Friday, January 21, 2011

Tunisian revolution and its fallout

Hours after a group of stone-throwing youth braved frantic police beatings and confronted grey fumes of teargas outside the Interior Ministry building in Tunis, the unthinkable happened. As darkness thickened on January 14 and agonising uncertainty gripped the Tunisian capital, word was out that Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, well entrenched dictator for 23 years, had fled. For hours, Mr. Ben Ali's plane flew in the Mediterranean night sky, desperately seeking a place to land. France, the former colonial master, saw no benefit in obliging an ageing overused ex-dictator that it had once so assiduously feted. It refused landing permission. Finally, the harried former first family of Tunisia, known for its ostentatious ways, was rescued by the Saudis, who opened one of their numerous palaces in Jeddah to accommodate their uninvited and loveless guests.

But back in Tunisia, despite curfew and an Emergency, there was unbelievable relief and much joy on the streets. Mr. Ben Ali's seemingly unassailable tyranny, reinforced by thousands of personally loyal troops, had suddenly collapsed. Many felt that a political revolution of great significance had been accomplished. Overnight, large sections of the media pronounced that not only an era of authoritarianism in Tunisia had ended but also a new powerful contagion of democracy was fast spreading to annihilate dictators, big and small, across West Asia. That still might be the case but not necessarily so — at least not immediately.

Built on solid organisational foundations and helped by the old and new media alike, the Tunisian rebellion has indeed aroused the masses across the region. As Abdul Bari Atwan, editor of the Palestinian daily, Al Quds Al Arabi, put it: “The Arab nation is patient, but its patience is similar to that of a camel. When it is furious, a camel does not stop until it wreaks revenge on its persecutors. It seems that such a camel has now broken free from its ties.”

But before the anticipation that the long-fossilised dominos in the Arab world will, at some stage, begin to fall is realised, Tunisia needs to consolidate its own fledgling political revolution. The Tunisians are already facing their first major challenge. Within hours of Mr. Ben Ali's fall, the former Speaker Fuad Mebazza, elevated to the presidency, announced the formation of a stopgap national unity government, which was also meant to accommodate important Opposition figures. However, on the night of January 17, the new government, when it was unveiled, was found stuffed with the hated members of the old guard. The key Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Interior and Finance were once again bestowed on Mr. Ben Ali's cronies.

The regime opponents have therefore their first task cut out — ensuring that the remnants of the old guard no longer occupy high places of influence and are firmly marginalised. Some success in isolating them has already been achieved. Four Opposition figures, co-opted by members of the old guard to occupy Cabinet berths, resigned in the space of 24 hours. However new and serious challenges, which any nascent revolution is bound to encounter, remain. Having accomplished the exit of a hated dictator, how does the Tunisian revolution gather steam and fill the vacuum left by the fast fading old guard? Unlike the Iranian revolution, which had Ayatollah Khomeini as its leader as well as a blaring emblem, how does the Tunisian revolution advance in the absence of a charismatic and popular leader?

The huge challenge notwithstanding, the chances are that the Tunisian people may yet succeed. Unlike many other countries experiencing political turmoil, Tunisia consists of mostly educated people and is institutionally well organised. This is a factor that goes hugely in the favour of Tunisians. Thus the anti-regime campaign that was triggered by the December 17 self-immolation of a university graduate, who was driven to sell vegetables and then denied permission to do so, had labour unions, professional syndicates, including well-entrenched unions of students, teachers, lawyers and journalists as its pillars.

These organisations, partly helped by new communication tools of Facebook and Twitter, could take advantage of the socio-economic deprivations that the Tunisians have experienced for years. As a result, a critical social mass of protesters grew, eventually bringing down the regime.

Despite Tunisia's zooming growth rates, the growing army of the jobless fed significantly into the successful uprising. Many analysts are of the view that the official 14 per cent unemployment rate hardly reflects the true picture of desperation the youth have been experiencing. According to some estimates, nearly half the youth in the 15-24 age bracket are unemployed in some parts of the interior, the core of the Tunisian revolt. Wages are low in the job-creating euro-centric tourism and textile manufacturing hubs established in “free trade zones.” The hardships of ordinary people have become all the more acute for, under the diktat of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, government subsides have been either lowered or removed in the food and gasoline sectors.

With mass misery rising, heavy corruption centred round the President, the President's wife, Leila Trabelsi and her family emerged as an emotive symbol to ignite the rebellion. According to a WikiLeaks cable from the U.S. embassy in Tunis, the Ben Ali and Trabelsi families had cornered nearly 50 per cent of the country's wealth. It was, therefore, not surprising that when the crowds went on the rampage on January 15, they targeted business properties associated with the two nepotistic ruling clans. In the Tunis neighbourhood of Cite Habib, a villa belonging to Leila Trabelsi's nephew was set afire. Dealership showrooms, owned by Mr. Ben Ali's son-in-law Mohamed Sakher El Materi, of Kia, Fiat and Porsche vehicles were also burnt down. The next day, Imed Trabelsi — Ms. Trabelsi's nephew who had been stabbed — died in a Tunis military hospital, accounting for the first fatality in the ruling family in the aftermath of the month-long uprising.

As the Tunisian revolt gathers its second wind, the role of the military could become crucial. It is widely believed that Mr. Ben Ali's nearly 1,80,000-strong security police are at loggerheads with the regular army. In fact, unlike the police whom the protesters targeted, evident from the torching of a number of police stations, the military continues to remain a popular force. The army's neutrality and thus its clean popular image came into focus when it declined to fire at the protesters, causing Mr. Ben Ali to sack his Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Rashid Ammar.

Deep imprint

The uprising in Tunisia is leaving behind a deep imprint on the impoverished youth in the neighbouring countries. But can it spread fast and strongly enough to challenge the deeply entrenched regimes that have been built on the foundations of patronage, pillage and ruthless force, perpetrated by the grossest human rights violations?

The psychological impact of the Tunisian example in the region is palpable. In Algeria, four persons set themselves ablaze to protest their dire economic and political situation. Egypt, demographically the largest nation in the region and cultural heartbeat of the Arab world, has also witnessed a case of self-immolation.

Panic is also setting in among the regimes, though it would be erroneous to assume that its feckless dictators are considering throwing in the towel anytime soon. Nevertheless, a nervous Egyptian establishment has decided to rein in the prices of essentials like rice and sugar, and end the breadlines by not withholding wheat flour to bakeries for previous violations. The Egyptian daily, Al-Mesryoon, has reported that on the security front, instructions have been passed to prevent Opposition forces and movements from holding demonstrations or protests.

The Libyan dictator, Muammar Qadhafi, also appeared shaken by the dramatic developments on his doorstep. Soon after Mr. Ben Ali fled, he strongly disapproved of the Tunisian revolt. In a televised address, he chided the Tunisian people for being impatient. “You have suffered a great loss,” he said. “There is none better than Zine to govern Tunisia.”

A stunned Arab League — which has largely degenerated into a cabal of dictators and plutocrats — scampered to the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to collectively absorb the shock inflicted upon it by the commoners of Tunisia.

Despite the revulsion that it has generated, it would take much more than high-octane emotion to dislodge the odious dictatorships. Nevertheless, Egypt seems to echo loudest the radical voices of fundamental change that are resonating from the Tunisian street. Unlike many of the smaller countries, Egypt's battle-hardened core of the poor and the dispossessed are also its best organised.

Besides, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is a highly potent force, which might come into its own as part of the larger Egyptian opposition, especially as the iron-fisted regime of President Hosni Mubarak is soon likely to witness a major transition.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Northern Alliance- Taliban's fiercest opponent

The United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (UIF), or Northern Alliance, is a military-political umbrella organization formed shortly after the Taliban captured Kabul in 1996.

The anti-Taliban alliance comprised of ousted ethnic Tajik president, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud and their Jamiat-i-Islami forces, and General Abdul Rashid Dostum and the ethnic Uzbek Junbish-i-Milli party. Many of the alliance followers were part of the Mujahideen guerillas fighting the Soviets in 1979-1989.

Massoud was one of Northern Alliance's most powerful and visible leader, and had personally trained most of its troops. Massoud was killed in September 2001 by Al Qaeda militants reportedly posing as Saudi journalists.

Post 9/11 attacks, it garnered support from the US in the latter's War against Terror. After weeks of persistent bombing of Taliban hideouts by US missiles, the Alliance was finally able to recapture Kabul in November 2001.

The current troop strength of the Alliance is estimated to be anywhere between 10,000 to 12,000 and is believed to be receiving technical aid from Russia, Iran and most recently, the United States. The Alliance is recognized by the United Nations and the governments of other nations.

Mullah Mohammed Omar

Profile: Mullah Mohammed Omar, Founder leader of Taliban

Mullah Mohammed Omar, or Mullah Omar is the founder leader of Taliban of Afghanistan and was the de facto head of state from 1996-2001. He held the official title of the Head of the Supreme Council and that of Commander of the Faithful from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He is wanted by the US authorities for providing shelter to Osama bin Laden and his outfit, Al Qaeda.

Mullah Omar rose to power during the 1980s, when he led anti-Soviet Mujahideeen fighters to topple the Soviet regime in Afghanistan, losing his right eye in the ensuing battle.

He founded the Taliban movement in 1994, comprising of students from Islamic religious schools and Afghan refugees in Pakistan with the aim of restoring order to the lawless, post-Soviet Afghanistan.

He captured Kabul two years later without a fight, which many Afghans welcomed, believing it would mark an end to the civil war. Under Mullah Omar's rule, the Taliban enforced a strict interpretation of Islamic law, including banning women from going to educational institutions and work, persecuting homosexuals, and amputating the hands of thieves.

Following the 9/11 terror attack on the World Trade Centre in US, Washington led a campaign to oust the Taliban regime for sheltering Osama bin Laden, chief of Al Qaeda, and has since announced a $10m bounty on Mullah Omar's head.

The US-led invasion drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and consequently, forced Mullah Omar to go into hiding. Omar, who is in his late 40s, remains a reclusive figure, and is believed to be hiding in the mountainous areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Afghanistan in brief

Afghans vote in landmark presidential and provincial council elections on Thursday, but rampant insecurity and Taliban threats could affect the credibility of the polls.

These are some key facts about the country:

GEOGRAPHY: In the heart of central Asia, Afghanistan is bordered by the Islamic republics of Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and by China. It is an arid, landlocked country of 652,225 square kilometres (251,825 square miles), about 85 percent of which is mountainous.

POPULATION: Between 26 and 32 million inhabitants.

CAPITAL: Kabul.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS: Afghanistan is the fifth poorest country in the world, with 42 percent of the population living on less than 14 dollars a month.

More than one out of four children dies before the age of five, the third highest rate in the world after Sierra Leone and Angola, according to the UN.

About 1,600 of every 100,000 mothers die in childbirth or because of related complications, second only to Sierra Leone (UN).

Afghans have a life expectancy of 43 (UN).

Only 23 per cent of the adult population can read or write.

LANGUAGES: Pashtu and Dari -- both Persian dialects. At least 30 other languages and dialects are spoken.

RELIGION: Overwhelmingly Muslim with about 80 percent Sunni and 20 percent Shiite.

RECENT HISTORY: In 1973, King Mohammed Zahir Shah was ousted in a bloodless coup after 40 years of rule.

In April 1978, a pro-Soviet coup brought communists to power. The following year the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and spent the next decade fighting mujahedeen guerrillas backed by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

In February 1989, the Soviets withdrew and civil war ensued.

On September 27, 1996 a group known as the Taliban (students of religion), which formed partly in Pakistan with the tacit approval of Washington, took power in Kabul and enforced Sharia law.

The Taliban executed former communist president Mohammad Najibullah and allowed Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network to operate from the country.

On September 9, 2001 Ahmad Shah Masood, commander of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance force, was assassinated by two men posing as journalists and presumed to be members of Al-Qaeda.

On October 7, 2001 following the September 11 attacks on the United States, a US-led coalition launched a war to topple the Taliban for failing to surrender bin Laden. After six weeks, the Northern Alliance took Kabul and most of the country.

Under peace accords agreed in Bonn in December 2001, an interim administration was established under the leadership of Hamid Karzai.

On October 9, 2004 an estimated eight million Afghans voted for the first time to elect a president. Karzai was the winner.
There are currently around 95,000 Afghan soldiers fighting Taliban militants alongside more than 100,000 international soldiers, nearly two-thirds of them in the US military, in the volatile south.

ECONOMY: The destitute country is being rebuilt with international assistance.

Afghanistan produces about 93 percent of the world's opium, according to the UN, bringing in four billion dollars a year (2.82 billion euros), part of which goes to finance the Taliban.

Afghanistan has four percent of the world's reserves of coal, along with iron, copper and precious stones. Deposits of lead, zinc, tin, tungsten and caesium have yet to be tapped.

Understanding the Taliban menace

The recent Afghan elections were held under the shadow terror assaults from one of the world's most dreaded outfits, Taliban. They were hell bent to stop their nation's tentative attempt to uphold democracy. The outfit's grip has extended far beyond its land of birth. Though major western powers have deployed their best minds and resources, they have not been able to contain let alone overpower the top echelons of Taliban.

Who are these people who have the only super power in the world a bloody nose and have pushed their own nation in the vortex of violence? Why do they take refuge in religion to kill innocent men and women? http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/popup/060909/taliban-fighters-3.jpg

Who are Taliban?

'Taliban' is plural of Talib, a Pashto word meaning "student". It is a group of students that believes in a fundamentalist narrative of their religious teaching. They wrested control of Afghanistan's government in 1996 and were driven out of power in 2001 by the US led coalition army. Despite its ouster, it continues to wield considerable clout in Afghanistan's rural regions especially the Pakhtun dominated south and east provinces including Kandahar.

Known for ultra-orthodox views and rigid interpretations of Islamic law, the Taliban bars women from going to schools or from doing jobs. Public executions of homosexuals and petty offenders too are not very uncommon.

The Taliban was initially a group of mujahideens who fought against the Soviet invasion in the 1980s. The battleground proved a steppingstone for those who later rose in the ranks of Taliban. One such leader was Mullah Omar, the Commander-in Chief, of the anti-Soviet army.

After successfully defeating the Soviet army, Omar formed the Taliban, comprising of a group of Islamic students, to bring order to the lawless, post-war Afghan society. Initially, they gained wide support of the Afghans who had grown weary of the constant fighting between the warlords.

With the help of government defections, the Taliban emerged as a force in Afghan politics in 1994 in the midst of a civil war between forces in northern and southern Afghanistan. They captured the southern city of Kandahar without force and over the next two years, steadily expanded their influence over the rest of the country. In 1996, they captured Kabul, the Afghan capital, and took control of the national government.

Currently, the Taliban strength is estimated at around 45,000. In addition to this, the Taliban has been reportedly recruiting a lot of children and elderly men in order to fight its opponents, particularly the Northern Alliance.

SC/STs missing in pvt sector jobs: India Inc’s first caste census

The first-ever caste census of India Inc’s human resources has revealed that the proportion of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees in the private sector in some of the most industrialised states of the country hardly reflects their strength in the general population of those states.

The only exception is Tamil Nadu, which ranks number one in industrialisation and employment (by number of factories and persons, according to the Annual Survey of Industries 2008-09). SCs/STs account for almost 18 per cent of the industrial workforce and 20 per cent of the state’s population.

In sharp contrast are some of the other most industrialised states such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and West Bengal, which show a sharp mismatch between SCs/STs as a percentage of the total workforce in the private sector and as a percentage of the states’ total population.Living under the constant threat that the government may reserve jobs in the private sector as part of its inclusive growth agenda, the Confederation of Indian Industry, the country’s largest industry chamber, undertook a caste census of its members spread across 22 states and Union territories.

Covering 8,250 members of the CII, together employing 35 lakh people, it gives a flavour of the manpower mix in India Inc.

SCs/STs, for instance, make up 19.1 per cent of Maharashtra’s population but their share in the private sector human resources is only 5 per cent. In Gujarat and Karnataka, SCs/STs are just about 9 per cent of the staff strength, but account for 22 per cent and 23 per cent respectively of the state population. The survey, in a nutshell, reveals that companies in the least industrialised eastern region, where jobs are far and few, have the highest percentage of SC/ST employees. So, in Bihar — which ranks a distant 17 as per the Annual Survey of Industries 2008-09 — they together constitute a fourth of the total workforce, whereas they form just 16.6 per cent of the state’s total population. Chhattisgarh is a shade better, with more number of factories, but here too, half of the total workforce comprises SCs/STs, compared to them making up 43.4 per cent of the population.

The private sector in the western region comes as a surprise. Maharashtra, the hub of India Inc, is second only to Tamil Nadu in terms of industrialisation and employment. CII members in the state employ 20.72 lakh people in the state, almost 57 per cent of the total employee base considered in the survey by the chamber. But SC/ST proportion in the workforce is one-fourth of their percentage in the total population. In Madhya Pradesh that ranks 11 in industrialisation and workforce, SCs/STs account for 11 per cent of the private sector’s total staff strength, less than a third of their strength in the state’s population.States in south are an exception. The private sector in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala has on its rolls a remarkably high percentage of SCs/STs. Tamil Nadu — where the politically driven Dravidian movement significantly empowered the backward castes — is distinct because it also ranks number one in terms of the number of employees and factories. SCs/STs here account for 18 per cent of the workforce in CII’s member companies, and 20 per cent of the state’s population.In Kerala, for entirely different reasons such as 100 per cent literacy, the percentage of SCs/STs in the private sector is higher than their share in the population.

In the north, Delhi and Haryana buck the general trend, where the gap between SCs/STs at work and their representation in the population is significantly higher. The CII survey of the private sector’s manpower mix in Chandigarh, Punjab and Rajasthan shows that SC/ST proportion there is 25-50 per cent lower than their strength in the total population.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Sino-American rivalry: Failure & opportunity for Indian military diplomacy

As Sino-American rivalry acquires a new momentum to the east of India, New Delhi will come under pressure to modernise its armed forces and ramp up military diplomacy across Asia. But it is not clear if India's defence leadership can shed its current doctrine of masterly inactivity.

The naval muscle-flexing by Washington and Beijing in the last few weeks - in North-east and South-east Asia — reflects a rapid evolution of the strategic environment in our Asian neighbourhood.

The US and Chinese naval muscle-flexing in the waters of the Korean Peninsula and the visit of the US aircraft carrier George Washington to Vietnam last week point to a historic shift in Asia's international relations.

As old partners — China and the United States — try to stare down each other, new alliances are being forged between former adversaries — Vietnam and America. That this rearrangement has little do with ideology should draw some of our defence decision-makers out of the time warp they seem to be caught in. After all, China and Vietnam are among the few communist states left in the world.The current shift could be as consequential as that in the early 1970s. After more than two decades of war and conflict with Chinese communists and refusing to recognise the People's Republic as the legitimate representative of China, Washington reached out to Beijing in 1971. As Washington played the China card against the Soviet Union, the rest of Asia ended its hostility to Beijing and welcomed its integration into the international system.

The Sino-American partnership against Moscow survived the collapse of the Soviet Union at the turn of the 1990s. As the economic interdependence between the two deepened in the last decade, some American analysts made the case for an informal Sino-American political condominium called “G-2”. Beijing's new assertiveness on a range of issues, however, shattered these hopes.

China's muscular military and foreign policies have put it at odds with its neighbours. The smaller nations of Asia are coping with the rise of China through internal and external balancing.

Internal balancing is about building one's own military capabilities. According to the authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, arms purchases by the South-east Asian nations have doubled in the period of 2005-09 in comparision to the previous five year period.

External balancing involves combining one's own capabilities with those of a great power. Most of China's neighbours are turning to the United States for protection against a rising China. Japan and South Korea, who seemed to down play their traditional alliance with the United States in recent years, have in the last few months decided to re-embrace the United States. Many of them also want to expand their defence cooperation with India.

As America reaffirms its primacy in Asia, a rising China is unlikely to back down. Beijing, instead, will seek to step up its own military capabilities further vitiating the regional security environment.

Asia's new military dynamic means India can no longer afford its current laidback approach to military modernisation. Nor can New Delhi ignore the growing demands from its friends and partners to contribute to Asian security amidst the rise of China and the perceived decline of the United States.

Most of Asia sees India's emergence as a valuable factor in constructing a stable Asian order. New Delhi's problem has not been a shortage of money but the lack of strategic imagination. The absence of a purposeful defence leadership has emerged as the biggest constraint on India's ability to raise its strategic profile in Asia.