TALK WITH THE TALIBAN?

 In Afghanistan and elsewhere all are in a hurry these days. What with the large scale destruction and displacement the people of Afghanistan are desperate and disappointed. Obama is now more anxious to find a way to get out of Afghanistan. Last week in a fit of anger Karzai, the Afghan president said that he would join the Taliban unless the American helped him. Slowly and gradually it has dawned on everyone concerned with Afghanistan that it is not easy if not impossible to defeat the Taliban. Another point that is not to the liking of many is the realization that there cannot be a long lasting settlement without the participation of the Taliban.

The goal of the present military operation in Afghanistan is to strengthen the bargaining power of the of the Karzai government vis a vis the Taliban at the negotiation table and produce what they describe as ‘reasonable outcomes’. All the same no one seems to have a clue about the ‘reasonable outcome” or what could be ‘reasonable’.

Britain also wants the Afghan administration to speed up the political process and reach a settlement as early as possible. The Germans that has had to face the ire of the Afghan people recently for attacks on the civilians want to get out of the quick sand early.

Meanwhile Karzai has planned to convene a meeting of the innumerable tribal leaders. Karzai is a member of the Peshthun ethnic group. Most of the Taliban fighters also belong to this group. No wonder the president addresses the militants as ‘our disenchanted brothers’. The president and the army find it increasingly difficult to carry on the fighting against their ‘brothers’. There are even reports that the government has established contacts with the militants. However, the opposition believes that it is impossible to accommodate the Taliban in the future scheme of things.

The Americans are a worried lot. They are in a double bind. If negotiations with the Taliban would help Karzai to widen his support base and persuade the Taliban to lay down arms they would not oppose it. At the same time they do not trust Karzai much. What if Karzai failed (or refused) to disarm the Taliban?

Many questions pop in the mind of those who observe the developments in Afghanistan. Are the groups of Taliban described as ‘sane’ and ‘good’ are really sane and good? Can they ensure the safety of the people and the region? What if the ‘insane’ and ‘bad’ Taliban overpowered the ‘sane’ and ‘good’?

KANU SANYAL

With the suicide of Kanu Sanyal an era has come to an end.

When Kanu Sanyal, Charu Mazumdar and others founded the Naxal Movement in the late sixties they had a lofty goal. A society sans class and hence a society sans exploitation. A society where honey and milk flowed like water. Marx had said that what he was trying to do was to bring the heaven from the sky down to the earth. He could not do it before he died. The Naxals thought that they were destined to do precisely that.

It was on 23 April 1969 Sanyal, Mazumdar and their close associates formed the CPI (ML) [Communist Party of India- Marxist-Leninist]. It was on1st May 1969 they announced the formation of the party. When the left in Bengal joined hands with the Congress accepting Parliamentary Democracy and rejecting an eternal struggle against it, Sanyal and a handful of loyal friends felt that it was a betrayal of the toiling masses. They thought that the part supposed to liberate the people from the clutches of the capitalist wolves was sacrificing their revolutionary struggle for crumbs of power.

On 2 March 1967 a tribal youth with he permission of the judiciary went to his field. In no time he was stopped by the thugs of the landlord. The tribal also joined hands a fight followed. A policeman was killed. The next day the police retaliated and fired killing many. However the police failed to control the agitated peasants. They forcibly occupied the lands of the landlords who had to flee for their life. It was led by Charu Mazumdar.

It was the armed uprising of the peasants on 25 May 1967 in a small village called Naxalbari in North Bengal that grew into the dreaded Naxal Movement. In the late sixties and late seventies the movement sent shivers the spines of rich and powerful gentry. Wayanad and Palghat in Kerala were also the hot hubs of the Naxal Movement.

Soon differences cropped up between Sanyal and Mazumdar. They were poles apart on the question of use of violence to achieve their goal. Mazumdar believed that there cannot be a revolution till the class enemies are eliminated with force. Mazumdar’s line of thinking did not impress Sanyal much. He felt that killing ordinary policemen accusing them of being the agents of the class enemy would not lead to revolution. Mazumdar was arrested in 1972 and died in police custody just three years after the formation of the movement. Later Sanyal gave up the idea of armed uprising and disassociated from the new generation of leaders.

Later Vinod Misra, Nagbhushan Patnaik and Subrat Dutta gave birth to a liberal CPI (ML) and proclaimed their faith in parliamentary democracy.

THE BLACK WIDOWS

The twin bomb attacks in the Moscow metro railway have once again demonstrated that no part of the world is immune to such attacks.

Although no one has claimed responsibility for the attack immediately, the Federal Security Chief, Alexander Bortnikov, was reported to have said that the circumstantial evidence points to the involvement of the Chechen militant groups. Fragments of two female bodies believed to be that of the suicide bombers have been recovered from the sites..

The Russian female suicide bombers known as the Black Widows come from the North Caucus regions. Many of the women in the Chechen region lost their husbands in the two wars against Russia. The Chechen extremists have posed a severe threat to Russia since 1994. Exploiting their anguish the rebels brainwash the women and train them to be suicide bombers.

Sometimes back the leader of the Chechen extremists Umarov had warned Russia that the blood bath would not be confined to the inlands of Chechnya. Big cities such as Russia and St.Petersburg would also have a taste of it he had added.

The Russian Special Forces had killed a prominent extremist leader in early March. It is believed that the twin attacks were carried out in retaliation.

Appearing on the Russian TV, the Russian President Medvedev said that, “We need to focus our attention on certain aspect of improving legislation aimed at preventing terrorist activities”. The president has been reported to have made several proposals to beef up security and ensure the safety of the transport systems.

CHINA,THE LAMA AND KADEER

In a statement issued on 10 March the Dalai Lama explicitly expressed his support to Urighurs in China. Expressing his ‘solidarity’, the Lama said he ‘stands firmly’ with the people of ‘East Turkestan’. Earlier he had a meeting with Rubiya Kadeer the leader-in-exile- of the Urighurs. She lives in the U.S. The coming together of two leaders-in-exile- could cause immense trouble for China.

The envoys of the Lamas had met the representatives of the Chinese government in the last days of January in China. Prior to the meeting The Chinese Communist Party and the Tibet Congress had discussed the Chinese policy towards Tibet in detail.Hu Jintao the Chinese President accused the Lama of trying to incite violence in Tibet. He also declared a developmental plan for the whole of Tibet. Padma Choling was appointed as the governor of TAR.

The Chinese media criticized the Dalai Lama for describing himself as a ‘son of India’. The Lama was not interested in China or even Tibet. He is deliberately misleading the Chinese people to derive political mileage. The media even questioned his religious loyalty. According to it The Lama has forgotten the link between the Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism. The Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh was also run down. It wondered how the Lama who described Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India can take care of the interests of Tibet?

The Chinese told the envoys of the Lama that their demands must be within the Chinese Constitution. China made it clear that it is not going to change its policies towards Tibet. China reminded the envoys that the Lama was subject to the Chinese law as the Lamas are recognized since the time of Qings. The Chinese asked the Lama to solve his problems in his life time. It urged the Tibetan people to think about their future after the death of the Lama.

However, the wind seems to have changed direction. The American President Obama, who had earlier declined to meet the Lama, met him. The Americans have also begun making noises about the human rights violations in China. And if the Lama and Kadeer join hands it would cause immense trouble for China.

GIRIJA PRASAD KOIRALA

The death of Girija Prasad Koirala has deprived Nepal of one of its tallest leaders. Though he has not built and nurtured any democratic institutions n Nepal his contributions to democratic process in that country cannot be over looked. Throughout his life he fought against the army, The Maoists, the monarchy and many others who did not want democracy to take root in Nepal.

Koirala came from a politically enlightened family. His father and brother were active in politics. The Ranas ruled Nepal with iron hand. With the help of the colonial Britain they suppressed the Nepali people. His father was exiled and brother put behind the bars for their agitations. India’s struggle for freedom from the British and the Indian national congress inspired the Koiralas much. Their struggle backed by the people bore fruit when Nepal’s first Democratic Government assumed office in 1959. Though the government headed by B.P.Koirala the first Prime Minister of Nepal was short lived, it instilled in the people of Nepal a yearning for democracy.

Unfortunately the Koiralas did not a get a chance to build democratic institutions to safe guard the fledgling democracy. King Mahendra displaced Koirala and captured power. The Koiralas were put behind bars. However, the hold of monarchy on power was weak. Riding on the crest of another movement for democracy G.P. Koirala was able to come back to power in 1991. However, his detractors were more powerful and he lost power again. The political instability that verged on anarchy proved a fertile ground for the radical movement that has now emerged as a power to reckon with. The Maoists.

ELECTIONS IN IRAQ

Many all over the world heaved a sigh of relief as the Iraqi election went off fairly peacefully on March 7. Indeed no one expects the election to solve all the outstanding issues soon. It would take years for democracy to take roots in Iraq which was under authoritarian rule for decades. All the same, the fact that people turned out to vote to elect their ruler is a positive sign indeed. Election results are to be welcomed by all as there has been no report of rigging from any part of the country.

The major political parties in the fray are the State of Law led by the incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a group led by the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and The Iraqi National Alliance and the Iraqi National Movement.

The State of Law of the incumbent Prime Minister who is fighting to hold on to power is facing stiff competition from his powerful opponents. The Iraqi National alliance is the main rival of the Prime Minister. Maliki had talked about the improved law and order situation in the country. However, the recent blasts that shook many cities including Baghdad disprove the claim. His government has not been successful in dealing with the water shortage in the country. He has also failed to fend off the corruption charges against him. Some have even accused him of fostering sectarianism to ensure his hold on the country.

The Iraqi National Alliance the main rival of The State of Law, is made up of Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Sadrists. It enjoys the support of the Shia clerics. In the first election held in Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein, al-Maliki was with the United Iraqi Alliance. The alliance later came apart and Maliki joined other political formation. As the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council is close to Iran, victory of the Alliance could cause immense problems for the Americans. The Sadrists have considerable followings as they have carried out developmental works in the cities.

The group the anti-American cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr is leading a real threat to al-Maliki. His rabid anti-Americanism has won him a vast following in the country. Al-Sadr has been campaigning for the ouster of the American army from Iraqi soil.

The Iraqi national Movement is the third contender for power. It is a coalition of secular Sunni and Shia groupings. It is led by a former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Earlier he had connections with the CIA. He has good relations with The Islamic Republic of Iran. The Americans have accused Iran of fomenting troubles in Iraq. Christopher Hill, the American Ambassador to Iraq charged Iran with trying to ‘frustrate the U.S. and Iraqi common goals’.

The Americans want the ‘The State of Law’ in the saddle. The failure of al-Maliki would jeopardize the American interests in the region. The election results would tell the future course of development of the war torn Iraq. Let us hope it will herald a new era in Iraq

TALKS BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

The bilateral talks between the Foreign Secretaries of India Mrs. Nirupama Rao and her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir, in New Delhi on 25 February, did not produce any light. It did not produce any heat either. The talks lasted just three hours. Nirupama Rao told the newsmen that the ‘time is not ripe’ for a composite talk with Pakistan. She described the talks as the ‘first step’ towards building confidence between India and Pakistan.

The bomb blast in Pune on 13 February had cast a shadow over the proposed talks. The Indian government dispelling all doubts declared that the talks would be held as per the schedule. All the same the Cabinet Committee on Security told Nirupama Rao to raise the question during the talks. However, none had expected that the talks would yield any result. New Delhi had declared that its focus would be on the issue of terrorism, especially the terrorist activities emanating from Pakistani soil. The Pakistani side said that it would not allow the issue of terrorism to divert the attention from all the other issues.

Till recently the Indian position was that it would not talk to Pakistan unless the latter take effective and visible action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack. Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram said that Pakistan had not done enough to deal with the terrorist activities from Pakistani soil. Many believe that India softened its stand under pressure from The U. S.

After the talks Mr. Salman Bashir said that Islamabad was of the view that the issue of terror should not withhold the two countries from talking to each other. He said Pakistan wanted a ‘result-oriented and meaningful dialogue’ with India. Islamabad wanted to talk about the ‘core issue’ a euphemism for the question of Kashmir. The sharing of the Indus waters has also become a hot issue between India and Pakistan.

India handed over three dossiers to Pakistan. India expects more cooperation from Pakistan in tracking down the terrorists, India believes, hiding in that country India also demanded that Ilyas Kashmiri, a militant who is said to have connection with the Al Qaeda. He had earlier vowed to disrupt the sporting events in India. However, no one believes that Pakistan would act on Indian request. Chidambaram had said the early March that India had provided ample evidence to prove the involvement of Hafiz Saeed in the Mumbai attack. Salman Bashir described the evidence as ‘literature rather than evidence in legal sense’.

As of now, there seems to be no way out of the stalemate between India and Pakistan.