On Chinese Economy

China official growth rate was 7.7% in first half of 2009 - this when its main customer for goods, US, was down over 6% in first quarter of 2009 and had negative growth in second quarter of 2009. And Europe, the other main customer, was contracting too. So how did an export economy like China grow that much? Daniel Lynch of Far Eastern Economic Review thinks the Chinese are making up numbers:

Beijing's insistence that GDP grew by 7.1% in the first half of 2009 is highly doubtful given that coal consumption by Chinese power plants fell 8.9% and usage of petroleum products (including gasoline) dropped 2.6%. In previous years, energy consumption consistently grew at a 7% to 9% rate. Equally remarkable, aggregate tax revenues fell 6% in the first half of 2009 after increasing by 17% to 31% in preceding years. The drop in tax receipts occurred at the same time as energy use fell.

Some analysts say there is nothing anomalous about these figures, . . . [but] [a]lmost certainly, the Chinese economy contracted after the recession began. . . .

There are other signs that the Chinese economy is not living up to its testimonials. For example, the explosion of credit and money has not been accompanied by inflation. M2—currency in circulation plus savings deposits—is reported each month to be, on average, 25% higher than in the comparable month last year. And new bank loans doubled in the first half and continue to increase at high rates. Yet consumer prices are reportedly down 1% to 2% year-to-date, while producer prices are off 7% to 9%.

Economics 101 teaches that if prices fall when the money supply is rising, either production must be increasing at a higher rate than money supply or the velocity of money changing hands must be falling. In China, the only market in which prices are consistently rising is the property market . . .[Notable & Quotable - FECR]

Also there has been lot of talk of China becoming a consumer economy instead of continuing to be an export oriented economy, which in large part played a role in current global financial crisis - China had to keep buying US treasury bonds, using the dollars it acquired to keep yuan down to enable exports, which kept US interests down helping leveraging up and spending binge by the Americans. Lee Kuan Yew, one of the few global wise men, talking to Charlie Rose, explains why the Chinese economic transition to consumption based economy may not happen anytime soon. In this hour long interview, Lee Kuan also talks about what issues will be paramount in the next few decades. First part of interview is here:

Nehru, Not A Dove After All

While paying homage to Sri Homi Bhaha's centennial birth anniversary, Sri K. Subrahmanyam writes about the apparent perceived wisdom - that Bhaha was nuclear hawk interested in weapons and Pandit Nehru was nuclear dove interested in global nuclear disarmament:

There is a view that Bhabha was the main driver behind India’s nuclear weapon ambitions and Jawaharlal Nehru was a dove totally committed to nuclear disarmament. The late historian, Sarvepalli Gopal, who had access to Bhabha’s papers, told me that in the wake of the First UN Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, over which he presided, Bhabha wrote to Nehru proposing that India should amend its constitution, renouncing nuclear weapons. Nehru replied, advising Bhabha to concentrate on development of the nuclear programme and to inform him when the stage was reached when India could make nuclear weapons. He asked Bhabha to leave political and strategic issues relating to nuclear energy in his hands. [Homi Bhabha - Scientist, visionary, dreamer; highlight by ed.]

Sri Subrahmanyam goes to say Bhabha turned to nuclear weaponization only after Chinese tested the weapon in 1964 and his death may not be the reason why India couldn't test weapon before the January 1st, 1967 deadline of NPT.

In Defense of Kalam

In a post on failings of Kalam, Acorn tried to bring the veneration of former President Kalam down a notch. And other commentators piled on the failings to try to make the case stronger. While we agree with Acorn and others that raising the stature of Kalam in popular narrative to mythical levels is silly, the counter arguments showing the failings of Kalam doesn't hold much water.

Let's look at some of the criticisms. Well, there is really one core criticism in the post, which really boils down to Manoj Joshi's views on how Bharat should procure high value weapon systems. Acorn, nonetheless, endorses Joshi's view.

Because of (diversions caused by Kalam’s dogmatic insistence), India’s long-range missile deterrent has been delayed by about a decade...

He was not willfully dishonest, but his fixations and whims led to diversions and delays for which the country has paid a huge price. Perhaps his greatest, and in a sense forgivable, weakness was his obsession on “indigenous” development.

But the argument that India’s missiles are “indigenous” and Pakistan’s are based on Chinese, American, North Korean or someone else’s technology is a meaningless one. Military acquisitions are not about the “purity” of solutions, but time-urgent answers to a problem. [The Acorn]

While anyone who follows Sri Kalam's thoughts on weapons systems agree that he is a big proponent of developing weapon systems by ourselves, meaning designing and producing them "indigenously." Using that against Kalam is strange. One would think that was Kalam's career high point. Even if we ignore the struggles of Indian defence industry of not having an extensive and deep military-industrial base to produce high tech weapon systems, do critics really think India should buy critical weapons systems and be subjected to the whims and fancies of the provider nation? May be Joshi and Acorn forgot the trails and tribulations of making LCA take flight and sanctions regime on Kaveri engine, to take just one example. Even if we did buy, who will sell us an ICBM or an IRCBM? Did we forget MTCR.

Or, perhaps, Joshi and Acorn think we should have done what Pakistan and China have done - stealthy sell nuclear technology to rouge nations to acquire missile technology. Somehow I doubt Kalam's critics mean that. Or better yet, acquire the technology by espionage. I am all for espionage and stealing technology and manufacturing designs to speed up critical development process. But unless one believes the mythical status of Kalam to influence entire range of intelligence and political systems, the decision to conduct espionage would be made by political elites, not defence R&D project leaders.

Finally, who says India doesn't have the technology for producing the missile systems in the first place. What has ISRO being doing for the past few decades sending rockets to inner and outer space. Surely, Joshi and Acorn don't believe the myth that ISRO and DRDO are separated by an impenetrable wall!

That Kalam was the stumbling block for development of missile weapons systems doesn't hold water to reality. And that somehow we should use the delays in development and deployment of missiles to point out the failing of Kalam holds even less water. Those were purely political decisions. Kalam's call for indigenous development of missile weapon systems was the right call and it enhanced, rather than imperiled, national security. In fact, he prodded his scientists to think outside the conventional box such as, for example, thinking about reusable missiles.

As for other comments about his less than Victorian English to explain his vision for a strong developed India in a generation, we would take an Indian accent with simple English over apparently sophisticated arguments, in apparently sophisticated London or New York English accents, of some historians who are trying to make the case that India shouldn't even aspire to become a strong and rich nation! If Kalam can inspire enthusiastic and smart children, even better.

His conventional thoughts on getting infrastructure to people, where they live now, are just that - conventional. I simply do not know how people would be forced to migrate from their ancestral land to newly planned cities without economic incentives such as well paying jobs and good schools. But if there are well paying jobs, even without good schools, people migrate to urban centers as slums everywhere in big cities show. Until those economic incentives are in place, it's conventional to call for industry and government to provide basic, such water, electricity, and roads, and not so basic, such as internet, infrastructure to people where ever they live, even in remote villages.

We agree Kalam shouldn't be raised to a mythical status. But to say that Kalam abuses his mythical status is a myth. Surely that award goes to someone else.

Same Fact, Two Stories

Here are two stories of the same fact about the sequence of Modi's offer to resign, and how he continued, after the self-serving coverage by p-sec media after Gujarat's post-Godhra-massacre riots in 2002.

First, Jaswant Singh recalling a conversation, on flight with Sri Atal Vajpayee, Advaniji, Shourie, and himself, about status of Narendra Modi seeming to implicate Advani blocking Vajpayee's decision on Modi. (It is just one in a series of attacks Jaswant lead on Advani in the interview and elsewhere. Apparently all of that won't have mattered if Jaswant's book was welcome by Advani and BJP!)

Shekhar Gupta: It’s come so tryue (sic) now

Jaswant Singh: After a few moments of silence he said, “Gujarat ka kya karna hein?” because the incidents in Gujarat were….

Shekhar Gupta: The riots were in fact were very fresh at that point

Jaswant Singh: They were burning in the hearts of the people

Shekhar Gupta: That’s right

Jaswant Singh: Both ways. The burning of the bogie, the killing of other citizens, the sectarianism of it, the communal nature of it. So there was silence for some time and when we said Gujarat ke bare mein sochna chaahiye. Atalji had a way of never directly, other than me, he often told me, aisa hoga. I would disagree ye teek nahin, aap galat kar rahe hein, aapko teek nahi laga, tho kyo kehte ho mujhe. Because what I am saying is right. He would agree. There was silence…

Shekhar Gupta: So he allowed you to disagree with him

Jaswant Singh: He always allowed me to disagree. Even in cabinet meetings, in cabinet committee on security, I don’t what to say those issues I disagreed on because that is a different matter altogether. But on this particular issue, then Advaniji went to the bathroom or something…

Shekhar Gupta: on the plane..

Jaswant Singh: yeah on the plane…

Shekhar Gupta: It’s a tiny 737

Jaswant Singh: It’s not very big. Atalji then said, poochiye kya karna which he implied I went and asked Advaniji. Advaniji said only one phrase bawaal kada ho jaayega

Shekhar Gupta: You mean there’ll be rebellion in the party if you sack Modi

Jaswant Singh: Bawaal means commotion. Bawaal kada ho jaayega party mein. But when we landed there was already a certain kind of atmosphere prevailing so this issue, on that occasion, did not get taken

Shekhar Gupta: So would it be correct to say that Mr Vajpayee would have been inclined to act on Modi but Mr Advani said if you act there would be commotion in the party which may be uncalled for so lets not do it

Jaswant Singh: Factually, factually, to the best of my recollection, yes, this was the conversation and this would be the interpretation

Shekhar Gupta: So Vajpayee would have liked to sack Narendra Modi as Chief Minister

Jaswant Singh: I might not use the word sack

Shekhar Gupta: to take action…

Jaswant Singh: But certainly for the party to reflect, take some corrective measure

Shekhar Gupta: But Mr Advani came to Narendra Modi’s defence

Jaswant Singh: I think that is correct, that is correct

Shekhar Gupta: Right

Jaswant Singh: That is correct

Second, Arun Shourie recalling the same incident indicating that Advani agreed, along with the other three, that Modi should be asked to resign during the same flight.

Shekhar Gupta: And that call would have been to do what?

Arun Shourie: That Modi should resign. Immediately after we came back we had to go to the meeting of the national executive in Goa and I was told you must be on the flight. I said, ‘No, that is not right. Only Advaniji and he (Vajpayee) should be there. They should thrash it out and finish it. Whatever they decide, whether Modi stays or go’. And frankly, I must say, I was more affected by Atalji’s pain than by what had happened in Gujarat. Maybe this is my inhumanity or something. I can’t claim that I was that great liberal. The second thing happened was that this person, who was saying that you have to go there, said ‘You don’t know, they will not talk. The two of them will just sit, two hours will go and they will not talk... So, Jaswant is going there. The two of you would be there and this subject must be brought up and concluded’. So we sat down but nobody would talk. After a while Atalji picked up a newspaper and opened it. Then Advaniji picked up a newspaper and opened it. So they are sitting like this (face-to-face) and each is holding a newspaper, shutting out the other. So I took the newspaper from Atalji. I said ‘Sir, please you have to decide this issue’. The conversation first went to Jana Krishnamurthy, who was the BJP president at that time, a very nice person... it was decided that Venkaiah (Naidu) would be the president.

Then second, ‘Modi ka kya karna hai?’. I think my recollection is more, what you would call, extended than Jaswant Singh’s. So, this was discussed and it was decided, it was definitely decided that when we get down, Advaniji will ring up Modi and say that in the meeting in the evening, offer to resign. Then the meeting starts, speeches start. Atalji, Advaniji and all are sitting on the stage and Modi got up and said, ‘Mujhe kuch kehna hai’, and he offered to resign. He said, ‘Main nahin chahta ki party should have any difficulties because of me’. And as if on cue, people from different parts of the hall started saying ‘absolutely no... koi galti nahin hai...’. I was sitting at the back... and I saw Atalji’s bewilderment because he thought this was a done deal. This was like an orchestrated coup against him.

So I got up and I said, ‘Narendra Modi ne abhi jo yeh kaha hai, it’s in pursuance of the decision which these senior leaders have taken in the flight... I was present’. There was consternation, but immediately again the chorus started and eventually somebody said, Atalji said or the president of the party said, ‘Abhi to public meeting ka time ho gaya hai, kal decide karenge. Logon ne kaha nahin nahin, nahin hoga’. So there is absolutely no doubt, and I can give you much more details of this, that Atalji was completely thwarted.

Shekhar Gupta: Thwarted? Everybody got together?

Arun Shourie: I am not sure that everybody got together simultaneously, but I must say that I was not all the time for this, that Modi has to go because of the killings, because in my view such things happen as a reaction, as happened in Delhi as a reaction to (Indira) Gandhi’s brutal killing. You can’t then prevent those things. Nobody can prevent those things.

Jaswant Loses His Mind

May be this was sometime in the making. What else explains Jaswant Singh praise for Jinnah and derision for INC during the curial years before 1947. We were willing to grand some space to Jaswant as an intellectual and thinker. Today he proved he's neither.

Why had he been unceremoniously expelled from the party a week ago, the former External Affairs Minister was asked.

"Please don't ask me. I am outside the magic circle of advisers or thinkers. Because, I am not from the RSS, is that why? So are we a political party? Is the BJP becoming some kind of an Indian version of Ku Klux Klan?" he shot back during an interview to PTI here. KKK, widely known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present hate group organisations in the US, whose aim was to protect and further the rights of white Americans by intimidation.

Asked what he meant by reference to KKK, he said, "You know what the Klan means. You don't ask me about this." [IE]

May be he forgot to take his tablets, but he most certainly has lost his mind. Apparently one doesn't learn anything about an organization by working for it for 30 years.

It obviously is a path to join SP in the next few days. Also, may be now he can sell more of his fictional book in Pakistan and win praise from psecs in the country.

Farming or Gardening

Women irrigating vegetable field in Sangli [IE].
One hopes it rains soon.

Nobody in Charge at BJP

BJP's Rajnath Singh is shrinking the party. While we think there is merit to what BJP did to Jaswant Singh, the way it was done is having a blow back. Arun Shourie is challenging BJP to reform itself, quite publicly. BJP wants Sri Shourie to say whatever he wants to the party away from the media. But BJP has itself to blame for the thamasa. Sudheeran Kulkarni's leaving BJP is not such a big event in itself. He was probably at the door, right behind Sri Advani. He used the Jaswant's episode well to his advantage. What is bit more ominous is the resignation of Kiren Rijiju of Arunachal Pradesh. His action does not bode well for the party.

With Sri Rijiju leaving, that would be four active and thinking senior members of BJP leaving within a week. Rajnath Singh may be running the train, but it's Sri Advani who is apparently still in charge. Lot of this internal tussle would have probably happened anyway had Advaniji retired soon after election lose. Now, Advaniji is still the head but apparently not in-charge. He has to leave BJP for the party to remake itself. Atalji has already shown how to do it skillfully.

Transition of leadership is any institution messy business. The thing to note on the turmoil in BJP is its members are fighting back on the dictatorial tendency of its leadership. This happened in Congress I many times, most recently when Sonia Gandhi took charge when Sharad Pawar, P.A. Sagma, and Tariq Anwar quit. As a result of the transitional tussle, Congress I increased the dictatorial style of party governance, in line with its history. One hopes, contrary to what happened to Congress I, this period will allow BJP to become more democratic as an institution - that is the only way to bring new blood into leadership every election cycle, and that BJP will come out stronger the other side of this mess.

Why BJP is Right and Jaswant Singh Wrong

On of the face it, it seems silly for BJP to throw anyone out of the party for writing a book, least of all Jaswant Singh who worked for the party for 30 years and was an effective and prominent minister, handling key portfolios, during NDA rule under Sri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. A case can be made that he was one of the most effective foreign minister (and probably an effective finance minister as well, with Vijay Kelkar on his side ) because of the way he maneuvered US when it was breathing down Bharat's neck to role back nuclear weaponization, join NPT, and sign up for CTBT. Lesser mortals could have succumbed. In fact, NDA government almost did.

The way to look at this is not from Jaswant Singh's side, but from BJP point of view. BJP is political entity. It is based on political ideology and, at least ideally, sticks to that ideology when competing for political power at state and central levels. And its ideology is apparently based on nationalism and on historic Bharatiya cultural continuity, the so called Hindutva ideology. The entire debate after the recent BJP election loss was trying to identify what Hindutva actual meant. BJP and its support organization, RSS, would like the definition of Hindutva to be cultural nationalism rather than nationalism based on Hindu religion .

Even before the debate about Hindutva is settled, Sri Singh writes Jinnah — India, Partition and Independence, that, at its core, absolves Muhammad Ali Jinnah as being the central force for break up the Bharatiya subcontinent and lays the blame for it centrally on Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. He goes even further to say that Indian Muslims may not be comfortable with current democratic setup, meaning they have a legitimate claim to grievance of the current majority-based democratic framework.

It's one thing to write a book that re-looks at the roles Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel played leading up to partition. It's entirely another thing to make Muhammad Jinnah as the focal point of his book and downplay his role in partition. Does Jaswant Singh really believe a three-tired structure with semi-independent provinces work for India? If he does, why oppose the current status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It's ironic, and besides the point for this current debate, that Nehru dismisses Jinnah's interest in semi-independent provices for a strong centre, a prerequisite for his Fabian socialist agenda, but agrees to the same structure for Jammu and Kashmir soon after. In fact, early on, Nehru was okay with even a very loose federal structure for Jammu and Kashmir which Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, the creator of Jan Sangh, BJP's prior political form, gave his life fighting against.

What Sri Singh did in his book on Jinnah and partition was to undermine the core ideology of his own party. As an individual and a historian, it is perfectly reasonable for Jaswant Singh to write this book. But he cannot write a book that attacks the central ideology of BJP, that too as a senior leader of the same party.

It would have been better for both Jaswant Singh and BJP had Sri Singh resigned from BJP to write this book. The book itself may prove to be an important book on partition. But BJP had every right to fire a person who was working against its own political ideology. We just would have hoped they could have explained the action a little better.

As for the state of Gujarat's ban on Jaswant's book, suffice it to say that Sardar Patel would have probably disapproved the action. We would go further to say that Sardar Patel cannot be brought down by one book. If not, Marxist historians would have done it a long time ago to keep their apparent secular icon Nehru on an even higher pedestal.

What Wasn't Said about Offending Hindus

Rohit Pradhan has an extremely fair review of Salil Tripathi's short book Offense: Hindu Case in Pragati, an online based magazine. While I'll let you read Sri Pradhan's review here, I am curious about wasn't said in the book. Sri Tripathi regurgitate the usual apparent intolerance of Hindus with stories of Gujarat's apparent anti-Muslim riot, sorry, "pogrom", M.F. Hussein obnoxious paintings of Lakshmi Devi, and others. What was missing was Hindus intolerance towards other Hindus. Even if one ignores the societal discrimination based on jati, Sri Tripathi seems to miss cases of Hindu Marxists intolerance on what Hinduism standards for or of Hindu secularists disdain towards practising Hindus. Aren't they Hindu offenders?

One thing that took me aback was the photo in Pragati of some guy with a tilak and painting and colour on his face with red angry eyes wearing collared t-shirt. What was the point this picture? Was it from Sri Tripathi's book? Is this how an offending Hindu looks like?

One hopes Sri Tripathi can collate a Defense: Hindu Case about how practising Hindus look upon people of other faith as equal, not inferior, to them - a key fundamental difference between other religious practitioners and practising Hindus. But then one has to be a practising Hindu to understand that.

Clinton's Nuclear Sites

Few days ago we weren't sure what role Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, would have when it comes to future India-US relationship. We proposed it would be restricted to trade issues.

And with all generals from Pacific command and heads of CIA making their presence in Delhi, Hillary Clinton presumably cares only about trade and people-to-people issues.

It seems we made the right call. Now things are coming into more focus. With Gen. James Jones, US NSA, visit talking exclusively about terrorism and Afghan-Paki region with Bharatiya establishment, Hillary Clinton apparently will be talking about where the nuclear power plants will be built by US companies, meaning trade and commerce issues. Smt. Clinton seems to be scoring with the WTO deal few weeks ago, when Anand Sharma gave up what Kamal Nath fought for for years, and now this.

India is likely to announce locations for two nuclear power plants, which would be made available to the American companies, during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to New Delhi next month, a top Obama Administration has said.

Who in US establishment would Bharat engage to talk about China, when China is becoming openly aggresive, and about other areas of concern? Are those issues even on the menu?

Summery of Tussle

Jeff Smith of American Foreign Policy Council summarizes the ongoing tussle between India and China on China's apparent claim on Arunachal Pradesh in WSJ. He forgets to bring up the promise China made to PM Atal Vajpayee during his official to China on solving the border issue peacefully even as China was digging in with its troops and weapons systems on their side of Arunachal border.

He however posits what Washington's position should be.

What is Washington's role in this Asian rivalry? In the short term, a priority must be to tamp down friction over the border. In the longer term, Washington should leverage its friendly relations with both capitals to promote bilateral dialogue and act as an honest broker where invited. But it should also continue to build upon the strategic partnership with India initiated by former president George W. Bush, and support its ally, as it did at the Nuclear Suppliers group and the ADB, where necessary. Washington must also make clear that it considers the established, decades-old border between the two to be permanent.

Most importantly, though, the Sino-Indian border dispute should be viewed as a test for proponents of China's "peaceful rise" theory. If China becomes adventurous enough to challenge India's sovereignty or cross well-defined red lines, Washington must be willing to recognize the signal and respond appropriately.

Missing Word is Strategic

It's hard to know how much influence current US Secretary of State has on US president. Even if one ignores the election battle they went through, Sri Obama has an alternative point man for Afghan-Paki, and presumably for India, region for all security and terror related issues. And with all generals from Pacific command and heads of CIA making their presence in Delhi, Hillary Clinton presumably cares only about trade and people-to-people issues.

Bibek Debroy says one reason why Kamal Nath was not re-appointed commerce minister was because he gave US trade representative hell when negotiating the next round of WTO agreement - meaning, he was fighting for India's cause. Apparently the new commerce minister, Anand Sharma, already obliged his US counter part by making concessions. This implies Clinton apparently already influenced Indian PM decision making.

Hillary Clinton, it seems, has more influence in New Delhi than in Washington. So her speech at USIBC, the text of which I could not find on USIBC site, may not be a comprehensive take on relations between India and US.

However, putting the speech next to her take on the future path of US-China and US-Russian relationships makes us wonder where India falls in the scheme of things in Washington. References to 'Upgrade of Relationship' and 'Version 3.0' in her speech are fine but beyond commerce and trade, there is nothing substantive in her speech that indicates a new level of relationship. More than what was said, we find what was unsaid more interesting.

Ms. Clinton said while pursuing an "enhanced bilateral partnership" the two countries should recognise that their official ties "are past due for an upgrade" as compared to other metrics of cooperation. "We need bilateral cooperation between our governments to catch up with our people-to-people and economic ties".

If Bush administration's "strategic partnership" was version 2.0, we think "enhanced bilateral partnership" is a downgrade to the relationship that existed during the last the few years of Bush years. This may, quite possibly, be an indication of Clinton's influence in Obama's government. There will be more clarity when Obama himself has something significant to say about the relationship. For now, the trajectory of the relationship seems to be pointing downwards.

Humour: Should the Code be Transparent Too?

Martin Demello writes in IE:

The 2005 Right to Information Act was a significant milestone for India, a firm commitment to openness and transparency. The UPA’s promises of a public data project has only strengthened that commitment, promising to sweep away the nation’s dusty piles of secrecy and bureaucracy. But with increasing computerisation comes a related, but often overlooked imperative — that all government software be open source.

Just wondering if the open source code needs to be written in transparent font so one can see through it also. What's more baffling is this column was published at all!

Note: Have been away from blogging while dealing with family issues. Plenty of things happened in the past six months including BJP's failure to win general elections and return of the failed UPA back in power and the rise of left in the US. One nugget that can be taken away from the general and, especially, state elections in AP is people complain about corruption all the time, but they don't care about it. Corruption as a political issue is a non-issue for voters.

Fouad Ajami Remembers Samuel Huntington, Dead at Age 81

I had plenty of things say regarding Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations - a book I brought promptly as soon as I came across it and read it cover to cover (unlike few other books I buy or borrow). Suffice it say much of his thesis regarding the clash between Christian west and Islamic lands has borne out.

Unfortunately Sri Huntington didn't know much about India, so he had little to say about the clash that was already underway between Islamists, and their apologist pseudo-secularists, and the reviving Hinduism nationalism, even if in fits and starts. At best he could come up with an interaction of civilizational clash in the lands of subcontinent. But Islamists and jihadists take him seriously because they know exactly what they are trying to revive - the pre-ideological battles that were routine in the world before Marxism, Communism, and Capitalism came along. And they know Islam (along with Christianity) was at the forefront of all those battles. It's unfinished business for the jihadists.

And the people, such as Amartya Sen, who deride Sri Huntington ignore the Islamic jihadists and are blinded by their own superiority of intellect, despite ample proof - the latest being Mumbai Islamic terror massacres. But the Islamic terror and jihad will not go away by intellectual arguments. The secularists will surely succumb, as they are wont to, as evident in Europe. Will other civilizations fight back?

Here is one thinker of Islamic lands and people who crossed over to Sri Huntington's side after being the first to stand against him. Fouad Ajami's obituary of Sri Huntington.

In an article first published in Foreign Affairs in 1993 (then expanded into a book), Huntington foresaw the shape of the post-Cold War world. The war of ideologies would yield to a civilizational struggle of soil and blood. It would be the West versus the eight civilizations dividing the rest -- Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese.

In this civilizational struggle, Islam would emerge as the principal challenge to the West. "The relations between Islam and Christianity, both orthodox and Western, have often been stormy. Each has been the other's Other. The 20th-century conflict between liberal democracy and Marxist-Leninism is only a fleeting and superficial historical phenomenon compared to the continuing and deeply conflictual relation between Islam and Christianity."

If I may be permitted a personal narrative: In 1993, I had written the lead critique in Foreign Affairs of his thesis. I admired his work but was unconvinced. My faith was invested in the order of states that the West itself built. The ways of the West had become the ways of the world, I argued, and the modernist consensus would hold in key Third-World countries like Egypt, India and Turkey. Fifteen years later, I was given a chance in the pages of The New York Times Book Review to acknowledge that I had erred and that Huntington had been correct all along...

He had been a source of great wisdom, an exemplar, and it had been an honor to write of him, and to know him in the regrettably small way I did.

We don't have his likes in the academy today. Political science, the field he devoted his working life to, has been in the main commandeered by a new generation. They are "rational choice" people who work with models and numbers and write arid, impenetrable jargon.

More importantly, nowadays in the academy and beyond, the patriotism that marked Samuel Huntington's life and work is derided, and the American Creed he upheld is thought to be the ideology of rubes and simpletons, the affliction of people clinging to old ways. The Davos men have perhaps won. No wonder the sorrow and the concern that ran through the work of Huntington's final years.

Bhishmapitamaha is 85

Atal Bihari Vajpayee is 85 today

Purple Pig-Nose Frog

Nasikabatrachus sahyadrenis

Does batrachus stand for pig? At 8 cm and 142 gm, it's decent size. I wonder why it's so hard to find.

A purple frog with a pig-like snout, thought to be near-extinct, has been found alive in a field close to the Kerala Forest Research Institute at Peechi near Thrissur town in Kerala.

First reported in India eight years ago, the rare frog species is closely linked to a similar frog found only in the island group of the Seychelles — suggesting the affinity between the Western Ghats and the Indian Ocean archipelago. Just over 8 cm in length and weighing 142 gm, the frog, which lives mostly under soil was found by a farm worker planting tuber crops. The KFRI researchers brought the frog to their campus and identified it as the species Nasikabatrachus sahyadrenis, never before reported in the district.

Only Nine More to Go!

When Bush attacked Iraq, his main justifications was apparent Iraqi WMD and UN resolutions that Iraq had been flouting since 1991, when the first Gulf war was waged. There were a total of 17 resolutions that Iraq ignored or didn't act on before US decided to act. Even then the Europeans and everyone else who matter didn't go along with Bush. Now Americans themselves think the war is illegal!

Now we hear that Manmohan Singh is creating a dossier of UN resolutions that Pakistan ignored. Apparently are eight resolutions. So only nine more to go!

New Delhi: Not satisfied with Islamabad’s “token action” on the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), India has prepared a “detailed dossier” of Pakistan’s “violations” of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. The violations, on at least eight counts, range from non-extradition of the Terror outfit’s leaders to non-prosecution of the group and its members.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said outside Parliament on Tuesday, “We would like an objective effort from Pakistan to dismantle the terror machine. The Government of Pakistan knows what it implies. We expect them, as a member of the United Nations, to comply with the resolutions passed over the years, not just ‘1267’. We want the international community to use its power of persuasion to persuade Pakistan to comply with these resolutions.”

This is not quite what chacha Nehru did when Pakistan send jihadis to take over the Kingdom of Kashmir in 1947. Instead of evicting the jihadis and Pakistan regulars, Nehru went to UN to mediate the so-called "dispute" thanks to the British advisor Mountbatten. The British and Americans then ate Nehru naivete for lunch. Manmohan is getting there, it seems. But first a dossier is made. I am sure the world will be with Bharat if and when it wants to pursue action against Pakistan, just like it was with US and Bush in 2003 when he enforced UN resolutions in Iraq.

Nonsense About Terrorist State Stability

For years I have argued that stability of Pakistan and territorial integrity - the epicenter of global Islamic jihad and Islamic terrorism against Bharat - is not in our interest. Bharat Verma takes the same stand forcefully while talking of the danger of Pakiland Islamic jihad on Bharatiya democracy and secular majority.

Another falsehood perpetuated by the eternally helpless breed of Indians is that a stable Pakistan is in India's interest. It is not, stable or otherwise. Pakistan is a failed State. It is on the brink of disintegration. It simply needs to be helped to remove itself and the map redrawn. Otherwise, the cost to India will keep increasing disproportionately.

To take this war to the enemy, New Delhi needs a deliberate, graded and escalating response with a clear political and military objective to help Islamabad disintegrate:

Snap diplomatic relations immediately.

Declare Pakistan a terrorist State.

Discontinue all trains and bus services as well as trade and business transactions.

Announce renegotiations of the Indus Water Treaty as the terms unduly favour Pakistan.

Begin a process to regulate the water supplies and build new mechanisms to activate water flow controls.

Cancel permissions for over flights.

Seal the Nepal and Bangladesh borders on a priority basis.

Build a grand alliance of democracies by increasing their stakes in the burgeoning economic pie of India, to leverage their support against authoritarian regimes on our border including Pakistan.

Increase immediately FDI in the defence sector from 26 percent to 49 percent. This will help India to emerge as the most modern technology driven defence industry hub in Asia while making it profitable for Western companies to invest.

Five Years of Congress I Misrule - From an Insider

We already know how corrupt Congress I politicians have been and continue to be. Until now there were no major corruption scandals exposed because the ministers in Manmohan's cabinet scratch each others back while donating a small cut to Sonia/Rahul duo and the party coffers.

Here is an IAS officer disgusted with the corrupt and incompetent Manmohan's government laying it all out in an open letter to PM after the recent Mumbai Islamic terror massacres.

Economic reforms stopped long ago, for your allies didn’t want them; there are many ministers in your cabinet who have perfected Wal-Mart’s cash-and-carry model and you can’t do a damn about it. You have failed on all counts as a leader. So, at least now, when India is under attack on its own soil, please act. And if you can’t act, please get out of the way and allow someone more effective to run the country....

You have personally demonstrated integrity, but what use is that alone, when almost every key minister in your cabinet is treating every file as an opportunity for cash flows? Are you telling us you don’t know that your telecom, environment and shipping ministries are the home of organized mafias looting the exchequer?

We know from The Pioneer expose that the telecom minister, A. Raja, and his wife, M.A. Parameswari, made 755 crores in one year - that's an average of 2 crores per day! We are told Central Vigilance Commission (sic), TRAI, finance ministry, and others could not stop the corruption of the humble dalit from Tamil Nadu!! Of course, the apparently clean prime minister does not act.

Apparently there are no checks in the great Indian democracy.

We haven't heard anything about the environment ministry - but one can only guess, with the growing economy and expanding industrial sector, how the environment minister could wave the world class environment protection laws on the books, which are never implemented anyway, to stuff his pockets.

Also, I am curious about the former underworld dealer from Bombay, the current minority affairs minister, A. R. Antulay's recent dupliticity on Mumbai Islamic terror massacres and the murders of top ATS officials including chief Hemant Karkare.

Antulay, who was present in the Lok Sabha, was seen smiling at the opposition members, gesturing them to continue with their protest. At one point, he even displayed the 'thumbs up' sign.

Apparently the rest of the psec media and liberals/progressives didn't get his memo because they appear confused and wondering why Antulay is doing what he is doing.

But not the Congress I party. Why? Because they know who Antulay is before Sonia, the queen, made him minister in Manmohan's cabinet. He was part of Bombay underworld providing services to the likes of Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Menon and probably continues to be a conduit for Dawood's money funneling into Congress I party funds. So Antuley can provide cover for Dawood revenge killers, who ended up, I think by luck, killing Karkare and the rest of top ATS officials, with impunity. It took Antuley about three weeks to get in touch with his former mentors in Pakistan and come up with a story to create outrage and plausibility of alternative narrative and, of course, Hindu -Zionist conspiracy which for some reason plenty of, otherwise sane, desi Muslims seem to gobble up. He is doing his work well for terrorist supporters in Pakiland and India. Congress I is playing along with the probable top fund raiser and possibly to get political mileage from anti-Hindu vote bank politics.

So all the tough talk from Manmohan, Sonia, and Pranab Mukherjee is a show because they can't even fire a lowly minister who has contacts with terror supporters across the border. Of course more and more Muslims jumping on Antulay's band wagon makes their show easier.

It is classic Congress I party that Nehru built which is now even deeper in the sewer.

Sucking Up to The Clintons

Lakshmi Mittal made the news in most headlines on Clinton donors by giving over $1millon. Of course Amar Singh, who bought the opposition MPs to keep the incompetent Manmohan government floating for few more months and of course exonirated by self-proclaimed august body of parliment, gave more than a $1millon. One remembers the high profile visit that Bill Clinton made to UP with Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh at his flank. There are a few more. Entire list is here.

There is a stronger-than-expected Indian presence in the donor list. In the $1 million to $5 million category --- specific amounts are not mentioned in the list --- three Indian names appear: steel tycoon Laksmi Mittal, wind power company Suzlon Energy and Samajwadi Party politician Amar Singh.

The Confederation of Indian Industry has given between half a million and a million dollars. Ajit Gulabchand of Hindustan Construction and the late hotelier Lalit Suri wrote Clinton cheques of between $250,000 and $500,000 each. Vinod Gupta, NRI businessmen and an old "Friend of Bill" did likewise.

Between $100,000 and $250,000 was the contribution of at least three Indian companies --- Ranbaxy, Reliance Europe and the India Today Group. Also in this category are Lata Krishnan, a California-based technology fund manager and member of The Indus Entrepreneurs (TiE), and Mike Patel, former chairman of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association.

Having given the Clinton Foundation between $50,000 and $100,000 are the Hinduja Foundation and New York-based lawyer Bal G Das, who was active in Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) politics in the early 1990s.