Review: India vs UK by Syed Akbaruddin

India vs UK

What else can be a better book other than ‘India vs UK’ by Syed Akbaruddin to celebrate India’s 75th Independence Day? Akbaruddin chronicles in vivid detail the ‘fight’ between India and UK (the erstwhile colonisers) in 2017 when both the countries were vying for a seat on the Bench of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He tells the story of how a change in the Government at the Centre in India led to a push for India to campaign for the seat, albeit at the 11th hour despite of signals being sent from Delhi to New York (where Akbaruddin was) that there is no appetite for it as India was already fighting out the elections for International Law Commission and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Seas.

A an urgent message from the then Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar conveyed to him that Akbaruddin needs to be back to Delhi urgently. He heads to the Foreign Minister’s (Sushma Swaraj) home a few hours after landing at the Delhi airport. And there Sushma Swaraj asks for his support in return for the support which she had extended to him when earlier he had made the case for not running for the ICJ elections.

The book is quite detailed and sometimes too technical to keep the reader engaged. However, it also shows how the inner workings and the intricacies of the international organizations (like UN, WHO, UNHCR, UNICEF, ICJ, ILO etc.) are rarely covered by the mainstream media. It is a must-read book for any Indian to realize how India won this much-deserved, now well-documented, victory over the UK.

Jai Hind 🇮🇳

Review: The India Way by S. Jaishankar

The India Way

The India Way comes at a time when Chinese aggression at the borders has gnawed at Indian security establishment and at the psyche of the common man. Being the Minister of External Affairs, his book carries weight beyond the diplomatic circles. My expectations from the book were very different: I was expecting more of practical foreign policy maneuvers which India can use to upstage ‘enemies’ like Pakistan & China. But what I got was lot of verbose paragraphs in diplomatic and strategic affairs.

I wish the book was more practical in its approach. It is quite theoretical when it keeps bringing up Mahabharata as a game-changer in the current affairs. While equating it to different game-plays of Mahabharata is a good reckoner for showing how India still alludes to tradition, it makes little for winning against aggression of China and Pakistan.

I was hoping to hear a lot more about QUAD and QUAD-Plus, and how the strategic doctrine of India’s foreign policy aims to circumvent Chinese grip by cross-continental alliances. I was hoping how India is going to up its ante in the region of soft power against Chinese ‘incursions’ in Hollywood mainstream. I was hoping to read how India-Russia partnership will counteract communist China’s hardboiled leadership’s ‘One China’ policies.

Whatever I was hoping for from the book wasn’t there. In all honesty, I would suggest to skip this book.

Review: Black Wave by Kim Ghattas

Black Wave

Black Wave

The recent spate of articles about the assassination of Qassem Soleimani has made many, like Thomas Friedman, to write that his image was being blown out of proportion and he wasn’t that important a man in geopolitics and he was getting undue press coverage way out of proportion. However if one were to read Soleimani’s profiles before his assassination, one would inevitably conclude that he indeed was deeply entrenched in conflicts across the Middle East, from supporting Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, groups in Iraq and Syria against ISIS. But Friedman couldn’t see all of this.

Kim Ghattas’ Black Wave is the latest addition in the plethora of books about the quagmire in Middle Eastern politics. Her focus is on the year 1979, when three epochal events took place: the Iranian Revolution, the siege of mosque in Mecca, and the onslaught of Russian forces on Afghanistan. First half of the book is hinged around this pivotal year, and how these events shaped the future of the region: the rift in American-Iranian relations, the rise of mujahideen and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan fed by CIA money, the strengthening of the grip of the state in Saudi Arabia. The author covers a vast region in the chapters: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan (briefly), Saudi Arabia, Yemen (again briefly), Pakistan, Afghanistan. It is an achievement to weave a common thread through such a vast region, rather than to paint everything in the colours of Sunni-Shia conflict (which does form the basis of the narrative in the second half).

However, the subtitle “Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the forty-year rivalry…” seems to be slightly misleading as the focus of book is a general, accessible history of the region, rather than a focus on the Saudi-Iranian animosity hinged on the centuries’ old Sunni-Shia divide. I would recommend this to anyone who is interested in modern history of the region without delving too much into the theoretical. You would meet Soleimani, Jamal Khashoggi, Ruhollah Khomeini, Musa al-Sadr, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, Baghdadi, Mohammad Bin Salman, and many others; but you would also read about the struggles of writers, columnists, actors, philosophers and anyone with a rebellious streak against oppression. The author focuses not only on the men in power, but also commoners who suffered due to their policy-making.

Review: Pax Indica by Shashi Tharoor

Pax Indica
I somehow have been slightly more active than the average person in keeping myself abreast with developments in politics – both national and international and this dates back to my primary school days when I used to make my own notes in a diary. That diary predominantly consisted of wonderful facts from around the world which used to feature in the kids Saturday special in the Times of India back then. That was in the 1990’s. That’s what probably got me initiated into the habit of collecting and ever since have been aware of the name Shashi Tharoor as he may have been mentioned in an article in the same newspaper. He was making it to the headlines in India almost every other day when the Government of India nominated him for the post of UN Secretary General. His name ‘Shashi’ used to remind of the suave actor Shashi Kapoor, and Tharoor anyways rhymed with the actor’s surname. By the way, the diplomat Shashi is no less suave.
 
The title Pax Indica holds connotations of the wrong kind, and Tharoor clarifies what he means: “…not global or regional domination along the lines of a Pax Romana or a Pax Britannica“, but “a peace system…“. He starts with the first chapter titled ‘Revisiting the Tryst with Destiny‘ and how Nehru was always committed to India’s stand in world politics, which was covered in vivid detail in the book I read before this – the first volume of Nehru’s biography by Sarvepalli Gopal. He explains in plain words why international relations are important – they are not just outward focused, but more inward focused and how India needs to make sure it pulls out its poor by giving them a level playing field in the world economy. This book “deals much less with the history of India’s foreign policy” and more with the “contemporary trends and future prospects” and he reasons this with by saying “history has not always been a reliable guide to the present“. I couldn’t help but disagree with this view of history – for if that were the case a student of the contemporary Indian international relations can well correlate them with young Nehru’s outlook during his youth and his participation in the anti-imperial conference held in Europe decades before India’s independence (of course the benefit of hindsight has to be discounted here). He gives the example of India’s nuclear tests of 1998 and the ensuing sanctions and how the Indo-US nuclear deal of 2008 could never have been predicted by focusing on the former. But he is missing out on a very important conclusion drawn and proven umpteen times from the annals of history: that all nations necessarily act out and devise policies for their own benefits. For the U.S to sign and enable India to have access to nuclear technology despite of opposition was a signal of the economic benefits it’s suppliers could reap in (of course this is too simplistic a view, but holds good). That’s essentially a characteristic trait of humans – they can justify anything and everything given it is in favor of them and so was the Indo-US deal which definitely wasn’t realized just on India’s non-proliferation credentials.
The second chapter is Brother Enemy (does it foretell that Tharoor considers Pakistan brother first and then an enemy?). This chapter shows the author’s side as a seasoned diplomat. He reasons compellingly why India should not stop talking to Pakistan, which would be falling into the hands of the extremists on the other side of the boundary. This being a very recent book it also covers latest developments in the diplomatic relations of India. After 26/11 Mumbai attack, “some loud Indian voices on the country’s ubiquitously shrill 24/7 news channels pointed enviously to Israel’s decisive action against neighbouring territories that have provided sanctuary for those conducting terrorist attacks upon it. They clamorously asked why India could not do the same.” Those were calls of agitated men who couldn’t come to the terms that India is doing ‘nothing’ against such barbaric acts. Tharoor writes, rightly so, in favor of the restraint the Indian government showed during those testing times because “Hamas is in no condition to resist Israel’s air and ground attacks in kind, whereas an Indian attack on Pakistani territory, even one targeting terrorist bases and training camps, would invite swift retaliation from the Pakistani Army” and “the country that foments, and at the very least condones, the terror attacks on India is a nuclear power“. In Pakistan, the “military has ruled directly for a majority of the years of its existence” and the Pakistani Army enjoys privileges like “army-controlled shopping malls, petrol stations, real-estate ventures, import-export enterprises and even universities and think tanks“. Though, “the fear in India remains that the government has run out of ideas in dealing with Pakistan“. But the author lists down the numerous options India has, from resolution 1267 (proscribing Jamaat-ud-Dawa) and 1373 (imposing binding requirements on all member states to take a whole range of actions against suspected terror organizations) of the Security Council, pressure on Pakistan through the United Nations, engage in talks with China to explain to them how Pakistan’s fomenting of terror is harmful for its own state and pushing United States for a more balanced view of the region. A suggestion of the author which I disagree with is the opening up of the visa regime for businessmen from Pakistan. We shouldn’t be doing that as we definitely don’t want rich men, in the garb of doing business, funding Indian Muslim extremists. One of the interesting moments in this chapter is when the author personally witnesses an “extraordinary degree of comradeship between Indian and Pakistani officers serving in the Peacekeeping Department headquarters in New York; perhaps being among foreigners served as a constant reminder of how much more they had in common with each other“.

Chapters three and four are titled A Tough Neighbourhood and China and India: Competition, Cooperation or Conflict respectively. Hence, the first four chapters essentially cover India’s relations with all of it’s geographical neighbours, and make for an interesting read for even a marginally informed citizen and more so for the uninformed. In chapters three and four, India’s positives and negatives with Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Maldives and China are analyzed along with Afghanistan, though technically not a neighbour after “Pakistan’s capture in 1948 of the strip of land in north-western Kashmir that made Afghanistan a territorial neighbour of India’s“. Tharoor’s observations are cemented by his own experience in the United Nations and his views are progressive. He advocates the use the international relations’ for driving our own domestic development – of course anyone might agree to that, but India hasn’t put much of it to practice yet. How a moral stand might come in the way of developmental economics and co-operation is exemplified by how India’s support of democratic frameworks in Myanmar and ignorance of relationship building resulted in China gaining favors “when large deposits of natural gas were found” and by support for Tibetans resulting in the ongoing friction along the border, especially in Arunachal Pradesh, in which lies “the birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama and a major monastery of Tibetan Buddism“. Afghanistan has been simmering for Pakistan’s want of a ‘strategic depth’ as it lies at the heart of any logistics plan for NATO/US forces and increases its own importance and hence it’s so-called ‘desire’ to find a solution in the war-torn country. A Maoist government in Nepal is a concern but these fears got allayed when reassurances were “conveyed to New Delhi that a Maoist-run Nepal would not allow itself to be used against Indian interests“. Despite this, the porous border between Indian and Nepal is used by anti-India elements, especially from Pakistan to enter our country. Bilateral trade has increased sevenfold in a decade. With Bhutan, relations are near excellent with India being the largest development partner of Bhutan and financing “three-fifths of Bhutan’s budget” and its exports to India forming 99 per cent of its total exports. With Bangladesh, the road has been dotted with potholes, but strides have been taken to overcome them – though from time to time regional politics do affect them like they did when chief minister of West Bengal, Mamta Banerjee, “vetoed a proposed agreement in 2011 to share the waters of the river Teesta, claiming it would deprive her farmers of adequate water“. The relationship with Sri Lanka being more than 2500 years old has demonstrated significant negativity in recent times owing to the LTTE militancy; China is gaining inroads here as well. With Maldives, India shares “aspecial relationship‘” with active co-operation in maritime and coastal security and “developing mutually identified infrastructure facilities in the Maldives using economic and technical assistance provided by India“. Chinese efforts at gaining influence with India’s neighbours is a well thought move – to limit India’s influence in Asia. China has been the only member of the Security Council to oppose inclusion of India and Japan in it. Based on economic data, the author argues that India and China cannot be treated in the same league: China is much ahead! (even in Olympics). But India’s soft power and democratic credentials stand out and are in favor with lot of south east Asian nations. India still has got lot of catching up to do before it can be compared with China’s success. The author gives the argument that China attacking India may not be a reality for the fact that China’s exports to India were of $50 billion in 2011. But this pales in relative terms. Data on CIA website clearly suggests that for China, India accounted for only 2.6% of its total exports in 2011 while for India, China accounted for 7.6% of its total exports. So India has to be more willing than China in avoiding a conflict. The author says there is room for both – I hope for the same!

The next few chapters deal with relations with the Arab World, South East Asia, United States, Europe, Africa and Latin America. For each of the section, the highlight is that India needs to be more adept and aggressive in creating a base for a future with them. China, alas, is progressing at a breakneck speed on its world class six lane expressway while India is still maneuvering on its potholed dirt ridden single lane road. With the European Union, India’s relations are better poised with few individual countries than with the whole for, not in the least, bureaucratic underpinnings on both sides. The incident where a mayor from Lima presses for a Tata Nano manufacturing plant is humorous. That India doesn’t like to be pursued as a balancing power to China’s growing stature and prefers being accorded importance due to its own standing was a revelation. In Africa, India is doing fine, though it once again pales against the Chinese diplomatic incursions.

The most charming section of the book is of chapter eight titled The Hard Challenge of Soft Power and Public Diplomacy. He quotes Joseph Nye in defining soft power: “the soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture, its political values and its foreign policies“. Tharoor then asserts that India’s soft power is nothing new and has been there since centuries, if not, at least, a millennium. We just need to capitalize on it. In India you are always a minority – maybe because of your language, or religion, or caste, or race or culture and hence India cannot be typecast by any insular definition and “pluralism is a reality that emerges from the very nature of the country“. He then gives several examples when he has come across India’s soft power – in Afghanistan because of Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi, in Oman and Africa because of Bollywood and in Australia because of Indian food. His commentary also includes on benefiting from the new communications channel of social media and how it has supplanted political thought from Egypt to the United States to Bahrain.

The last three chapters deal with what lies beneath India’s foreign policy – the Indian Foreign Service and Ministry of External Affairs and their standing in the political structure, and what lies above – the future which lies ahead for India, not just as non-aligned, which anyways is defunct now, but as multi-aligned. He comes out hard on the slow, if any, implementation of changes in the IFS in terms of readiness and preparedness to tackle the new world order. He outlines the severely limiting problems which plague the IFS and MEA and suggests solid action items for overcoming them. In the next chapter he discusses the role of United Nations in the world and that of India in the United Nations. He is generous in according the UN a role of importance especially in view of US invasion of Iraq and the recent uprisings in the Arab region. Yet, he is critical as well of its functioning and says it well by pointing out that the time for a reform rather than to die has come for the UN. He also visits the topic of NRI’s and their importance in the Indian story. In the last chapter, he argues that rather than being aligned to a set of principles, India is and always should act on a case-by-case basis: as in Myanmar and Iran. ‘Problems without passports‘ is the term he coins for poverty, terrorism, dangers to the environment among others. “India is well qualified, along with others, to help write those rules and define the norms that will guide tomorrow’s world“.

All this reminds us of the adage: In foreign relations, there are neither permanent friends nor foes. Stressed and oft repeated throughout is the tenet that “the basic task for India in international affairs is to wield a foreign policy that enables and facilitates the domestic transformation of India, while promoting our own national values (of pluralism, democracy, social justice and secularism)“. For someone who wants an updated (over)view of India’s foreign relations with the world, this is the book to begin with. It is not scholarly, and that’s the beauty of it – rising above the theoretical and being grounded, practical and based on experience.

 
Afterword
1. I remember the day when I dialed up few Pakistani numbers on 25th of May, 2011. Times of India had published a snapshot of David Headley’s diary (originally Daud Gilani). Handler’s of Headley and their phone numbers were mentioned in that page. I had dialed four of those numbers. On connecting with the first number, the guy talked in Hindi and said he is from Lokmanya Tilak area of Mumbai. The number belonged to Rahul Bhatt, the son of Mahesh Bhatt – a famous Bollywood director and producer. But probably Rahul had given this number to his help or driver or someone of a similar social stature because I could make it out from the dialect being spoken.
The second number was of someone named Vikas (or Vilas – a smudge on the page made it difficult to decipher). This number was not reachable. The third number had the country code 92 – of Pakistan that is. I had a goose bump or two before trying this one. Not in the least because it was from Pakistan but also for it was of a ‘handler’ of Headley! But nonetheless, my hatred of these men was so profound that I pushed the buttons on my phone. Mr. Jehangir picked up and greeted “Assalam Wailaikum” and I didn’t know how to respond. I had never really replied “Wailaikum Assalam” to even Muslim friends as they never greeted me like this. I went blank for a moment. Then, I too, greeted him “Wailaikum Assalam”. His tone of voice was refined, soft and confident. He was talking in a way a radio jockey would – clearly pronouncing his words, evenly pacing them and without any crests of annoyance. His English was perfect and definitely was a man from the upper class of the society (could he have been from the ISI or Pakistani Army?). His first reaction on my mention that his name was mentioned in a paper in India as a handler of Headley was of shock and surprise. Then he mentioned that somebody had called him the day before as well from India regarding the same issue. It was more than an ‘issue’ for me. He went on to add that he had studied with Headley in school and was a friend of his and later either he or Headley went to the US for studies and lost touch and apart from that he knew nothing. I ended the call by “Thank you for talking to me”.
 
The fourth number was from Pakistan again and an interesting thing happened. A lady picked up and in a harrowed voice asked me “Why are you doing this” and continued to speak in Urdu that she had been harassed so many times during the day and she knew nothing. And then she hung up.
 
There were more numbers in the diary, but I could not gather courage to dial any further – for the fear that the Indian police might wonder why I was calling these numbers. It left me wondering whether these were really the handlers of Headley or just random people who knew Headley and were unfortunate enough that their numbers were in his diary? (I have deliberately not mentioned the numbers here lest they were innocents). Well, that’s that. (You may want to read a similar account on NDTV website)

2. Just couple of hours after I was impressed by the chapter on soft power, I searched for ‘Shashi Tharoor’ on Youtube and a TED talk of his was amongst the top five results. It was on soft power – and disappointingly most of what was in the chapter was in the video too! That video was uploaded in December, 2009 and this book published in the first half of 2012 – which was like rubbing salt onto one’s injuries.

3. I had stopped following Shashi Tharoor on Twitter because my timeline was getting flooded by his dozen-a-day tweets and mentions, but after reading this book I have started following him again.

Review: All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer

All The Shah’s Men (Image source: Amazon)
When I came across this book as a suggestion by an online retailer, I couldn’t be happier. It fitted perfectly as the missing first part of my trilogy of books on Iranian politics, with the other two being The Oil Kings and The Guests of the Ayatollah. Unwittingly though, I have read these three books in the reverse order from the chronological perspective. Though I hadn’t ever heard of Stephen Kinzer, but the reviews were good enough apart from the description to lure me into buying it. However, since I read the reviews of In the Name of Sorrow and Hope on Amazon (http://goo.gl/exbfD) I have begun to trust reviews with a less trusting eye, and more so after reading an article on Forbes about fake reviews (http://goo.gl/sJY0R).
 
The golden shiny cover of the book gave it a look of a classic book, but it also had an ugly red colored circle proclaiming it to be a ‘national bestseller’. I personally like books which don’t proclaim what praise they have got on the front page. On the back cover is fine, but on the front page is being superabundant. Books usually by universities like Oxford, Cambridge etc. don’t indulge in such foolish and naive braggadocio. The preface to the 2008 edition told me how “more than half a century had passed since the United States deposed the only democratic government Iran ever had” and how Iran would have been different had the “United States not sent agents to depose” Mohammad Mossadegh and how “the United States deposed a popular Iranian nationalist” in 1953. It continued to explain how “the British secret service worked with the CIA to depose Prime Minister Mossadegh” and that the “United States  violently interrupted Iran’s progress toward freedom by overthrowing Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953” and how Akbar Ganji, an Iranian dissident, reported “Iranians will never forget the 1953 U.S.- supported coup that toppled the nationalist, moderate, democratic government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh” and that “Operation Ajax, as the CIA plot to depose Prime Minister Mossadegh was code-named, brought immense tragedy to Iran“. After such tortuous harping about the “deposition of Mossadegh” I wondered how could this book make it to the list of “national bestseller”; and it made me think about the state of the “nation” where it was so!
 
I did not buy this book to know “how” it was done, but rather “why” it was done. But hope was not in sight especially after reading what was coming up. The author intelligently suggests that the current Iranian crisis can be handled with negotiations just like the way it was done with China and North Korea. Yes, that sounded like a baritone amongst a barrage of squeaks. But it died down when he goes on to say that “in the interest of the United States to promote all manner of social, political, and economic contacts with people” the United States should “invite as many Iranians as possible to the United States and flood Iran with Americans, ranging from students and professors to farmers and entrepreneurs to writers and artists“. People don’t go and settle down in other countries to promote goodwill amongst two arguing nations, but rather as an after effect of goodwill between two countries. It left me wondering what else I could have done with Rs. 996/-.
 
The author, being a journalist, expectedly starts with events on 15th of August, 1953 and rewinds back to give a fascinating yet somewhat aloof overview of the history of Iran. He starts from how “migrants from Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent began arriving in what is now Iran nearly four thousand years ago“, continues to Darius, Cyrus and Xerxes and the fights of the Zoroastrians with the Arabs and the ultimate triumph of a different form of Islam, Shia Islam, in the region. He explains how the British imperialists exploited the region for oil and power and how ultimately the United States, resisting earlier under Harry Truman but gave in under Dwight D. Eisenhower, became a party to overthrow Mossadegh. The book covers how the Qajar dynasty was thrown out with the rise of Reza Khan and the later ascent of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It ends with a very fleeting view of the Iranian revolution. Completing this book gave me a better understanding of the 1979 revolution’s roots and would recommend it to be read as a beginner’s book on understanding West Asian politics.
 
At last I am convinced that I could have done nothing better with those Rs. 996/-. And also to never judge a book neither by its cover, nor by its preface!