Really, Mr. Khurshid? Also, build apartments for our MPs

Our External Affairs Minister had a "courtesy meeting" with the visiting Pakistan Prime Minister, Raja Pervez. No terrorism-related issues were discussed as this was a personal visit. So why did the External Affairs Minister meet him? And this after the recent blasts in Hyderabad!

"Abhyaagatah swayam Vishnuh" is an ancient saying of this land. We believe in treating our guests as divine beings. Apparently the Pak PM prayed for peace in his country. We hope that Mr. Khurshid prayed for some sense to come into the Pakistani leadership - I do believe the people want friendly ties. It is the ruling class that needs to change.

Another thought came to my mind recently. The area in Delhi which is designated as Lutyens' Delhi is a property gold mine. Why should our "public representatives" live in luxurious bungalows? The present moment, when the economy is down, is the right time for our MPs to show their public service credentials. Imagine that we build a set of apartments, okay luxurious apartments for our MPs. Imagine what can be done with the land that can be freed up. There will be vociferous objections on the grounds of security. But seriously, if that is indeed the case our rulers' faith in our security forces will be apparent.

Another objection that would come up would be that this is a protected area heritage wise. Is this the heritage we want to preserve? If the government does not want to demolish the existing buildings let them designate them for different purposes. Throw these open to the public, develop these as parks, educational centres, science centres etc. The possibilities are many. What is needed is will.

Saddam Hussain and bin Laden deja vu!

Muammar Gaddafi's death reminds of two deaths in the not-so-distant past - those of Saddam Hussain and Osama bin Laden. Why? Gaddafi was hounded by his own people the way Saddam was by the Americans. He fled the same way and was discovered in a similar way. Laden was alive when the Americans caught up with him. What ensued is probably not very clear. Now the US is demanding details of how Gaddafi died. I think it is a little too late in the day to take someone else to task over moral turpitude.

Now I come to the question, is this revenge? Does revenge truly bring happiness? I do not know, neither do I hope to find out. But now I come to the larger question. Can we kill a human being even if the, well, justification is to bring about justice? I was (probably) a supporter of the death penalty in the rarest of the rare cases. In fact I had written in one of my previous posts about the delay in Afzal Guru's hanging. However I also have to ask myself, life is not something that we have given to our fellow human beings, can we take it from someone? I believe this argument was in fact put forward by Gandhi. Why do we have laws? Because way back in antiquity man agreed to co-habit in society, and for this society to survive and flourish certain ground rules need to be followed. So anyone who lives in society and does not follow its rules should be punished. Now does this extend to taking a person's life also?

The anguish felt by a murdered person's dear ones can only be understood by them, but I would like to know, in cases where the killer has been hanged (or electrocuted or whatever) has the victim's family found peace? Do they believe this is the only way to obtain justice? There are occasional examples - Graham Staines' (the Christian missionary who was burnt alive in Odisha) wife forgave her husband's killers and did not want to see them hanged. Murugan and Nalini's daughter has asked for something similar from the Gandhi family.  Obviously I am not saying that if the family okays it every murderer' sentence should also be commuted. I have the luxury right now of taking the middle path and leaving the question open, so I choose to do it. I just wish to raise a question which everyone should ask oneself.

Moving on, I loved Hillary Clinton's recent statement in Pakistan - you cannot raise snakes in your backyard and expect they will bite only your neighbours. Once again, I would like to say, look who's talking, but I still love the statement. The US is making some very angry noises publicly about Pakistan's continued support to Afghan extremists. It remains to be seen how much of this (and American benevolence to Pakistan) will remain once the US completes its pullout from Afghanistan. During the Cold War the US needed Pakistan. India was proclaimedly non-aligned, and was also close to the Soviet Union. Pakistan was closer to Afghanistan and not very friendly with India, to say the least. Thus the US needed Pakistan to counter Soviet influence in the region. Today however, the Soviet Union is no more and India is seen as a strategic ally on many fronts. China is seen as an emerging (some would say emerged) rival on the world stage, and Pakistan has been historically close to China. So the Americans might not see any compelling reason to placate Pakistan. Now that bin Laden is dead and due to the fact that he was found in Pakistan, the US can make all sorts of complaining noises against Pakistan.

So what emerges? US foreign policy is strictly dictated by self interest. Hence it would be in India's long-term interest to ensure that no country treats it as a friend in hyphenation with any other country, for as Pakistan is finding out the hard way today, such friends do not last.

As You Sow...

The British PM said in an interview to NDTV that Pakistan has to close terror camps on its soil to which Pakistan has reacted quite angrily saying its oft-repeated we-are-a-victim-too excuse.

It says it has done more than any nation has done. Question. Is it not in the present situation precisely because it has been a breeding ground for terrorism? There is an old saying that even if one takes care of a snake in its infancy it will grow up and bite its owner. This applies very well in this case also. Bush talked about the war on terror. What he did not mention was that this was something the US had created, this is a well known thing worldwide now. So lamenting that it is a victim when it has created the problem does not make sense.

The civilian government in Pakistan does not seem to have any control over either the ISI or the Army who actually have called the shots historically. Musharraf was busy with the Kargil invasion even as Nawaz Sharif was talking to AB Vajpayee. Till date to my knowledge nothing has happened to Musharraf for the coup against the civilian government too. That I believe was one of the conditions for him to cede power. Today he is apparently busy on the lecture circuit.

Apart from Kashmir and terrorism water has cropped up as an important issue today. Apparently Musharraf himself in a paper that he had submitted has predicted this would happen. Pakistan is blaming India for its water problems while it has been seen that it needs to manage its water properly before it can point a finger at India. It has also been blaming India for terror attacks on its soil. It has long maintained that insurgency in its Balochistan province is supported by India. There is prevailing denial mode where Pakistan refuses to accept responsibility for its problems and simply blames India for them. There has been a sense in India that Pakistan has always had to keep the Kashmir cauldron boiling so that its own domestic problems are not concentrated upon. I am sure the general, educated public in Pakistan (or at least some of them) understand the truth. But this will surely be a minority. And as they say, a good man's silence is worse than an evil person's activities.