What the (Western) Press Isn't Telling You...

...Aung San Suu Kyi.

Burman nationalist.

The (forever) darling of Western media, Nobel-peace prize laureate has been rather quiet about the violence in Burma's Rakhine state (though she did call it... wait for it... an "international tragedy").

No ASSK - its not an international tragedy.  Its a Burmese tragedy.

Why?  Because the Rohingya are Burmese (we're talking about citizenship, not nationality).

It seems that Aung San Suu Kyi, is pro-democracy. Is pro-free Burma.  But for the Burmans.

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh - I wonder what her position on other ethnic minorities is? Or is it because the Rohingya are predominantly Muslim? Maybe she's a Buddhist revivalist (perhaps she could borrow some pages from some of the Sinhala ultras?)?

More questions than answers at this point.

But, we can safely state that Western press wouldn't dare sully the good name of ASSK.  Especially when the people in question, who are being ethnically cleansed, are Muslim (because that would go against the whole Muslim-terrorist-thing).

Not Bangladeshis. Certainly not Bengalis. But Burmese Rohingya Muslims.

Asia has always been a fascinatingly communalist place. Perhaps we should bring back Arakan?  That won't make the Bangladeshis very happy though.  And it would seem that a federal-style democracy in Burma is a pipe-dream. Unless you're Burman.

Edit:

Not just a rant (Times of India).

The Geopolitical Importance of Bangladesh (Economics)

Like all things, the perceived importance of an object is dependent upon which chair one occupies. In other words, a glass of water is pretty important if you're thirsty, but not so when there's a knife to your throat.

Obviously, I'm a bit biased on the issue of how important Bangladesh is to any international actor (whether state, non-state, or supra-state organization).  For now (i.e. this post) I will limit my discussion to the importance of the Bangladesh to the relative position of the United States.

In some ways, this discussion should have occurred (i.e. I should have written it up) ages ago.  But I assumed that if you're reading this blog then you're already aware of the geopolitical importance of the region. But I shall be clearer now: this region is important to the U.S.

Let's begin with the (perhaps unexpected) topic of trade. In 2011, over 4.8 billion U.S. dollars worth of imports arrived from Bangladeshi producers much of it probably finished textiles (check the collar of your shirt, go ahead, I'll wait).  In terms of U.S. exports to Bangladesh this trade equaled over 1.1 billion U.S. dollars. Now before my American readers enter a protectionist fury over these numbers, let me urge you to reread some principles of macroeconomics textbooks.  To sum, international trade has the net effect of lower prices in the destination market (i.e. the U.S.) on those goods, say ready-made garments.  Now, this would be bad for RMG industrialists located in the U.S. but most are already located overseas and exporting the same (if not higher) quality goods for consumption back home at cheaper prices.  It would be worth pointing out that current political campaigns don't even bother explaining this, because no one cares.  And why not, clearly at some point Americans made their own clothes, but that was decades ago.  This change has been absorbed.

This near 6 billion U.S. dollar trade ballooned upwards in 2011 from about 300 million in the 1980s to just about 1 billion in the 1990s. A big reason for this was the increasing liberalization of the Bangladeshi economy (particularly after Zia's coup in the 1980s).  Comparatively, this trade volume is about medium its certainly smaller than China, India, or the United Kingdom (not to mention Canada and Mexico) but it is larger than say, Portugal (about 4 billion), Qatar (about 4 billion), the Czech Republic (about 5 billion), and is somewhat smaller than New Zealand (about 6 billion).

The strength of the trade relationship between the U.S. and Bangladesh should translate into sensitivity of the U.S. market to developments in the exporting sectors in Bangladesh (e.g. the RMG industry).  The Bangladeshi press recognizes the importance of the ready-made garment industry to the country's economy (if not the export relationship outright) and can be counted on to run stories of RMG workers striking, protesting, and rioting over better working conditions, increased wages, and other benefits (of which there are few, hence why the country is attractive to textile firms in the first place).

So far, Bangla Nation has not covered any of the unrest in Bangladesh's RMG sector.  But, to summarize this post, without the Bangladeshi government compromising with RMG workers to increase benefits, and perhaps bearing some of their cost while passing others to the corporations, the most important sector in the economy is at-risk.  While the U.S. cannot intervene directly in this internal discussion, it can provide developmental aid to assist the Bangladeshi economy in diversifying to not only promote other sectors for export but to also incrementally raise living standards in the country opening additional markets for high quality U.S. goods (as an alternative to cheap Chinese goods).

Source Note:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division

Assam, Sun Tzu, SMS, and the geography of conflict

The economic violence occurring in Assam (due to land disputes), though labelled ethnic (between Bodos and Bengalis, the latter who are also noted as Muslim), and the violence now gripping other urban areas in India where, according to reports, Muslim groups are targeting those who look "Northeastern."  Retaliatory strikes on a group for violence done elsewhere in the country is nothing new, but the geography of conflict is represented in the way these attacks were organized using SMS and MMS messaging services.  Mass text messaging had (has) such an important role in the organizing of riots targeting "northeasterners" in the cities that Delhi announced a 15-day ban on 18 August.

But that's not the end of the story, in addition to this revelation of almost instantaneous transmission of photo- and video-graphic evidence from conflict zones hundreds if not thousands of miles away (a concept which most governmental and military types have trouble grasping), some percentage of the photographs and videos distributed by text were fabricated.  And it seems that some of these "altered"/"morphed" photos and videos were uploaded in Pakistan.

Taken together this is a very dangerous development for internal social stability, particularly in free media societies. Perhaps Indian Muslims are more inclined to read and get news from Pakistani websites, but where does one draw the line between honest mistakes (uploading the wrong photo or typographical errors) and disinformation/propaganda, where does these altered photos and videos fall? It seems that Government of India considers them to be the latter.

I don't know the whole story (obviously) but one question is - are these websites run by or associated with the Government of Pakistan? If so, then the implications are even more significant - it would amount to officially sanctioned information warfare. Even if these websites are run and maintained by concerned citizens with no ties to the government the overall affect of the disinformation is the same in India - riots, killings, and an environment of instability.

Consider: if you enemy is too busy fighting himself, then you probably won't ever have to. And that, dear readers, is Sun Tzu at his finest.

So what does this mean for the geography of conflict? The ongoing Assam 2012 conflict case is instructive.  How do we bound the conflict? Where is it taking place? Certainly not only in Assam, it has now spread to urban areas throughout India. In addition, the number of actors has expanded and the nature of the conflict is even more complex. An economic conflict over land rights continues and now runs alongside urban riots targeting a racial community, basing its information (and its subsequent actions) on disinformation partially coming from an inimical neighbor. The Army is involved in the former, while the police (presumably) are involved in the latter. Then there is the media and political groups confounding the voting public with their own narratives for the conflict, calling it ethnic, religious, or because of immigration.

Thinking more deeply about this case, the basis for conflict seems fundamentally unchanged - there is still the Clausewitizian trinity of goverment, people, military. However, as I just demonstrated we sometimes forget the importance of the interlocking relationship between these three actors during conflicts. Americans forgot the lesson in Vietnam, when an astute enemy remembered and won. Democracies are probably most sensitive to the People portion of the trinity, take the public will in a democracy out of conflict and you win. The U.S. typically separates the military and civil side of conflict (much to its detriment) but as the Assam case clearly shows, you cannot.  The Assam conflict is much more than its roots, which is (again) LAND DISPUTES.

Assam: India's very own basket case

...and this has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigrants.  Really.

Some political parties (I'm looking at you BJP) are riding the long-dead horse of illegal immigration into the next election coming up in a few years (ask the Republicans in the U.S. how that works out).  For all the vitriol coming from some certain political parties you would think that India has a major illegal immigration problem.  In terms of comparison, the United States (population about 300 million) has approximately 11 million (not even 10% of the population) illegal immigrants from Mexico. India (population  over 1,000 million) recorded less than 100,000 persons (not even 1%) who could be considered illegal Bangladeshis over a three year period from 2009 to 2011 (says the Times of India).

So why blame illegal immigrants? The same reason Americans do, its politically expedient. Even some Congress politicians think they can garner favor with their constituents by blaming illegal immigrants.  I'm no expert on corruption, but I'm willing to be that if these politicians spent more time fixing broken economies with what money they do receive (rather than doling out favors to businesses and buying votes) the economic situation would actually improve.  Though I believe border management is largely a farce (seal the border! is a laughably stupid idea from, you guessed it, the BJP) meant to gather additional funds from Delhi, supporting local economies and cross-border trade would go a long way in righting the imbalance.

The continual harping on illegal Bangladeshi migrants (who just happen to also be Muslim) is also threatening to turn the ethnic violence narrative into a religious violence narrative as riots broke out in Mumbai (killing two and wounding scores more) following protests over the victimization of Muslims in Assam.  Copy cat attacks are now spreading to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and elsewhere in Maharashtra, forcing the government to issue an advisory to various states asking these governments actually protect the citizens of India. What a novel idea!

Despite this very worrying development, I wouldn't call the Assam violence a pogrom, yet, since the Chief Minister of Assam (finally) revealed a few weeks ago that the conflict occurred over land rights and admitted that there are "no Bangladeshis in the clash."  But hats off to the BJP and the media for its sensationalism and abhorrent oversimplification. One hopes that the Indian media will wake up and stop painting the conflict as ethnic or religious in nature, not to mention the xenophobic Hindutva/Bharatiya Janata Party (HJP perhaps?).  Framing the conflict in this way obscures politically relevant solutions (like land reform and anti-corruption campaigns) for waste-of-money-and-time proposals like sealing off the border (seriously, if the U.S. can't do it in a desert, India certainly can't do it a geography dominated by hills, greenery, and waterways.

Update (literally minutes after I post):

STOP CALLING IT ETHNIC VIOLENCE TIMES OF INDIA. And yes, it is unfortunate because no one has really decided to investigate what the real problem is. Its much easier to just blame sectarian violence, because if you actually confronted the real problem - one would realize that it takes a bit more work (and money) than extra policing.

Cultural Sub-Regions

Currently reading: The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier (1204-1760) by Prof. Richard M. Eaton. Absolutely fabulous read from a cultural and historical geography perspective.

As the title implies, it tracks the development of Islam in Bengal from the early Turkish conquest (with the requisite discussion of Buddhist/Hindu religious underpinnings).

Chapter 1 includes a discussion of the ancient Bengal sub-regions without a decent map to show how these coincide with modern boundaries.

So I bring to you gentle readers, a map!

The shaded districts are noted in Eaton's text. I included circles to drive home the idea that the "unshaded" districts are likely part of the same cultural region. So why bother with this?

No less than two cultural sub-regions were split by British partition activities. Varendra (i.e. North Bengal) and Vanga (i.e. Central and southwest Bengal).  As Eaton points out in his text, historical development (meaning population, economic, political, cultural) flowed from west to east in Bengal. Thus, the Bhagirathi-Hooghly Basin which could arguably be conceived of the heartland of Bengal is situated wholly within India.  Meanwhile, the second heartland (Vanga) got split.

Samatata and Harikela, according to Eaton's text, were initially underdeveloped and hardly "Bengali." Samatata had more in common with the Arakan states and looked to oceanic trade as its actual lifeline.

That continued violence occurs in both Vanga (think Khulna) and Varendra (think Rajshahi) we may hypothesize that the continued split in the cultural region is partly to blame.  Though analyzing current events using data from the 13th century is tenuous in some ways, we should pause to reflect. Perhaps this isn't purely coincidental?

Ethnic Violence in Assam?

Its typically very easy to fall into the narrative of the day, just a few short decades ago (I was even alive for this) the overarching narrative was West versus Soviet, democracy versus communism. It permeated everything, academia, politics, news, and the media. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the current conflict narrative has largely focused on ethnic violence. However, this narrative has a subplot since 2001 communal (that is, religious) differences has also taken a center stage in our (the public's) understanding of many conflicts.

This narrative is driven largely by our understanding of collective identities. What defines a person? Their place of birth? Their style of worship? Their sexual orientation? Their income? Truthfully, all and more of these questions play a role in the definition of "me." Depending on your geographic location, the acculturation and socialization process of "me" typically identifies which identities are most important for belonging. Of course, this also varies according to geographic scope. I may be a Tamil to Gujarati, but I'm a Christian Tamil who grew up in Pondicherry to a Hindu Tamil who grew up in Madurai, and I'm also a poor Christian Tamil from a bad neighborhood while my wealthy Christian Tamil went to private school on a yacht in the harbor. Conflicts, which involve groups of people, are often organized and presented as between static, monolithic communal identities.

While the human condition dictates that we simplify our world in order to better understand it, oversimplification causes us to miss the nuance of phenomena. In terms of violent conflicts, we forget that the actors involved maintain a variety of identities, some or all of which could motivate a conflict.

The Times of India and others have been reporting the ongoing violence in Assam over the last few days. Often the line taken is a combination of the ethnic and religious differences, in this case between the Bodo tribal community and Muslim Bengali immigrants (some of who may or may not be legal). According to the article the trouble started with the murder of a number of Bodos by unknown (at this point) miscreants. The Bodo community assumed it was Muslim Bengalis, a community which has been targeted for years. News outlets often attribute the violence to communal/ethnic tensions between the Bodos and Bengalis.

While difference in language and religious practice don't always foster good relations, the loss of employment and opportunities for the Bodos by immigrant Bengalis must surely rankle. However, perpetuating a pogrom is not a solution. The Times of India article alleges that the security forces in Assam, including the army, are content to sit back and not intervene in the targeting of Bengali or Bodo communities. This has created a situation in which almost 100,000 people are now internally displaced people. These people require government support and immediate assistance.

Both the government of Assam and of India need to continually acknowledge that this violence is beyond communal identities, it is rooted in the chronic underdevelopment of northeastern India. It is apparent that Bengalis will continue to immigrate (legally and otherwise) to Assam for work or simply to get into India and then to find work elsewhere. Border security will not help. The only solution is for the two national governments (India and Bangladesh) to agree to joint programs to address the economic and social underdevelopment of northern Bangladesh and Assam. Only then will immigration ease and "communal" tensions abate.

Mamata seeks to return West Bengal to feudal farming

The Times of India recently reported that Chief Minister (of the West Bengal government) Mamata Banerjee is seeking to limit the geographic areas where private businesses can purchase land for improvement. In other words, the government is seeking to limit industrialization to other areas that it designates. Her reasoning is that the areas to be excluded are "fertile" for, presumably, agricultural purposes and she is thus preventing a "food crisis." The areas designated for development include Purulia, Bankura, Birbhum, and West Midnapur.   Evidently, the government doesn't want these developments in North and South 24-Parganas, Howrah, Hooghly, and areas of Burdwan, Nadia, and Murshidabad.

Bangla Nation can agree to some of this but disagrees on the principle. The government should be allowed to  ameliorate the impact of private-funded industrialization, for instance, ensuring that tenants of the purchased land are properly compensated and placed in vocational programs (should they opt for it). The government should not wholesale prevent development for isolationist motives.

The Chief Minister incorrectly assumes that "fertile" agricultural land translates to preventing a food crisis. There may very well be a food crisis if the entire state of West Bengal was given to agriculture, some things are out of the government's control. In this case, the best defense against a food crisis is the enrichment and economic development of the population to ensure that they can purchase food that is available. The government's role, besides ensuring the population's enrichment and development, is to make sure food is available from any source whether it be from West Bengal, India, or abroad. And then there is the Maoist question.

I fully support the idea of driving development to "Maoist-infested" districts like Bankura, Purulia, and West Midnapur, however, development without security gains is utterly meaningless. Furthermore, what industrialist would want to invest in such a situation? Equitable economic and human development does need to come to these areas, but so does physical security. West Bengal's and the Centre's security forces should concentrate on carving out relative islands of prosperity that are attractive for development and industrialization programs from private firms. Once investment begins in a relative secure atmosphere, other human development projects can be introduced to ensure more healthcare and education for the residents. This approach not only deals effectively with the Maoist threat, but erodes that group's power base by showing the people who is really looking out for them.

Protecting the border with torture

Times of India is reporting (link) that the Supreme Court is seeking outside officers to investigate alleged human rights abuses among India's Border Security Force (BSF) on the West Bengal side of the Indo-Bangladesh border.

The alleged BSF actions include extra-judicial killings, torture, and rape.

Given the often tumultuous situation on the border between the two countries, we shouldn't be surprised if the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR, the Bangladesh border guards) engaged in their own acts of violence.

Bangla Nation has posted previously on questionable BSF (link) activities in Meghalaya state, India. Our opinion remains the same, the Indian state must act evenly and responsibly in all of its corners, whether its down the block from the Lok Sabha or in the ranges of Arunachal Pradesh.

Unfortunately these wanton acts of barbarity also reflect a growing undercurrent of Indian nationalism, which is typically on display on the Times of India comment boards. It is typically easy to dismiss such empty sentiments as "waste Bengal" but the BSF's activities should give the Centre pause.

A revealing study would entail releasing the information of those BSF soldiers who engages in these acts, where they were trained, and where they spent their formative years. Such a study might be illuminating.

Another journalist mucking up South Asia's geography

It seems that I always have the opportunity to write one post a year answering some journalist's analysis of South Asia.

This year's winner (maybe every year's winner...) is Robert Kaplan who's written an article on FP entitled "What's Wrong with Pakistan."

As usual, a journalist can appear to have done his or her research simply by providing a scant analysis of historical depth - in this case going back to the the days of Harappan. Yet for all the posturing they miss the big points. Kaplan completely neglects to mention that Bangladesh was once part of Pakistan. Perhaps he did forget since that would undermine his assumption that "Pakistan...does have geographical logic." I may have been asleep for my political geography class, but any child will tell you that attempting to govern land when another state lies in between for hundreds if not thousands of miles is ludicrous. That's not "geographically logical." In fact, there's no such thing as a geographically logical border.

At any rate, Kaplan betrays a well-known "western" bias in only examining the Ganges and Indus systems, why doesn't anyone talk about the Brahmaputra? Others have pointed out that the Bengal province of the Mughals and British Raj were the jewels in the crown, why else would the Mughals have expelled so much capital and manpower kicking out the Arakanese?

Second, Kaplan apparently wants to promote Islamophobia by insinuating the Muslims "conquered" and that Pakistan is the "very geographical and national embodiment of all the Muslim invasions." We should remember that Islam also spread peacefully throughout South Asia (and the world) through trade and contact with the Sufis. Considering that this phenomena typically predates military conquest (you can't conquer something if you a.) don't know about it or b.) don't know its value), Kaplan is presenting a VERY distorted view of history.

Third, Kaplan's whole Indian monsoon thesis/book is old hat. Enterprising readers are directed to "The Indian Ocean: Its Political, Economic, and Military Importance" (1972, Cottrell, Burrell, eds.)

To be continued...

Rohingyas are not foreigners!

Over the past few weeks, news services have been abuzz with reports covering the violence in Rakhine state, Burma/Myanmar. The violence has gotten so bad that the United Nations is pulling personnel out of the area. According to the reports, the violence has an ethno-religious character with perpetrators being from the predominantly Buddhist Rakhine community and the predominantly Muslim Rohingya community.

But that’s not the beginning of the story. This latest violence is a product of centuries of cleansing by the government in Burma/Myanmar. It started in the late 18th century with the Empire of Burma annexed the Kingdom of Arakan as the British Empire consolidated power elsewhere in the Subcontinent. The Kingdom of Arakan was populated primarily by people claiming to be Muslims and speakers of a dialect similar to Bengali. Like the Bengalis, the first local Muslims were converted from Hinduism or Buddhism centuries earlier when Arab traders plied the Indian Ocean. Upon conquering Arakan, Burma took as plunder Buddhist relics held, presumably, by the Rakhine community in the Muslim state. Note, I’m going from memory here, it is entirely plausible, even likely, that the ruling elite of Arakan were Buddhist while the people were predominantly Muslim. The issue of removing religious relics following conflict is a popular motif in Southeast Asian history. One of the northern Thai kingdoms “stole” a Lan Xang (now part of the state of Laos) Buddhist relic and eventually moved it to Bangkok. With Burma now in control of Arakan, the British passed the area to Burma open departing India in 1947; this would ostensibly restore the area to its pre-colonization status. Except that Arakan was not a target for colonization.

According to scores of Rohingya refugees, the government of Burma/Myanmar has actively sought to change the demographics of former Arakan. Using such tactics as forced relocation, mass rapes, threats of violence, and other coercive measures, the government of Burma/Myanmar has sought over the last several decades to remove the Muslim population from Arakan province (now renamed Rakhine province) in favor of the Buddhist community. In addition, the government has also sought to disavow and remove Muslims and Rohingya from the historical mosaic of Burma. This is manifested in near constant assertions by the government that Rohingyas are foreigners from Bangladesh and thus, illegal in Burma.

Obviously, this is patently false but serves to further the government’s goal of fabricating a Buddhist state. The onus should be on Bangladesh to provide for refugees but the UN and international community should be pressuring the government in Burma/Myanmar to treat all citizens equally.

Jamaat on Pakistan's side (in 1971)

Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh Chittagong leader:

"Jamaat was in the Pakistan's side during the liberation war as then the country was Pakistan." (April 2010, Daily Star) What additional proof do voters need?

Or is it that really isn't a Bangladesh or a Bangladeshi. There is only Muslim Bengalis who really do wish to be united under a pan-Muslim state with Pakistan?

Because that worked out so well for over a million Bengalis who wanted to speak Bangla.

Pick your lie

Culture or counter-culture. "Conservative" or "Liberal." "Left" or "Right."

Ideological.

This is the operative word of the last few millennia. Hordes of the unthinking masses embrace the labels and the veneer of the ideas that form their basis.

Of course, they're not propagated out of thin air. It takes an ideologue. Arundhati Roy is one.

I meant to write this post when she published her long article "Walking with the Comrades" in March 2010. Slate magazine wrote another article earlier this month, which has finally moved me to respond.

While I admit that she partly serves a purpose, calling attention to the failures of governments in that there always winners and losers. I emphasize that every government system will generate winners and losers because humans are inherently selfish. Every governing official, every elite, every middle-class landowner, every voting person, every non-voting person is looking out for themselves and, potentially, their kin. In a democracy there is a least the opportunity of turning over the government to allow other parties, groups of citizens, to take from the war chest. In a one-party authoritarian system there is no democratic turnover. Ms. Roy targets her own government of India; the government of the populous democracy on the planet.

She doesn't serve her purpose very well as her writing is biased and bereft of introspection and critical self-assessment.

Doing a find of the word "why" in the hope of finding one reference of "Why would they allow me into their midst" turns up nothing. Ms. Roy never pauses to question herself, her actions, her thoughts, or those of her hosts. She is a willing traveler, sheep to the slaughter. She gallantly takes up a cause that others have called "David and Goliath" and "Big Government v. little guys."

It sells books, it sells articles, and it sells dollar per word. Exploitation at its finest.

Ms. Roy can galavant around the forest seeking out the noble savages armed with AK-47s, knowing she will return to her "tasteful, spacious apartment... in one of New Delhi's most affluent neighborhoods... lined with books, and a large flat-screen TV... [complete with] domestic help." Excuse me?

Does the woman who discusses "the biggest landlord of all, the Forest Department" and recounts the deaths of "a few of the most notorious landlords" in "true People's War style," really have servants?

In the article Ms. Roy has the gall to say that she wanted to stay in the forest, "Let me stay here." I bet she didn't say, "let me stay, you take my apartment, my books my TV, my servants, and my mangoes."

What is happening in the forests of eastern and central India is much more complicated and nuanced then Arundhati would care to admit. Its not just tribal versus government. Its a fight of exploitation, who has the right to exploit these poor? A democratically-elected government? Or a gang of thugs proclaiming to be the saviors of the poor and underprivileged?

Of course, not everyone in the gang is out for exploitation. Not everyone in the government, or the corporations is corrupt. Not every tribal is poor, and not every Naxalite is bent on murder and destruction. But this is far to nuanced for Arundhati who would prefer to present the story and her argument in black and white - the better to rally support for the cause.

Unfortunately, all she seems to accomplish is alienate those who would support her - the swing class, the middle class with her hypocrisy and constant refrain of othering the culture.

In othering the mainstream, she has created her own other, her own counter-culture. And its just as bad as the class she seeks to demonize.

Post-Post Edit:

Study finds that the one-party state that is China is unequal in terms of wealth distribution between rural and poor (BBC). What would Arundhati say about that?

It was only a matter of time...

... before Pakistan, or Pakistan's ruling elite, betrayed its true colors.

The friends one keeps is generally a good indicator of the person. The same is doubly true of states and their ruling regimes. Its not a coincidence that autocrats like Hugo Chavez regularly praises the Castros in Cuba or Ahmadinejad in Iran. Democracies, for their part, run together as well, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for one.

Thus, the United States' backing of a country like Pakistan (to name but one) has always been of peculiar interest to me. A country always one step away from a return to military dictatorship. There are others to be sure, but none where the U.S. has an active conflict a neighboring country.

The "partnership" (if it can be called that), to my understanding, started during the Cold War as the world divided between the right-leaning countries and left-leaning countries (although supposedly between multi-party democracies and one-party autocracies, the truth is always so much more complicated). Pakistan had become a partner/client of the United States to good effect in the 1980s when it became a conduit for support for mujahid rebels fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. By then it seemed an unshakable bond, though one forged not by two democracies but by a democracy and a military.

For its part, India, though officially neutral (the Non-Aligned Movement), had typically been leaning towards the Soviet Union and dominated by a succession of elites associated with the earlier independence movement.

Then there's China, once an erstwhile supporter of the Soviet Union by the 1980s it had struck its own path. Its political system needs no introduction, a one-party state not emphasizing workers' communism but the righteousness of the Nation (who happen to be composed of workers among others).

Fast forward to the post-11 September 2001 world. China has been on a steady rise, much to India's (and the Southeast Asian nations) chagrin. India is beginning to rise too. China recognizing this and recognizing the importance of geography, most certainly wants to constrain India's growth. Partnership with Bangladesh. Partnership with Pakistan? Oh yes, as the Washington Post finds (Pakistan courts China as relations with U.S. grow strained).

The bin Laden raid earlier this year has become a rallying call for anti-Americanism in Pakistan. Ruling elites have opportunistically harnessed this sentiment and the infringement upon Pakistan's sovereignty to try and partner Pakistan with China. But why?

First, the U.S. routinely makes noise about the Pakistani's state's corruption, lack of political will in dealing with Islamist extremism, and lack of true democracy. China has no qualms about these items, invest in the Sudan, Burma, and other states of a less than savory nature. To be sure, the U.S. invests in Saudi Arabia but at least there's noise about it (at least an acknowledgment).

Second, the Pakistani government recognizes the warming ties between the U.S. and India. Not least of which is the U.S.-India Nuclear deal (Council on Foreign Relations). Not wanting to be left in the lurch, the Pakistani government is the first out of the bed and courting the one-party, non-democratic, Han nationalist economic behemoth that is China.

Despite the weariness of China's officialdom with Pakistan, I doubt it will last long. The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan has clearly deteriorated, few in the U.S. would be sad to see Pakistan go. India will be happy to see the one-sided partnership end, especially if it believes the U.S. will continue to warm.

However, the long-term implications of a China-Pakistan partnership is significant for both India and the United States. The inevitable return of law and order to Pakistan, whether under a democracy, or more likely a Islamist-military autocracy, would pave the way for safe Chinese investment along the Karakoram highway and from there further access to the Indian Ocean. And from there, the natural resources that it and India, both desperately crave in the Middle East and East Africa.

By developing other "coaling stations," in the Alfred Thayer Mahan sense of the word, in Burma or Bangladesh and China gains the ability to surround the Subcontinent.

Sheikh Hasina... not so secular.

The Awami League needs new leadership.

Today, Daily Star reported on a proposal by the Awami League on amending Bangladesh's Constitution.

From a religio-political standpoint, the proposal is a disaster. There is no roll back of religion in politics, there is no roll back of Islamization. What there is - a tacit acceptance of the status quo, an acquiescence to the eventual destiny of Bangladesh. That of Iran.

The Awami League, a supposedly secularist political party, continues to pander to the Islamist bloc with the eventual outcome that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party will go one step further, farther to turn Bangladesh into a theocracy.

The Awami League's proposal includes: keeping Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim, in the Preamble of the Constitution. This was inserted by a dictator, if I'm not mistaken, General Ziaur Rahman (whose wife, incidentally, leads the BNP) and is a statement of a religion on a political social contract. In the name of God... and so on.

The Awami League would keep Islam as the state religion. An attempt by yet another dictator to legitimize his illegal rule, this time General HM Ershad. Although Hasina seems to find the amendment dubious (since no one popularly elected voted for it), she says that people are attached to religion and its been a long time since enactment (since 1988). This similar to saying that Apartheid may have well continued in South Africa because people are attached to race and its just been a fact of life. Ridiculous.

Hasina does say that other religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity will "enjoy equal rights." But just won't be a state religion. I may need to reexamine the word "equality."

In terms of religion-based parties, originally illegal but then made legal by a dictator (Zia), the Awami League wants to amend the law so that these parties wouldn't face a ban.

So Bangladesh continues to stumble down the road of Islamization. I suppose the next stop will be the Supreme Court declaring that the issuance of fatwa is exactly the same as a popularly promulgated law.

Source: The Daily Star, The Daily Star 2

The simplest comment betrays great wisdom.

Remember the terrorist Siddiqul Islam? You know the - JMB/JMJB guy. He was often called "Bangla Bhai" (brother of Bengal, Bengali brother, friend of Bengal, and so on). In a letter to the Daily Star's editor, somewhat asked that he not be referred to as such: "How can we call a terrorist by our country name?"

Very good point. Sure, we all knew him as such, but to have continually referred to in the media and official discourse as "Bangla Bhai"... almost as if he was a friend with a bad streak. In a way, calling him a friend or brother of the country legitimizes his heinous activities which included murder. Would anyone dream of calling a Razakar "Bangla Bhai"? Of course not.

The Daily Star, 27 January 2006

Just unfortunate

When affiliates of the ruling party, a supposedly "secularist" ruling political party at that, burn down a religious site (and a home besides) of minority religious community members. Perhaps one day, Bangladeshis will decide that Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or whatever people are Bangladeshis. And that the vested property law is utterly hateful and deplorable. More likely, vested property will go away when all of the religious and ethnic minorities have as well.

That this happened just kilometers away from the capital, in Manikganj, is just shameful and unfortunate.

League men burn down temple, vandalise houses - The Daily Star, 5 April 2011

The Case for an American-Indian Alliance

It is often said that you could judge a person by the company he or she keeps. For a nation-state, that company would probably be the alliances, security cooperation agreements, and defense pacts with other nation-states. While it is not time for the U.S. to abandon some of its allies, it is time for the U.S. to at least reevaluate its friends and other, new potential partners.

Conventional wisdom, particularly during the Cold War, held that the U.S.'s natural allies were other democracies. This is the line of thinking that produced the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and the entrance of the U.S. into the Vietnam War. For a map of other U.S. military relations (as of 2007) see Wikipedia (link). The map depicts an odd-assortment of bedfellows for the U.S., such as Egypt, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Argentina.

Obviously, the argument that the U.S. is allied to multi-party democracies is an illusion. There are not many who would argue the Egypt is a democracy since President Mubarak has been in that post since the 1980s. Pakistan is less a democracy and more of a rotating feudal oligarchy based on lineage much like the Philippines. But beyond the performance of the actual institutions that can be overlooked, to a certain extent, is the actual character of the democracy.

For me, a crucial factor for my government is its inclusiveness. What makes the U.S. powerful is not that we spend billions on defense (though it helps) nor that our economy makes up some large percentage of the global market (also helps), but rather it is the inclusive nature of the U.S. polity. Anyone can be an "American" as long as you uphold the ideals in the U.S. constitution. Thus, the American nation is not based on ethnicity, religion, or race. Rather, it is based on an ideal of government. Or at least, this is how its supposed to be groups like the Tea Party are straying dangerously close to defining the American nation in racial terms.

Europe has been trending this way for some time now. Unfortunately, many of these states are our allies in NATO or bilaterally. In the United Kingdom, there is the British National Party, an exclusive club for white Britishers that has representation in Parliament and the European Parliament. The existence of these parties is less a problem than the proclivities among the populace that allow these parties to gain representation on the national stage. True, such organizations have always existed but they were always considered far-right, extreme, outside the mainstream debate. As far-right Europe draws on the fears produced from increased migration from Africa and Asia (read: not white) population, these parties and sentiments are being tolerated by conservative parties. In essence, conservative politics is making room for a discussion on what constitutes an Englishman, Frenchman, or German. To the far right in Europe, the "nation" is ethnically and racially-based.

This notion is simply incompatible with the U.S. whose polity thrives on the multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious, and the multi-gender characteristics of the population. While the line between non-interference in domestic politics and upholding American ideals is thin - more can be done to promote the notion of multinational democracy. One thing is to build partnerships with those democracies who do emphasize the multinational nature of their society.

A useful place to start would be India. Since 1947, India's existence has depended on inclusion. Despite the Partition, a large number of Muslims are still Indian citizens. Besides Islam, India is home to a number of other external and internal religions, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism. Besides religion, the other primary determinant among people is language of India has well over 1,000. Without a commitment to pluralism and the promise of representation promised in the Constitution India would cease to exist.

Centripetal forces are present in India, just as in the U.S. Unequal development has seen India's resources concentrated in the northwestern areas of the country, Punjab and Gujarat. Similarly, U.S. resources are concentrated in the coasts, primarily the Atlantic and Pacific. In attempting to institute a national language in Hindi, India created an uproar in its southern states who were weary of northern linguistic imperialism. The U.S. could borrow this lesson in the occasional discussions of an English-only policy. Where the states markedly differ is in the internal security threat. India's "gravest" threat (according to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh) are the Naxalites/Maoists. Solving a number of local issues in Naxalite areas, good governance, equal representation, and a reduction in corruption would go a long way to bring many Naxalite recruits back into the mainstream discussion.

The U.S. should pay attention to the internal discussions that its allies and partners are having on the issue of the national character. The far-right's demand for a racial or ethnically-centered nation-state is anachronistic and dangerous. Most importantly, it is contrary to U.S. values. While disregarding longtime allies and commitments is not advisable at this stage, maintaining awareness of the situation is important. Rather, the U.S. should look to cultivate new partnerships with other pluralistic democracies.

America, Land of the...?

The title is a question because the United States seems to be a bit confused on what it wants to be.

I always grew up thinking that the U.S. was the Land of the Free. To me, free meant the opportunity to do as one pleased (of course, I was 5 when I stepped foot here so I was free as much as my mum allowed me to be). My interpretation of this phrase means that any citizen can do and say as he or she pleases so long as it doesn't violate local laws. That includes freedom to worship (so build the Park 51 mosque).

Unfortunately, it also means that people are free to hate. Irrational hatred has and always will exist, but 2010 is different. Now we have Twitter, Blogger, and a variety of other sites connecting us to potential (mis)information. In addition, a large percentage of the U.S. population probably has regular access to information on the Internet. So, all of a sudden, a fringe group that may enjoy the backing of 50 individuals could gain access to millions. Suddenly, a fringe group's activities are a rallying point for irrational hatred.

Enter the Dove World Outreach Center a 50-member (Evangelical) church in Gainesville, Flordia. They plan to burn Korans on 11 September. Thereby perpetuating the Islamophobia griping some, most?, of this country - where people somehow believe the actions of less than 20 persons spoke for a religion of well over a billion people.

On a blog post entitled "Ten Reasons to Burn a Koran," the author simply mixes personal assessment with a cursory discussion of the religion. "Reason" 9 reads "Deep in the Islamic teaching and culture is the irrational fear and loathing of the West." Those 50 members must have logged some significant frequent flier miles canvassing the entire world's Muslim population. Or they didn't, perhaps they were talking about themselves and got the order mixed up?

Besides stirring the pot of irrational hatred and extremism, the Dove World Outreach Center is getting some free publicity. What better way to recruit new members than with a controversial campaign? But at what cost?

GEN Petraeus in Afghanistan thinks that the Dove Center's recruitment drive is going to cost military lives and has condemned the event. I'm guessing the far-right will only pay lip service to its concern for the men and women in the military who may become causalities. If anything, causalities will just be held up as martyrs and proof that they were right all along.

As a side note, and a lead-up for the next post. Why is nobody discussing the growing numbers of converts to Islam among long-established populations in the U.S.? I get the sense that there's been more than a few conversions to Islam. Does this mean that these people are also enemies of the far-right? Do they no longer have the right to worship wherever they choose, be it in Gainesville, FL or at Park 51 in New York City, NY?

Just build the NYC cultural center and mosque

Any person or group can build anything, anywhere (within the law of city ordinances).

Unlike Charles Krauthammer, I don't believe that the actions of al-Qaeda crazies speak for the majority of Muslims. The actions of al-Qaeda don't even speak for those Muslims who may considered themselves Islamist. In fact, what al-Qaeda does speak for is a crazed band of murderers who are holding a Holy Book in one hand and a weapon in the other. That so many people are willing to, and allowing themselves to, associate al-Qaeda with over a billion other people is dumbfounding.

The Islamophobia gripping this country (as well as Western Europe) is getting a bit out of hand. France is instituting dress codes (not to mention deporting Roma), and the United Kingdom is having a fantastic time installing security cameras in predominately Muslim neighborhoods. According to polls, 60 to 70 percent of people in the United States disagree with building the cultural center-cum-mosque in NYC (this was in a Washington Post Metro Express paper on 20 August).

And do you know what else? There already is a mosque within a half mile (between 4 and 5 blocks) from the former site of the World Trade Center. Masjid Manhattan (masjid = mosque in Arabic) has been in the area since 1970. Of course, I don't know if they've occupied the same space, but I'm sure a tax revenue database search will clear that up. On a side note, it's sad that the masjid finds it necessary to state that it is not affiliated with any organization "to build anything new in the area of downtown Manhattan." Further, it's sad that they must also state two paragraph later that they, and their members, "condemn any type of terrorist acts." Perhaps the websites of catholic churches should carry similar disclaimers; that their resident priests are not pedophiles (St. Patrick's in D.C. does not). Or perhaps members of Congress should carry disclaimers stating that they are ethical).

Which brings me to my last point: this is an election year, congressional midterms. So rather than proposing new plans for growing jobs AND the economy, or for "winning" Afghanistan, nationalist strategists (both Democrat and Republican) would rather make electoral issues based on victimizing "the others." Between "illegals" and "Muslims," the nationalists have plenty to gripe about.

An Open Letter to Joel Stein

Joel,

Your recent article (Time magazine: My Own Private India) is inflammatory and bigoted. Your article is peppered with racist and ethnocentric generalizations: "for a while we assumed all Indians were genuises," "I question just how good our schools were if 'dot heads' was the best racist insult we could come up with for a group of people whose gods have multiple arms and an elephant nose," and "disbelief that anyone can eat food that spicy."

It is less a musing or remembrance of some small town lost to history and more of a targeted attack vilifying a minority (though visible) community. Some quick facts:

1. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Edison (Census Designated Place) NJ had a population of 88,680 in 1990. Of that 70,492 (79.5%) claimed to be of the "White" race. 12,166 (13.7%) claimed to be of the "Asian" race. Of these Asians, 6,076 (6.8%) claimed to be "Asian Indian." In the 1990 Census there were more persons claiming to be "Asian Indian" than persons claiming to be "Black." In fact, "Indians" were the largest minority in Edison, NJ in the 1980s. (1990 Decennial Census)
2. Fast forward a decade. The population of Edison CDP is now 97,687. Persons claiming to be "White" are now 58,116 (but still the majority, 59.5%). "Asians" now number 28,425 persons (29.1%). Persons claiming to be "Asian Indian" have more than doubled to 16,898 (17.3%). Of note, persons claiming to be "Black" numbered 6,728 and "Chinese" numbered 5,589 (up from 2,561 in 1990). (2000 Decennial Census)
3. Now, into the present, or at least 2006 through 2008. According to the American Community Survey's 3-year estimates there are 105,050 persons in Edison CDP (give or take about 4,000). The population claiming to be "White" has continued to fall 50,960 (but still the most prevalent, 48.5%). Those claiming to be "Asian" number 38,004 (36.2%). Of those, 26,954 persons (25.7%) claim to be "Asian Indian," 10,959 claim to be "Black," and 6,093 claim to be "Chinese." (2006-2008 Decennial Census)

The point is that the "mostly white suburban town" that you left is still mostly "White." The Indian and Indian-American community is less than half of the township's total population. Presenting the story as only one of "immigration" is only a half-truth. Yes, "Asians" have immigrated, but "Whites" have also left, in large numbers. Nonetheless, the Indian and Indian-American communities are visible.

And they community should be visible. The story of the Indian and Indian-American communities does not start in 1965. It starts a century earlier in 1865, when the "Hawaiian Board of Immigration sends labor agent William Hillebrand to China to recruit laborers, instructing him to proceed from China to the East Indies... twenty years later, Asian Indians suddenly began appearing in the lumber towns of Washington and the agricultural fields of California. By 1920, some sixty-four hundred had entered the United States." (Takaki, Strangers from a Different Shore, 294)

Perhaps, Joel, you would find a friend in Samuel Gompers whose statues mocks me on my way to work "Sixty years' contact with the Chinese, and twenty-five years' experience with the Japanese and two or three years' acquaintance with Hindus should be sufficient to convince any ordinarily intelligent person that they have no standards... by which a Caucasian may judge them" he said, in 1908. (Takaki, 296)

Perhaps, Joel, your inspiration came from a 1910 Forum magazine article by Herman Scheffauer who wrote "this time the chimera is not the saturnine, almond-eyed mask, the shaven head, the snaky pig-tail of the multitudinous Chinese, nor the close-cropped bullet-heads of the suave and smiling Japanese, but a face of finer features, rising, turbaned out of the Pacific and bringing a new and anxious question... [a] Hindoo invasion [of this] dark and mystic race." (Takaki, 297)

Finally, Joel, your xenophobic and reactionary rambling has no place in the immigration debate, much less in a serious discussion of integration and citizenship. Your last paragraph is most perplexing of all, in one fell swoop, you denigrate and marginalize two distinct communities. Your immutable view of "culture" belongs to an earlier century, what you fail to see is that Edison has changed - but you have not. You acknowledge that Chelsea has changed, yet you seem unable to cope with the demographic and geographic change of your hometown.

The worst part, Joel, is that you do not acknowledge the duality, the hyphenation, of this community. It is not simply "Indian," although many will claim it to be as such, it is something new (yes, more new than 1885). It is an Indian-American community with links to India and roots in the U.S. Our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters fight, and have probably died, in the military that allows you to publish such articles.