Gurumurthy Kalyanaram on a new beginning in Russia

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - The recent visible and vibrant, large and peaceful protests in Russia against alleged fraud in the parliamentary elections on December 4th has surprised everyone. There was no hint of these protests. Again, social media were the platform for mass communication. There were other surprising elements: the protesters, while peaceful and friendly, were pretty harsh on Vladmir Putin; the Russian Television presented the protests in a neutral fashion including the harsh comments of thr protesters; the protesters and the police were friendly. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit

Congratulations to Russian authorities including Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the Russian media and the Russian citizenry for such democratic and peaceful expression of discontent and dissatisfaction.

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram on the Democratic Yearnings in the Middle-East

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - The Middle-East political revolution began in Tunisia, then to Egypt, Libya and now to Syria.

The wave of freedom quest in the Middle-East is too evident and obvious – we have called it the Arab Spring. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit

However, now the Arab Spring appears to be clouded. Tunisia recently elected its constituent assembly. A general election under the new constitution is expected to be held in late 2012 or early 2013.

The winners in the constituent assembly are candidates affiliated to Islamist party, Nahda, which is led by Rachid Ghannouchi. Nahda secured 41 percent of the assembly seats. The new prime minister is Hamadi Jebali of the Islamist party.

The American Clean Energy Act, Global Warming and the Position of China and India

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey) was recently approved (narrowly) by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

There are several provisions of the bill -- some are bold and others modest, some progressive and others status quoist. With respect to Global Warming and Carbon emission reduction, the Act mandates, "Starting in 2012, ACES establishes annual tonnage limits on emissions of carbon and other global warming pollutants from large U.S. sources like electric utilities and oil refiners. Under these limits, carbon pollution from large sources must be reduced by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. To achieve these limits, ACES establishes a system of tradable permits called “emission allowances” modeled after the successful Clean Air Act program to prevent acid rain. This market-based approach provides economic incentives for industry to reduce carbon emissions at the lowest cost to the economy."

So, per ACES Act, the United States is using 2005 as the benchmark, and hoping to reduce the carbon emissions by about 17 percent in 2020. 

The politics of India-US Nuclear agreement

Thus far, the political alignments in India in the so-called 123 agreement (India-US Nuclear agreement) have been clear.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Congress party has always seen the Nuclear agreement as strategically beneficial to India (after all, it was Manmohan Singh who negotiated the agreement with President Bush, and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is obviously now persuaded that Manmohan Singh's analyses is quite correct.) They do so now with greater urgency and vehemence. The political and governing allies of Congress party such as DMK, NCP, RLD and others have also been persuaded that the Nuclear agreement is good for India.

The communist parties objected to the 123 agreement largely on the basis of Hyde Amendment which includes great uncertainty for ever because the President of the United states has to certify every year about India's compliance with respect to clear segregation of military and civilian nuclear programs in India. Here is the catch. Let us, say, India relying on the certitude of the 123 agreement goes on to build dozens of nuclear plants for industrial and domestic power. Let us, again say, some 30 years from now some President of the United States refuses to certify to the U.S. Congress India's compliance with the 123 agreement. What will happen? Nuclear technology and fuel supply to India will come to a grinding halt. What does India do then? That's the questions and the catch.

In any case, may be the communists have not been hopeful but they are at least analytical.

BJP and its allies have, most predictably, opposed the 123 agreement but not necessarily with much force of analyses.

So that has brought the Indian government in a predicament. Without the communists' support, the government could collapse.

Then came the savior in the form of Samajwadi Party with about 39 members of parliament. However, the Samajwadi Party developed cold feet when its political allies like Telugu Desam put political pressure. Then this grouping -- Samajwadi party and Telugu Desam and other parties -- announced that they will seek the expert counsel of former President Abdul Kalam.

Per newspaper reports, Abdul Kalam has affirmed that the nuclear agreement was beneficial for the country. So far, so good. But Kalam also purportedly advised that, “India can scrap nuclear deal anytime if warranted." Okay but what will that do? If 30 years from now, India feels harassed and wants to scrap the deal, where will the nuclear fuel and technology come from?

It does not matter who might abrogate the deal -- India or the U.S. -- the uncertainty and potential catch caused by the Hyde Amendment. It is that simple.

And finally, this -- the communist parties and the Prime Mininster are accusing each other of less-than-honest dialogue and conversation. The latest salvo comes from the Prime Minister, and here is the Prime Minister's chronology of events as reported in the media.

"Singh had concluded in August last year that the CPI(M)’s Prakash Karat was uninterested in the merits of the nuclear deal, that his opposition was ideological and not rational. When the actual nuclear text, the so-called 123 agreement, was being negotiated, Singh had ordered National Security Adviser MK Narayanan and atomic energy czar Anil Kakodkar to ensure all the nine demands regarding the deal raised by Sitaram Yechury in Parliament in 2007 were addressed. When the 123 agreement was finalized in late July last year, Singh called in leaders of both the BJP and the Left and showed them the text. The BJP leaders made no complaints. One of them even praised the Indian negotiators. The Left leaders only said they would study the text. Singh was watching TV several days later, and saw Karat demand the Congress “press the pause button” on the deal. At this point, the PM concluded that the Left would never be won over, though he did make one appeal to the Bengal communists in an interview to a Kolkata daily."

Myanamar: There has to be immediate change in governace

The dire situations in cyclone-battered Myanmar and quake-tossed southwestern China have drawn out the world -- there has been a huge outpouring of sympathy (emotional giving) and financial support (monetary giving) to the victims of these disasters.

What makes human beings give -- emotionally and monetarily? Scientists tell us that we are hard-wired to help others, to drop everything in crisis situations. It has to be a crisis but it also has to a new and a sharp situation.

Note that even crises can lose their newness and sharpness after sometime, and perceptually and emotionally become a routine irritant. That is the case with Darfur. Is the situation in Darfur a crisis? Yes but we are tired of it and so the urge to give has died. That's why it is important to deal with the crisis immediately, otherwise everyone becomes worn out and distraction sets in.

The military junta in Burma has accepted the terrible conditions of its citizenry as a matter of fact and necessity to maintain control and power. That partly explains the junta's horrendous response to the tragedy and shockingly tawdry relief efforts. On the other hand, the Chinese political leadership (while not a paragon of tolerance or democracy) is aspirational -- it is intent on growing China and improving the lot of its citizens. So the Chinese political leadership has not become jaded as the military junta in Burma has.

It is time for the world -- including China and India -- to demand changes in the governance of Myanmar. The current junta has lost its conscience, and with the loss that conscience the ability to be shocked and roused.

The state of the US: America is rising or declining?

The size of the Unites States economy is about $13 trillion. Assuming the average annual growth of 2.5 percent (this has been the average since World War II), the U.S. puts. out about $320 billion annually. On the other hand, the sizes of the economies of China and India are estimated t o be about $2.5 trillion and $1 trillion respectively. Assuming a monumental and unsustainable 10 percent average annual growth, China puts out about $250 billion annually and India puts out about $100 billion annually. So every year, the U.S. still adds more to its economy more than China or India does.

In this face of these empirics, it is impossible to argue that either China or India is going to overtake the U.S. in economic superiority.

However, what might change the equation is one of two very discrete and dramatic events. First possibility is a collapse of the U.S. economy triggered by some event or a set of events. But that's unlikely. Even the current oil price increase from about $20 per barrel to about $130 per barrel has had only marginal impact on the larger economy. The U.S. economy has shown remarkable resilience -- the Savings and Loans Industry crisis in 1980s, the dot com bust in the early 2000s, and the housing crisis in the last year or so are troublesome but they have not and cannot break the U.S. economy.

The second possibility is a new innovation or a set of innovations that dramatically alters the way of life. Think of steam engine, or Bessemer process for mass production of steel, or world wide web (WWW) technology. But, here, too the U.S. appears to be, if any thing, poised ahead of other societies -- think of genetics and genome therapy, or genetically modified food, or clean technologies, or nano-technology, and more.

The general argument that the U.S. has borrowed so much from other societies that it has now become a servant of these societies is not compelling – simply put, where are these societies, individuals and organizations going to put their monies? If not the U.S., where else? Of course, there will be some nominal and periodic variations and ups and downs but it is unlikely that there can ever be a run on the U.S. economy because there is no there large-scale alternative.

May be I am missing a new breakthrough -- a new steam engine -- but short of that the U.S. is likely to dominate the world of economy, commerce, and innovations for the next 50 years.

Confident China and Paranoid Myanmar

Natural tragedies have struck both Myanmar and China in the recent past. However, there could not be more stark contrast in the response to the disasters from Myanmar and China. Myanmar has been diffident and paranoid but China has been confident and open.

Myanmar was struck with a devastating cyclone --Nargis -- which has killed tens of thousands of men, women and children. Death in Myanmar has come not only from the cyclone but from lack of sustained relief efforts -- so there have been deaths due to starvation and disease. The current death toll is at nearly 78,000, though expected to surpass 100,000. Upto 2.5 million people are considered severely affected.

In China, more than 34,000 are reported dead and 4.8 million have been left homeless from the recent earthquake and its aftershocks.

The two different responses from the Myanmar military junta on Myanmar and the China's political leadership reflect on the strength of the two societies. In Myanmar, the military junta refused to give information about the scope of the disaster and the necessary relief efforts. The junta has refused to let reporters visit the disaster area. No external aid was sought, and even when offered was turned down -- aid from the U.S. and even the U.N. was turned down. Even threats from the outside did little to nudge the military junta. And finally, when the relief supplies were distributed the junta converted the exercise into a propaganda effort by placing the names of the generals prominently on the relief goods.

There was no thoughtful remembrance of the dead -- only when China announced a national mourning did Myanmar follow suit.

Myanmar's crass, class-less and paranoid response is born out of the anxiety and weakness of its military rulers. It is a tragedy that the world has not pushed the military rulers hard. The U.S. and other societies do not want to use their political and diplomatic capital on Myanmar because Myanmar is not in their strategic interest.

On the other hand, China was most open and responsive. Within 14 minutes of the tragedy, Chinese officials rushed relief efforts to the disaster area. The authorities also made all the information and data available to the citizens, reporters, aid-workers, and others. China warned the disaster-area citizens of possible aftershocks and their possible fall-outs. While China is a resource-strong society, it did not turn down aid.

China paused the Olympic torch relay, and paid national homage to the dead. China's President, Hu Jintao, and Prime Minister, Wen Jiabo, have made public visits to the disaster-stricken area.

China's thoughtful and dignified response speaks volumes of its strength and confidence. China now should rightfully edge the paranoid Myanmar regime into more political accountability -- but for China's patronization of Myanmar, it would be difficult for the military junta in Myanmar to defy the basic human decency and plod on.

The tragedy in Myanmar, and the role of India

The situation in Myanmar is incredibly tragic. The devastation caused by the cyclone is monumental but the paranoia of the military junta is breathtaking. The world has let a paranoid military junta run the country without any compunctions or any fear of reprisal from outside world. We are not talking of a moralist society, we are just talking of some very basic human values.

Why has the military junta gotten away with such crassness? Simply because most nations just don't know or care about what happens in Myanmar -- not dissimilar to the situation in Darfur. And a few nations that may care are keeping their distance for their own interest -- there is nothing wrong this, it is just pragmatic. So a combination of indifference (because Myanmar does not provide any material or strategic or military benefits) and pragmatism has left the military junta in Myanmar wreck havoc to the society.

For United States, Russia or European countries, Myanmar offers precious little -- no great mineral sources or strategic value. One country that ought to have a serious interest -- based on history, geography and strategic value -- is India. However, since China considers Myanmar to be under its protection and tutelage India has quietly avoided confronting the regime. There is little to be gained for India.

devastation caused by the cyclone is monumental but the paranoia of the military junta is breathtaking. The world has let a paranoid military junta run the country without any compunctions or any fear of reprisal from outside world. We are not talking of a moralist society, we are just talking of some very basic human values.

Why has the military junta gotten away with such crassness? Simply because most nations just don't know or care about what happens in Myanmar -- not dissimilar to the situation in Darfur. And a few nations that may care are keeping their distance for their own interest -- there is nothing wrong this, it is just pragmatic. So a combination of indifference (because Myanmar does not provide any material or strategic or military benefits) and pragmatism has left the military junta in Myanmar wreck havoc to the society.

For United States, Russia or European countries, Myanmar offers precious little -- no great mineral sources or strategic value. One country that ought to have a serious interest -- based on history, geography and strategic value -- is India. However, since China considers Myanmar to be under its protection and tutelage India has quietly avoided confronting the regime. There is little political gain for India in a confrontation with China, and that is understandable.

In a farcical display of populism, the military junta has placed the new constitution -- with not anything new to gloat about -- for a referendum. The junta is asking the voters to approve of the new constitution in a vote just a week after tens of thousands have been wiped out by the act of nature (cyclone) and the callousness of the military junta.

What a tragedy! The tragedies such those in Darfur and Myanmar are a blot on all of us. Myanmar does not have to become a pluralistic tolerant society -- just simply shed its such shameful paranoia. Can the world -- including China -- not make this happen? India should make a more concerted (behind-the-scenes) efforts to help assuage the tragic situation. If not India, who else? If not now, when else? It is time for India to expend some of its political goodwill with China, and help coordinate the relief efforts.

WHY INDIA IS A BETTER BET THAN CHINA (OR BRAZIL OR RUSSIA)? by Gurumurthy Kalyanaram

Comment: This article was written about a year back but the basic facts and inferences remain valid.

India is a better economic bet than China (or Russia or Brazil) if you have a ten or twenty-year horizon. Why?

In addition to the democratization of its polity, and liberalization of its economy (both of which are now legendary), the autonomy and democracy of India’s financial markets, its entrepreneurial spirit, and its educational system are important additional elements that make India so alluring.

This story has not been told, not told at least as vividly.

The norms and regulations of the financial markets, and the enforcement and supervision by Securities Exchange Board of India of these regulations are very credible, if not perfect. And they have made the Indian stock and bond markets transparent and investor-friendly. Rob Gensler, manager of T. Rowe Price Global Stock Fund says, “The quantity and quality of information you get (from Indian companies) is, in many cases, as good or better than what you get from U.S. companies.”

And then listen to Mark Hadley, president of Asian specialist Matthews International Capital Management: “Infosys set the standard for a lot of Indian and Asian companies.”

China’s (and Russia’s) financial markets and corporate governance are primitive. And if you believe Doug North, the 1993 economics nobel laureate, it would take at least 30-40 years for China (or Russia) to develop these institutions.

MIT professor Yasheng Huang tells, “India has done a better job than China” in nurturing entrepreneurship and supporting healthy competition. From India, a group of world-class companies such as Infosys in software, Ranbaxy in pharmaceuticals, Bajaj Auto in automobile components, and Mahindra in car assembly are emerging. And this has not “happened by accident,” per Huang.

Finally, there is the educational system. While there are many flaws to the Indian educational system, there is a fair amount of autonomy and freedom and entrepreneurship in primary, secondary, and higher education. And this has increasingly created a more relevant and market-oriented education (be it teaching of English language or the content of the curriculum.)

Again, per Huang, “India has quietly and persistently improved its educational provisions, especially in rural areas. For sustainable economic development, the quantity and quality of human capital will matter far more than those of physical capital. India seems to have the right policy and if China does not invest in rural education soon, it may lose its true competitive edge over India.”

Finally, political democracy has itself been an excellent prescription for India’s economy. Sure there have been many false starts and erroneous policies but there have been no calamitous decisions. The country has not gone through traumatic experiences of Latin America (where many economies collapsed because they followed market-economy thoughtlessly) or RussiaChina (Mao’s cultural revolution.) (Stalin’s blighted policies) or

In my recent visit to China, Mr. Ji, Chairman of Beijing-Hualin – a billion US dollar company – told me that “there is too little government in India, and that’s good.” Why? “India will never make such huge misjudgments. There will never be a cultural revolution when about 35 million Chinese were killed and the country was set behind by decades.”

India’s political democracy where different constituents make their claims has kept the economic policies moderated.

Look at the recent economic liberalization policies. True, the vigorous liberalization policies initiated by India in 1991 and continued at varying degrees in the last fifteen years have unlocked the growth potential. And that’s wonderful.

But in this enthusiasm for liberalization, India almost forgot the challenge of poverty and its impact on growth and mass prosperity. Over 300 million Indians live in poverty. Per recent World Bank Report, 10% reduction in poverty would boost the growth rate by about 1% and increase the foreign direct investment by about 8%.

So far India to continue its impressive growth, one of the critical components of the strategy has to be poverty reduction programs that add assets to the society.

And this is where the role of Indian communists and socialists is to be commended. Their relentless focus on the poor and disfranchised is very beneficial (though their lack of acceptance of certain economic reforms has also been an impediment.)

The balance that the Indian political and economic policy makers have achieved is now the recommended economic strategy by the recent World Bank Report. And this policy is a direct result of the wonderful pulls and pushes created by the political democracy.

Undoubtedly, India is the best bet of all the emerging markets.

The U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement -- The Debate

The historic nuclear energy agreement between the US and India is subject of much debate and discussion. The Indian Parliament is now considering the agreement, and debating the merits and challenges.

While the agreement is worthy of support and ratification, the concerns raised largely by the left political parties are legitimate.

The benefits of the agreement are evident. First, this nuclear agreement is part of the larger strategic alliance between the U.S. and India. The two countries now cooperate on a variety of strategic issues including joint military exercises, exchange of vital intelligence information, and agricultural and technological innovation.

Second, India is a natural partner of the U.S. India is and will be reliable strategic partner in fight against terrorism and in the spread of democratic and human values across the globe. A recent study by Foreign Policy has affirmed that India is the only democratic, robust, stable and reliable partner in Asia. Such a partner – India – is desperate for new energy sources (e.g. cleaner and more efficient nuclear energy) beyond its poor-quality coal and expensive imported oil. By helping India meet its energy needs, the US helps a friend in need.

Third, this agreement also opens new opportunities for the U.S. businesses. India is likely to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in building over 100 or so additional nuclear reactors. Add to this, the infrastructure (building airports, bridges, roads) development and military and aircraft procurement that are likely to require over one trillion dollars. The U.S. firms will now be able to participate as a full partner in these opportunities.

However, there is skepticism in some quarters about the agreement. And the skepticism stems from two or three quarters.

First, the loudest criticism comes from the left parties in India. Their concern is over the Hyde Amendment which requires the President to advise the Congress every year that India was not diverting nuclear technology and material for weaponry. While it is very true that President George Bush has high respect for India’s integrity and trust. However, what the political landscape would be in 10 or 20 years is anyone guess – it is not clear that a nation’s future can be so tenuously linked to certification by an individual.

Look at what happened to Pakistan. The then President Bush in 1990 failed to certify Pakistan’s intentions regarding its nuclear ambitions, and the Pressler amendment called for economic and military sanctions which reverberated till recently.

India cannot become vulnerable to such vagaries, however small the odds of them may be. So the insistence of the left parties on a more deliberate approach is most prudent. But the agreement is overall beneficial to India, and after careful consideration approval and acceptance appears to be the reasonable course.

The US response to Pakistan crisis will impact its Iraq and Iran policies

Over the last six years, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has lost the support of not only the Islamic fundamentalists but also some of the secular nationalist elements in Pakistan.

And now, with the imposition of emergency and suspension of the constitution, President Musharraf has also cast away any support and sympathy from liberals, internationalists, and remaining secularists.

With one stroke by imposing emergency rule, President Musharraf has trapped himself, Pakistan, and the U.S. in sand box. Musharraf is ad hoc and uncertain in his beliefs and actions – showing all signs of a confused man. Musharraf does not have a face-saving exit strategy. That’s the tragedy.

Musharraf has not only knotted himself but placed the U.S. in a very awkward situation. With terrorists still operating with impudence in Pakistan, and Afghanistan being still very fragile, the U.S. can not walk away from Pakistan.

But Musharraf has left the U.S. with no other choice but to reject Musharraf’s actions and impel him to democratization of the polity immediately – the U.S. should at least insist on shared governance of his military and political power.

If the U.S. rationalizes Musharraf’s actions and dithers, how can the U.S. justify its intervention in Iraq (and potentially in Iran.) With no weapons of mass destruction and other less than attractive reasons, the compelling strategic, political, economic and intellectual argument for intervention in Iraq is the creation of democratic societies in the Middle-East. And it can be persuasively argued that Saddam Hussein was a monumental impediment in this goal.

Current Musharraf’s actions seriously challenge and undermine the legitimacy of this argument. After all, Pakistan is a country with well established democratic institutions – a constitution, well-formed legal institutions, a tradition of elections, accepted political parties and leaders, legal institutions – and a history of appreciating democratic values.

If the U.S. supports and/or rationalizes open and blatant attempts to stifle the concept of shared governance in Pakistan which has so many assets for democratic polity, how can any one believe that democratization is even remotely plausible in Iraq?

In a more tactical view, violence, uncertainty and stress caused by the extra-constitutional actions of Musharraf will have a direct impact on the elimination of terrorism and terrorists. There are two immediate consequences. First, Pakistan’s police, military and intelligence resources will be diverted to maintaining the emergency rule. Second, the extra-constitutional actions have created such resentment and anger among the populace that the society is now more than ever fertile for subversive activities by terrorists.

Musharraf’s strategy of creating the impression that he alone is capable of holding Pakistan together, and combat terrorism has lost its currency now. Musharraf's rule will come to end, inevitably so, sooner or later. But Musharraf’s actions should not cloud Pakistan's future.

Musharraf has already shown that he is most susceptible to pressures from the U.S. – with more than $10 billion of aid, it would be most surprising if this were not the case. Under pressure from the U.S and others Musharraf has now assured the country will hold the parliamentary elections will be held in February, and revoked Benazir Bhutto’s house arrest (and may be place her again under house arrest!) though he is not able to make up his mind about the duration of the emergency rule.

So it is time for the U.S to insist that Musharraf immediately revoke the emergency rule, conduct the parliamentary elections in January or February, let the judges return to work and the Supreme Court decide the legitimacy of his election as the President, and shed his military role.

As the U.S. tries to mobilize public and world opinion against Iran, how can Pakistan’s actions be rationalized?

It is time of the U.S. to act in its own interests. Otherwise, its Middle-East policy in particular, and its foreign policy in general, will be a complete muddle for a long time to come.

(Posted on November 12th, 2007)

President Musharraf has trapped himself, Pakistan and the U.S. in a sandbox

Over the last six years because of his commitment to the US to help the US to combat terrorism and fundamentalism after the 9/11 tragedy, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has lost the support of not only the fundamentalists but also the nationalist elements in Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalists and isolationists have targeted the government and him regularly. The escalating violence and chaos has weakened Pakistan immeasurably.

And now, with the imposition of emergency and suspension of the Constitution, President Musharraf has also cast away any support and sympathy from liberals, internationalists, and secularists.

With one stroke by imposing emergency rule, President Musharraf has trapped himself and Pakistan in sand box. Musharraf is ad hoc and uncertain in his beliefs and actions – showing all signs of a confused man. Under pressure from the U.S and others, Musharraf assures the country that the parliamentary elections will be held in February – this time table is not one bit credible given that the constitution has been suspended, the Supreme Court has been dismantled, the opposition leaders have been arrested or have not been allowed to participate in Pakistan’s polity. And then immediately places Benazir Bhutto under house arrest. Yet, again, under U.S. pressure Musharraf promises that Bhutto's house arrest would be only for days.

Musharraf does not have a face-saving exit strategy. That’s the tragedy. If Musharraf had slowly transitioned to a more shared mode of governance and responsibility, he would have been in better position politically and strategically. In this case, Musharraf could have placed some of the failures of governance on his political partners, and possibly secured better cooperation from the various constituencies. Even before the imposition of emergency rule, Musharraf was facing a deeply skeptical populace but now he faces a hostile populace. Therefore, he requires serious political help.

Musharraf has not only knotted himself but placed the U.S. in an awkward situation. With terrorists still operating with impudence in Pakistan, and Afghanistan being still very fragile, the U.S. can not walk away from Pakistan.

But then how does the U.S. justify its relationship with Pakistan when the most compelling reason for intervention in Iraq (and potentially in Iran) is creation of democratic societies in the Middle-East. Musharraf’s actions seriously challenge and undermine President Bush’s arguments regarding diffusion of democratic values in the Middle-East.

In a more tactical view, violence, uncertainty and stress caused by the extra-constitutional actions of Musharraf will have a direct impact on the elimination of terrorism and terrorists. There are two immediate consequences. First, Pakistan’s police and military resources will be diverted to maintaining the emergency rule. Second, the extra-constitutional actions have created such resentment and anger among the populace that the society is now more than ever fertile for subversive activities by terrorists.

Musharraf's rule will come to end, inevitably so, sooner or later. But Musharraf’s actions should not cloud Pakistan's future.

(Posted on November 9th, 2007)

Review of the reflections (in 2004) on the precarious situation of President Pervez Musharaff

This article appeared in The Anniston Star on March 7, 2004

Precarious predicament for Musharraf
Author: G.K. Kalyanaram Special to The Star
Publish Date: March 7, 2004

Since his commitment to help the US to combat terrorism and fundamentalism after the 9/11 tragedy, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has come under blistering criticism and ridicule by the fundamentalists.

Musharraf has now been the target of at least three assassination attempts. Two of the bloodiest and near-miss attacks have come in the last three months.

The army, the source of Musharraf’s past strength, is beginning to desert him slowly but palpably. In fact, the recent assassination attempts appear to have been abetted by a section of the army. Musharraf has been forced to give up his position as the Chief of Army by the end of 2004 --- that may come even earlier than the publicly stated timetable

While we have much to thank for recent successes in trying to limit the fear and uncertainty of terrorism in the world and at home, our biggest threat for terrorism comes from the extremists operating in and from Pakistan. Pakistan is fragile and vulnerable.

Pakistan as a society and a nation is moderate and peace-loving but almost twenty-years of support to Madrasas and other infrastructure of the radical Islamists has made Pakistan a hospitable home for the fundamentalists.

The Islamic fundamentalists have Pakistan embattled. President Musharraf has been projected as an American lackey.

Furthermore, Musharraf is also now seen as short-changing Pakistan’s national interests and security as a result of his reconciliation efforts with India.

Musharraf and his Prime Minister, Jamali, have made a series of bold and productive decisions to improve the relations with India but that has only angered the fundamentalists even more.

For the first time, the Kashmir issue appears to be addressed in a more thoughtful manner and a dialog is beginning to emerge. The Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and President Musharaff have given a substantial impetus to this dialog in their recent meeting at the regional summit last month. The first set of official talks have begun and they appear to be productive.

Imagine the feelings of terrorist groups which feel yet again betrayed by Musharraf --- this time in curbing their activities in Kashmir. The extremists have already publicly avowed to continue their jihadi activities against Kashmir.

Musharraf has now conceded that several high-level of Pakistan nuclear scientists had sold nuclear and missile technologies to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

The father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, has now confessed to selling nuclear technologies to rogue nations like Libya, Iran and North Korea. From the documents provided by Libya and Iran, we now know that Pakistan has been the source of the critical centrifuge nuclear expertise.

Musharraf has now begun to crack down upon the errant scientists responsible for the export of the nuclear expertise. Dr. Khan has resigned and President Musaharraf has pardoned him but most close-observers recognize that such scale illegal trade and export in nuclear technologies could not have happened without the knowledge of the army.

The fundamentalists and the army are livid at what they see as yet another betrayal and sell-out by President Musharraf: this time with regard to the Islamic nuclear bomb. To add insult to the injury, the extremists feel that a genuine national hero, Dr. Khan, has been made the scapegoat to satisfy the global community.

It has been a one-two-three punch for Islamic extremists and radicals, and a significant section of the army: betrayal of the Taliban, reneging on the Kashmir issue, and curbing the development of the Islamic nuclear bomb.

Musharraf has alienated not only the fundamentalists but also common citizens who were sympathetic to his efforts to curb extremism and corruption because of his arbitrary and autocratic governance.

If Musharraf is displaced (a likely scenario) and the Islamic radicalists take over, then the potential for calamity is extraordinary. Fundamentalism and terrorism will have a new state-protected home in Pakistan.

It is in the deep self-interest of the US, India and the world at large to help Pakistan (not necessarily Musharraf --- remember the mistake we made in supporting the Shah of Iran and not the people of Iran) to grow democratic and moderate.

And this requires providing Pakistan not only military assistance but also massive economic assistance and expertise in governance and swift devolution of power. Pakistan requires our immediate and undivided attention.