mingled with awe-inspiring strength.  Young women detained, sexually assaulted and tortured by the Egyptian army have recorded and publicized their testimony in the past month, a cultural shift that is nearly cataclysmic in its symbolic and narrative worth: the shame is not of the victims but of the torturers who thought that rape and sexual assault can brand women as whores!  This is a courage of no small order!

The barrier of fear has also been broken in other parts of the region: Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Iraq, even the brutally oppressive Saudi Arabia and Syria are seeing unrest by ordinary people with extraordinary courage. The penalty for demanding basic human dignity by these young protesters is the use of tear gas, nerve gas, and even live ammunition at the demonstrations.  Moreover, the regimes are institutionally well-entrenched, identifying the key protesters and leaders, hunting them down, arresting, torturing and killing them beyond the eyes of the cameras.  That makes even the reporting of these protests and human rights abuses by the regimes acts of courage that few of us can begin to imagine.

As an aside, and once again, it is important to point to the involvement of women in these movements. And no, none of them fit the western feminist paradigms although they do echo many of the earlier (pre-colonial) traditions of women warriors and leaders in the region itself.  They are indicators that  it is time for new paradigms, and not only for nonwhite, non-western feminisms!

New paradigms are needed not only for feminism, but also for definitions of statehood, political franchise, strategic relations, political and cultural narratives.  We are in the midst of historic times where none of the old models and certainties can hold.

So what next?

It is obvious that the Arab Spring is not about to come to a standstill.  Despite media warnings and ponderous, well-paid analysts from big name think-tanks, these movements do not look to be dying down. Yes, Bahrain is being brutally crushed by a combination of sectarian political tactics, Saudi and GCC troops, and the regime's own mercenaries from Sunni majority countries. Yes, Libya has gone into armed conflict and international (some would call it western as if the UNSC resolutions and Gaddafi's killings of civilians never happened) intervention. Yes, Saudi and Syria appear to be brutally suppressing their own uprisings.  And yes, Yemen at the time of writing this has lived through a Bloody Friday and moving towards a coup or regime change (only time will tell).

Yet none of the events unfolding fit the currently existing theoretical and political models: Hamas and PL both cracked down on the youth demanding a united Palestinian front. Syrians are out in their thousands to demand change even as Vogue writes glowing articles about the dictator's "democratic" home and fashion plate wife (Hang on to that issue: it will be the equivalent of a praise piece for Marie Antoinette for our times; a true historic artefact!)  Morocco's king seems to be trying to outrun the breezes of Arab spring while Oman seems to be veering madly between reform and deep regime freeze.  Saudi kingdom has once again tried to buy off its population, a measure that seems almost sure to fail.

However, despite the specificities of history, culture and circumstance, the region is tied by a crucial commonality: the fear of regimes seems to have melted. The youth - often educated, disenfranchised, yet politically focussed, are stepping up to demand all the same privileges many in the western world take for granted: security, rule of law, a voice in their own lives and future, opportunity and human dignity.

Of course, many are facing apparently unsurmountable difficulties: the regimes are heavily armed by western weapons, often supported politically and economically by western powers.  Many have deep financial links with the "new global elite" who have little interest in welfare or even fate of the common people. Moreover, for decades, financial and geo-strategic interests have generally trumped human rights. That - I have said before - has been a short-sighted strategy especially on part of the western nations who at least talk of human rights. It is understandably a product of centuries of colonial thinking on part of Europe and by extension the US (and in a limited way, Russia).  Now, with the first breeze of Arab Spring, the lacunae in that policy lie exposed.

There is no stopping the change occurring in the region. Although there may be setbacks, brutal crackdowns, even temporary freezes in the uprisings, we stand at the beginning of a long process of historic change. Most importantly, none of it is really controllable by foreign powers, regardless of their financial, political and military interests. Just as Egypt and Tunisia threw off their dictators by themselves, and are continuing to stumble and struggle on the path to political growth on their own, the rest of the countries shall do the same.

An intervention - as in Libya - may be of temporary help but it is necessary to note that even the opposition council there has insisted that they be allowed to make the change for themselves. This is a key factor to keep in mind: assistance will be welcome (as has been the case in Libya) but the old colonialist paradigm of "saving people from themselves" is a long buried ideal.

It is also worth noting that it is not only western states who are unable to grasp, manage and react to these historic shifts. As the UN resolution on Libya demonstrated, India and Brazil are too tied their own postcolonial histories to be able to see into the future.  Russia and China have also reverted to knee-jerk "west vs rest" divisions, driven of course by their own business and political interests, although these seem shortsighted.

Unfortunately, in not too far future, all nations will have to choose whether their strategic goals match the new realities emerging in the region.  This means emerging powers like Brazil and India will need to decide whether an instinctive anti-western, postcolonial reaction still holds strategic value, or should they attempt to bring their decisions in line with the emerging realities of the region.  Both will have to decide whether they want to play postcolonial victims or take their rightful place in the future as political and economic powerhouses, especially as the latter comes with great responsibility.

As Libya shows, international lines are increasingly blurred and the only real way out is to actually LISTEN to the people: this is a lesson not only for the dictators in the region but also the international community that has long listened to dictators, tyrants and tottering monarchies instead of the people.

In the long term, these convulsions of history are unescapable. They will continue - not on media schedules and not for the next few weeks - but into the next couple of decades as historic changes do!  At the end, those who put short term interests over long term paradigm shifts will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

What the international community needs to do is to find a fragment of the courage displayed by the common people of the region and just learn to let go of old prejudices and paradigms.  It is a brave new world coming our way and while those in the region must live through the convulsions of history at great cost to themselves, the least the rest of us can do is to face them and the changing reality with new models of culture, power, and narratives.

New Short Story Now Out in Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine

Just a very quick note to say that the new issue of the Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine carries my short story, The Wait.  They have been very sweet and described it as "memorable."  I just hope that it helps keep the story of the Indian PoWs who were never returned by Pakistan after the 1971 war in our collective memory.

Do look it up if you have a chance.

Politicians Wasting Parliament (and the taxpayer's) Time: Reposted

As part of the ongoing process of salvaging some of my old blog posts from www.sawf.org, I found one that seems particularly apt given the political drama/farce once again unfolding in India.  Sadly enough, this post was written in 2001, entire decade ago which makes it even more depressing!

A bit of context: I moved back to India in 1995 after living and working abroad and thus got my first taste of Delhi as a weird mix of a phoren-return (a rarity in those days), a UP-ite and having never lived in the capital. Because of family, friends and work, I got to see the workings of that city and how much of it is based on lies. Media, politicians, business, activists all work hand-in-glove no matter what image they present to the aam-aadmi.  The post below was a combination of disgust at what I observed as well as a belief I still hold: that truth shall set us free, that the young people of India are its future, and things can be changed.  I repost this not to depress the readers but more as a reminder of how far we still have to go:


2001: Most days when you switch on the TV, you find politicians bickering away at each other. So you can imagine my surprise when I found politicians of various parties in complete harmony, agreeing with each other, supporting each other's arguments, presenting a picture of complete bonhomie. 

Of course, if you watch DD's broadcast of parliamentary proceedings (which I do, as a particularly nasty example of reality TV), you would know that such bonhomie isn't quite extraordinary. Seconds after staging dharnas, storming the wells, and screaming themselves hoarse, and moments before the cameras are switched off, the opposition and treasury benches have been spotted backslapping like the best of friends. The surprise, therefore, wasn't that they were all "langotiya yaars" beyond the camera lights, but that they were willing to show it on international and national television.

I suppose, the issue at hand has to held responsible for such a public demonstration of affection. You see, the politicians on TV were all justifying the need for voting a huge pay increase for themselves. And that, we all know, is an issue that cuts across party-lines and unites our political classes ever so much better than a national crisis or calamity.

"We get paid Rs. 4,000 a month," said one MP, "and we are required to maintain two homes, one in the capital and the other in our constituency." This was a particularly favoured explanation for the MP pay increase. Even the younger politicians, ranging from Arun Jaitley to Omar Abdullah came up with the facetious reasoning that "improved pay packages will make MPs more honest." On one show, Renuka Chowdhary, the party-hopping fireball explained that "MPs should be paid at least as much as a Joint Secretary. After all, our children need to go to school too." Touching logic, if only it held water. For three basic reasons: 

• one, because the official pay package forms a small part of the remunerations, legal and illegal, that MPs receive; 
• two, because greed has no limit and raising the pay package even up to 12,000 will do little to support the lifestyles adopted by many of our MPs; 
• and three, because a Joint Secretary is actually required to do some work for the benefit of the nation and people, which MPs never do.

Starting with the first point, the Government of India foots the bills for MPs transport, housing, telephone and other utilities. Party coffers assist with other perks. The government also provides each MP with funds to develop their constituencies, very little of which actually reaches the people it is intended for. Finally, there are a number of other "donations" that MPs receive from private and corporate sources. In ten years of being the Chief Minister of Bihar (a proxy one for some of that time and an MP of the Lok Sabha as well), Laloo Prasad Yadav has amassed wealth that confounds the most ambitious among us. This champion of the "down-trodden" declares that property worth crores of rupees is "inherited" from his ancestors (yes, the very same poverty-stricken ones who suffered for the proverbial do bigha zameen). Ironically enough, Laloo's property today outstrips many folds that of the largest upper-caste zamindarsin the same state.

Even a better case in point is that of Phoolan Devi, who was killed in the very same week as my father retired after a long career with the central government. Her property - self-acquired - is estimated in crores, and all of it has been acquired in the last ten years of her political adventure. Meanwhile, my father - after forty years of honest, honourable, and sometimes dangerous, service to the nation - has little but personal pride to show for his efforts. And lest we forget the argument offered by our MPs, my father earned more money - per month - than the MPs.

Which brings us to the second point: will a three-fold increase in pay really make MPs honest? Living in Delhi has been a real education for me. And the lessons have been simple: most politicians live life King-size, and all checks and balances be damned. Starting with flashy cars, satellite phones, and watches worth a few lakh of rupees, there is hardly an MP who can be said to represent the poorest of the poor in this country. Lavish weddings, iftaar parties and "party meetings" bely the MPs' current claim that they are short of cash. While on the topic, let us not forget the foreign holidays that are paid for by the taxpayer's money (the same taxpayer who - in many cases - cannot afford monthly trips from Delhi to Bhatinda).

Experience shows that larger pay packets do not prevent greed. If that were the case, we would live in a highly simplified, moral utopia. Past fifty years of history show that politicians who cannot be corrupted - ie, Lal Bahadur Shastri, - manage to avoid greed, despite having unlimited riches within their grasp. Others - and the Nehru-Gandhi family is a good example - are corrupted to such a level that no amount of wealth (or tragedy) can sate that ever-burning need for more. After all, as the Hindi proverb says, once the lion tastes human blood, it turns into a man-eater. And that is exactly what has happened to our political classes: easy black money has spurred them on to greater heights of greed and corruption.

Now we get to the final point: what is it that our MPs do for us that we need to pay them more out of the tax payer's pocket? There has been an argument made in the past that India works despite its government. In the past half-decade, and with the help of liberalization, this statement has travelled far toward becoming a fact. India is now slowly moving towards a stage where the government is becoming increasingly superfluous in the daily lives of most of its citizens.

And in part, the politicians themselves are to blame. The bulk of this year's budget session was devoted to clamours of resignation by the opposition instead of informed, rational discussion of the budget proposals. The budget was finally passed with only the most cursory of discussions. During that session, the treasury benches had protested the disruption of parliamentary proceedings.

The current parliamentary session has again seen disruptions of parliamentary proceedings, where the house has been adjourned for hours on end and sometimes, even till the next day. This time, the treasury benches are carrying out the disruptions while the opposition has been protesting such "unparliamentary" behaviour.

And just for the taxpayers' information: each day of the parliament session costs the country approximately 2 crore rupees! And the new proposal for MPs' salary hike will cost the nation approximately 23 crores more every year. The question before the nation is simple: Should we pay these MPs more to stage high cost, low quality tamashas and nautankis?

There is one possible solution: For each day that the parliament is disrupted, the disruptive MPs must be made to pay a fine. After all, if each working day of a parliament session costs 2 crores, it is easy enough to calculate the cost of each wasted minute. And let us fine the party (since these disruptions are pre-planned and sanctioned by the party chiefs) not the individual members.

So if a party's members rush into the well and hold up proceedings for ten minutes, let the responsible party foot the bill for those ten minutes. If the parliament is forced into adjournment by disruptions, let the party foot the bill for the entire day. At the end of the session, let the collected money from these fines go back to the tax-payer. This does not mean handing it back to the exchequer, or development agencies that do little, or even NGOs who may be manipulated by their governmental links. Instead, let the income from this "disruption" fine go into providing across the board income tax relief.

Let our MPs put such a proposal into practice first. Then, perhaps, we can talk about giving them pay raises.