‘Backward’ march forward
IT has not taken the Vajpayee government long to understand the political benefits of initiating populist measures. The first major decision the Union Cabinet took on Wednesday was to confer on the Jats of Rajasthan, barring those of Dholpur and Bharatpur, the benefits of caste-based reservation.

Indonesia: uncertain future
WITH the elevation of Mr Abdurrahman Wahid as the first democratically elected President of Indonesia, the country finds itself on the road to uncertainty.

DEALING WITH GEN MUSHARRAF'S PAKISTAN
Need for pragmatic diplomacy
by Hari Jaisingh
HOW should India deal with General Parvez Musharraf's Pakistan? South Block needs to address itself to this question objectively, taking into account the ground realities and the nature of the regime which has just begun to take shape. The new military ruler may not be an enigma. He is said to be pragmatic and "a straightforward chap who does not go in circles", as his former mentor, retired Lieut-Gen Farrakh Khan, put it. Still, he faces several known and unknown odds. This makes the task of assessing the post-coup situation a challenging task.

Russia must meet the Chechnyan challenge
By M.S.N. Menon
IT was Communism that fathered the principle of self-determination. It has done some good. But it has also done much harm. Today its role is to divide peoples. Let us, therefore, bury it deep inside Russia — in Chechnya.

Will the General move differently?
by R.A. Singh
IN whatever manner Gen Parvez Musharraf and his fellow officers attempt to camouflage the jackboot that has descended on civilian, democratic rule in Pakistan, it is certain that the military is in for the long haul.

Piano passion
by Rajnish Wattas
EVER since I saw the incredibly beautiful Ingrid Bergman whisper “Play it again Sam...” in the Hollywood classic “Casablanca”, the piano has haunted my dreams.

75 Years Ago

Repatriation of Assam
Tea Garden Coolies
IN the Madras Legislative Council today the Home Member gave answers to a number of questions relating to the recent exodus of coolies from the Assam Tea Gardens, most of whom were recruited from the Telugu districts of this Presidency.

‘Backward’ march forward

IT has not taken the Vajpayee government long to understand the political benefits of initiating populist measures. The first major decision the Union Cabinet took on Wednesday was to confer on the Jats of Rajasthan, barring those of Dholpur and Bharatpur, the benefits of caste-based reservation. They would henceforth parade their newfound identity as members of Other Backward Castes with a misplaced sense of pride. In what is clearly a case of competitive populism the Bharatiya Janata Party-led combine has beaten the Congress by a wide margin. If and when Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot too decides to implement the poll promise which both the Congress and the BJP made during the Lok Sabha elections, he would have to reckon with the fact that his political rivals have stolen the thunder by doing what he has for long been promising to do for the members of the Jat community However, it is about time the political parties made an honest and collective assessment of the negative or positive effect of the policy of reservation in the name of spreading the base of social justice. They would find that the policy in its present form has more negative than positive features. A policy which ignores the economic basis for dispensing state favours can never be universally popular. The founding fathers of the Constitution were not blind to the need of undoing centuries of injustice against communities mentioned in the list of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. They may have erred in putting a time limit of 10 years for doing away with the constitutionally mandated policy of reservation. However, if 10 years was too short a period for banishing the scourge of caste-based inequality from Indian society, then objective observers would have no hesitation in stating that 50 plus years, with the end still not in sight, is an unreasonably long period for achieving the goal of social, economic and gender equality. It would not do to hold the Congress primarily responsible for converting the policy of reservation into vote-bank politics. In fact, it had put on hold the recommendations of the Mandal Commission.

There are those who see Mr V. P. Singh as the messiah of the Dalits and other under-privileged sections of society because he unleashed the Mandal report on the nation. He did it not because he cared more for the socially disadvantaged sections of society, but because he wanted to protect his fledgling government from the likely negative impact of Mr Devi Lal's movement against him. Mr Devi Lal was angry because he had been removed from the post of Deputy Prime Minister. Instead of putting their heads together and evolving a policy for rolling back the policy of reservation within a specified time-frame, leaders of most political parties see immense electoral advantage in being seen on the side of the downtrodden. Since the policy showers countless benefits on the "downtrodden" just about every community is clamouring for getting the "deep discount privilege card". And most leaders are more than willing to offer the "card" in return for votes for their party. The upshot is that the Vadikis and the Neokis, who are actually Brahmins,have been included in the Andhra Pradesh OBC list. The Behgali Kayasthas in Assam, the Marwaris in Tamil Nadu and the Rajputs in Karnataka too enjoy the benefits of the flawed policy. The Left parties' policy of launching a politically focussed class struggle for social emancipation, with the necessary ideological underpinning, has been effectively sabotaged by leaders of caste-based factions. The reason why the BJP too has decided to play ball has something to do with the political situation in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Assembly elections may be announced in the two states and the saffron party and its allies would not mind using the Rajasthan card for electoral gains. Any policy stretched beyond the limits of reason and fair play invariably proves counter-productive. The nationwide violent anti-Mandal agitation was just a small glimpse of the destructive potential of a policy which no political party has the courage to even question.

Indonesia: uncertain future

WITH the elevation of Mr Abdurrahman Wahid as the first democratically elected President of Indonesia, the country finds itself on the road to uncertainty. The 59-year-old fourth Head of Government has two major weaknesses — poor health and not being a popular leader like Ms Megawati Sukarnoputri, whom he defeated in a one-to-one fight on Wednesday. He won 373 votes against Ms Megawati's 313 in the 700-strong People's Consultative Assembly (with a few abstentions). Mr Wahid's first weakness (health) is manageable, but the second one is going to put on test his acknowledged ability to turn adverse circumstances in his favour. And it is there where one can see an element of uncertainty. However, the victor and the vanquished have had good relations till recently. Even now Ms Megawati does not consider him as her political enemy cast in the traditional mould, though she has lost the race because Mr Wahid proved himself smarter than his formidable adversary in the art of political manoeuvring.

Ms Megawati concentrated her energy and resources on upstaging the caretaker President, Mr B.J. Habibie of the Golkar Party, a protege of Mr Suharto, the Indonesian ruler for 32 years, who had to resign following a serious economic crisis that led to countrywide protests by students and others, paving the way for the democratic exercise that began in June last. She succeeded in her mission on this front when Mr Habibie was forced to withdraw his candidature in the wake of the rejection of his "Accountability Report" on Tuesday by the National Assembly, interpreted as a no-confidence vote against his 17-month rule. In the meantime, however, Mr Wahid, a dark horse, entered into a deal with the Golkar leadership and trounced Ms Megawati in the Presidential contest with a comfortable margin. Mr Wahid, a nominee of the National Awakening Party with just 54 members in the National Assembly (Indonesia's Lower House), had been perfecting since June a strategy to emerge as an alternative to either of the two main contenders in case of the emergence of a situation demanding such an arrangement. His strategy did not succeed, but his determination to remain visible in the race brought him the desired dividends. He multiplied his political strength nearly seven times though there was no comparison between his party and Ms Megawati's Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle which won the majority of the seats (153) in the June elections. Mr Wahid has demonstrated that he is an astute coalition builder, having no parallels in Indonesia. The new President, being a leader of the Nadwatul Ulama, basically represents the interests of Muslim religious parties, though he is considered a moderate among the conservatives. He will have not only to improve his image but also concentrate on Indonesia's economic reconstruction to create a climate in which people can depend on his leadership to end the present crisis of confidence.

DEALING WITH GEN MUSHARRAF'S PAKISTAN
Need for pragmatic diplomacy

by Hari Jaisingh

HOW should India deal with General Parvez Musharraf's Pakistan? South Block needs to address itself to this question objectively, taking into account the ground realities and the nature of the regime which has just begun to take shape. The new military ruler may not be an enigma. He is said to be pragmatic and "a straightforward chap who does not go in circles", as his former mentor, retired Lieut-Gen Farrakh Khan, put it. Still, he faces several known and unknown odds. This makes the task of assessing the post-coup situation a challenging task.

Certain facts are, however, crystal clear. First, General Musharraf is an ambitious soldier. For, ambition and power tend to go together.

Second, the General took a calculated risk in throwing out an elected Prime Minister who had of late begun to distrust him. In the war of nerves that followed, the power of the gun prevailed. A ruthless soldier, he successfully struck at Mr Nawaz Sharif who had of late become a victim of his own misdeeds and corrupt practices. Having gone thus far, he is unlikely to give up power easily.

It is tragic that Pakistan as a nation has been failed both by its elected leaders and military rulers during the past 52 years of its turbulent existence. What a mandate Mr Sharif had! Still, he could not use this advantage for the good of his people. The Bhuttos — the father and daughter — too just sold dreams to the masses, exploiting their sentiments on Kashmir and beyond. Military dictators—Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia — beat the same beaten track to promote their interests. They even went to war with India to grab Kashmir and to humble this nation. In recent months General Musharraf was in league with Mr Sharif in Pakistani misadventure in Kargil. The end result of all these military acts is before us. The fallout of these actions has been disastrous for the people of Pakistan. The poor shape of the economy tells us a pathetic tale of plunder and mismanagement by the rulers. The moot question is: will General Musharraf be different? Or, will he just whip up anti-Sharif sentiments to dump him in the dustbin of history via court martial and ensure his own legitimacy as General Zia-ul-Haq did?

Of course, in his televised address, he has promised restoration of a civilian government but without setting any timeframe for such an eventuality. What if he decides to hang on and consolidate his position? Looking at the track record of such coup leaders in the past, this possibility cannot be ruled out.

Power in Pakistan flows from the barrel of the gun. Even in normal times, the military is known to have called the shots, though for a while things seemed to be different during the zenith of Mr Nawaz Sharif's rule. Still, the military is a fact of life in Pakistan. It dominates all vital segments of society there.

Mr Sharif's problem was that he wanted to emerge as an uncrowned khalifa. But in this power game he over-stretched himself. He even overlooked the sensitivities of the armed forces. He first removed General Jehangir Karamat, superseded two other Generals and installed General Musharraf as the Chief of the Army Staff. The seeds of confrontation between the civilian authority and the military were, wittingly and unwittingly, sown on that day.

Looking back, Mr Sharif apparently underestimated the potential of General Musharraf. Notwithstanding his friendly nextdoor neighbour postures at present, he is both cunning and deceptive.

As of today, the armed forces are united, at least on the face of it. Ironically, at the receiving end is the dreaded ISI whose head, Lieut-Gen Khwaja Ziauddin, was being promoted as the Chief of Army Staff by Mr Sharif in place of General Musharraf.

Third, it is a historical fact that once in power, a military ruler prefers to tighten his hold lest he should lose out to his opponents. This was true of General Zia-ul-Haq who promised to step down within 90 days when he took over the reins of power in 1977 but carried on for as many as 11 years.

Viewed in this light, General Musharraf is unlikely to buckle under pressure and restore democratic rule. Of course, he will sell his martial rule thoughts in "democracy packaging" to meet Western criticism. The setting up of the National Security Council is one such step.

Even otherwise, the General can legitimately seek an extended term for himself to set the Pakistani house in order. As it is, he has been specifically critical of the state of his country. He has squarely blamed the elected government of Mr Sharif for the mess it has created. In fact, short of saying that Pakistan's problems directly flow from its feudal democracy, he has made it clear that he will not be in a hurry to revive the process of democracy.

The socio-economic problems that the new leader has talked about cannot be wished away in a matter of months. Pakistan suffers from deep-rooted and manifold malaise which requires a long-term treatment. So, at best, the General might opt for a facade of civilian rule to buy peace with the Western world, especially the USA.

The options before him are tough. Pakistan's economy cannot be revived through soft measures. It requires a full-fledged surgery and blood transfusion which can only be provided by certain sympathetic countries like the USA, Britain, Japan and a few West Asian allies.

The Chief Executive of Pakistan is probably aware of his limitations. A shrewd manipulator, his major priority will be to evoke a sympathetic response from America and other Western powers to score a propaganda point or two vis-a-vis India. He has already launched a diplomatic offensive by announcing military de-escalation along the international border. This is a calculated move to establish his credentials as a well-meaning soldier who is willing to do peace business with India.

General Musharraf will try to derive the maximum psychological advantage by holding out an olive branch to New Delhi while maintaining his rigid postures on several sensitive issues, including Kashmir, for domestic consumption. Indeed, South Block should be ready to face a series of peace offensives designed to putting India on the defensive.

New Delhi needs to remember that the Western world has a very limited understanding of subcontinental politics. It sees everything in terms of nuclearisation of the subcontinent and the festering Kashmir issue. Only of late the Americans have somewhat begun to appreciate the danger emanating from Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism. But the point is: will the Western world tell the Pakistani General to end the proxy war so that the right atmosphere is created for meaningful bilateral dialogue?

Mere withdrawal of troops along the international border can hardly be conducive to the normalisation of ties between the two countries. The crux of the problem is the proxy war unleashed by Pakistan which has destroyed peace and tranquillity in this country.

The Americans have their own calculations. In the past they have felt more comfortable dealing with military dictators than democratically elected governments. Things have, of course, changed under President Clinton. Still, the US establishment may find it easy to make vulnerable General Musharraf toe its line. This will mount extra pressure on Indian diplomacy.

Be that as it may, India has to evolve both short-and-long-term strategies to deal with the military regime in Islamabad. General Musharraf seems fully entrenched right now. Even if he installs a civilian regime, it will work only under his supervision. He cannot be wished away easily. It will, of course, be a different matter if the Punjabi-dominated army develops reservations about the General in the months to come. Being a Mohajir, he will have to do some tight rope-walking.

Whether we like it or not, we have to learn to deal with General Musharraf's Pakistan. For that, we must be clear about our goals and targets and accordingly work out our strategies globally. The key nation, of course, in this exercise will be the USA.

The real challenge before South Block is whether it can suitably work in coordination with the Americans to deal with the military ruler with a view to tackling certain outstanding issues in South Asia. Much will depend on how we handle American policy-makers and how we carry them along with us. The airdash of National Security Advisor and Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Brajesh Mishra, to Washington for talks with US officials is part of this exercise.

In any case, every crisis should be seen as an opportunity to promote our national interests. Pakistan today is vulnerable both politically and economically. But the real danger from the Indian point of view is from the growing tentacles of the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalist groups in Pakistan. Perhaps we can exploit the American apathy towards them to our advantage. Can we do so?

Will the General move differently?
by R.A. Singh

IN whatever manner Gen Parvez Musharraf and his fellow officers attempt to camouflage the jackboot that has descended on civilian, democratic rule in Pakistan, it is certain that the military is in for the long haul. The General and his men are likely to be encouraged by the cautious welcome they have received from the people, despite the fact that public enthusiasm for a military administration is mostly a reflection of the utter disillusionment of the people with the corrupt and autocratic Nawaz Sharif regime.

There has been a degree of ambivalence in the US reaction to the coup. Indeed, initially, there was even a clear hesitation in describing the takeover as a coup, since that would automatically mandate further sanctions under the Foreign Appropriations Act. Islamabad is already under all manner of sanctions, and there was the apprehension that any further tightening of the screw, even in symbolic fashion, would alienate Pakistan and its people further, and push them even more in the direction of Islamic fundamentalism.

All official pronouncements, including the message that President Clinton sent General Musharraf through the returning US Ambassador, called for a quick restoration of a civilian democratic rule. But it was noteworthy that unlike in similar cases in the past, the USA did not seek reinstatement of Mr Nawaz Sharif, the duly elected Prime Minister. It was obvious that the USA had opted to dump Mr Sharif.

There were a number of reasons for Washington’s disenchantment with Mr Sharif. The reading here is that the Prime Minister was gradually tending towards greater accommodation with the Islamists, both within and outside his administration. Of course, for Mr Sharif that might well have been a tactic for political survival, but the resulting enhanced radicalism within Pakistan was unacceptable to the USA. For one thing, the move to the extreme religious right would bring Pakistan much closer to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is already spreading its fundamentalist contagion in adjacent Pakistani areas. The USA is also uncomfortably aware that the Taliban is providing sanctuary to Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-terrorist, who has declared “jehad” against all things American.

The Pentagon, which has had the closest ties with Pakistani military regimes in the past, is less alarmed by the coup, seeing in General Musharraf a secular, Western-oriented leader who would not do anything rash with his control of the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

The US Congress, however, resounded with a barrage of criticism of the coup. Many members pointed to the contrast between the coup in Pakistan and the massive, democratic electoral exercise in India. The general consensus was that irrespective of how corrupt and inefficient the Nawaz Sharif regime was, it had been democratically elected, and a military takeover was a remedy worse than the disease.

Meanwhile, the feeling here is that the military regime, hemmed in by economic chaos, dependence on the West for survival, and the need to stabilise the situation at home, will not make any overt moves a la Kargil. But that does not mean that the new rulers of Pakistan will not continue to smart under a bruised ego and its international isolation. Further attempts at one-up-manship on India are on the cards, especially in the diplomatic and legislative spheres in the USA.

In fact, the Nawaz Sharif government had attempted such an exercise last month: a lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill to garner adequate Congressional and Senatorial support to force the Clinton Administration to appoint a “special envoy” for Kashmir. Apart for internationalising the Kashmir dispute — something that Islamabad has long sought — it would have the appearance of American intervention, something that India opposes vehemently.

After more than two months of intense activity by the Pakistan Embassy, its hired lobbyists and a bunch of Pakistani-American organisations, 46 Congressmen and 16 Senators were persuaded to append their signatures to a letter to President Clinton seeking the appointment of the “special envoy.” Not all members of Congress needed persuasion to climb on to Pakistan’s Kashmir bandwagon. In the lead to sign the letter was Indiana Republican Congressman Dan Burton, who has made it a single-point agenda to bash India at every opportunity he could grab or create. For the record, Mr Burton is the happy recipient of a considerable amount of campaign finance from the Khalistan lobby in America which, in turn, has close ties with the Pakistan Embassy here.

The Pakistan Embassy held a Press conference to trumpet the letter to President Clinton, but its overall impact was drastically reduced when, the same day, Congressman Benjamin Gilman, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, fired off a letter to the President, indicating in no uncertain terms that acceding to the Pakistani request would be “a severe setback to the cause of regional security in South Asia.” Mr Gilman twisted the knife in the wound by suggesting that instead of appointing a special envoy, we should be urging Pakistan to stop sending infiltrators across the Line of Control into India.”

More calamities followed: Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat and former US Ambassador to India, and several other legislators withdrew their names from sponsorship of the letter to President Clinton. And to add to Islamabad’s chagrin, the news came out that its Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz had pleaded with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for American intervention in Kashmir and had been roundly rebuffed.

General Musharraf is unlikely to opt for any sudden military moves against India, but there is no way the military regime will forget the humiliation of its withdrawal from Kargil. It must be remembered that the General himself was the brain behind the Kargil operation.

Will the military junta move any differently? Yes, it will certainly attempt to avoid the pitfalls that damaged Mr Nawaz Sharif’s credibility. It might also present itself as a pragmatic neighbour to India, bent on more efficient administration at home. But it will not, indeed it cannot, take Kashmir off its agenda. And it will not sever, or even reduce, its links with the Taliban. The comparatively reasonable attitude of the military regime will be a holding operation — until the next time.

(The writer is based in Washington).

Piano passion
by Rajnish Wattas

EVER since I saw the incredibly beautiful Ingrid Bergman whisper “Play it again Sam...” in the Hollywood classic “Casablanca”, the piano has haunted my dreams.

The fascination was further fuelled by scenes from Hindi films showing jilted or wannabe lovers like Rehman and Shammi Kapoor, wearing tuxedos with bow-ties, cigarettes dangling from their lips, playing soulful melodies on the piano. Such numbers were mostly composed by O.P. Nayar and the initial piano notes later dissolved into dholki and harmonium beats. But the romance of the grand piano on which the songs were picturised stayed with me.

In my early teens, the piano passion led me to enrol in the Western music classes of the school to learn the instrument of my fantasies. But the stern music teacher being less of a “Beethoven” and more of a drill sergeant, ended my melody trail early.

The musical “old flame” was lit again in my youth when I would visit Trinca’s, a popular night club of Calcutta, where a debonair pianist along with a sultry crooner would steal everyone’s heart away.

Later, lost in the humdrum pursuit of building a career, there was less and less time for the sounds of music in life, and more for its cacophony. But the piano made a grand re-entry when life began anew as a melodious duet. Soon after we got married — me and my sweetheart floating on cloud nine were staying in the Palace Hotel at Chail, once the summer retreat of the erstwhile Maharaja of Patiala. No wonder, it had the ambience of a palace with chandeliers, ornate wood panelling, Persian carpets and blazing fire places to make one feel like royalty in every way.

But the most romantic sight for me was the presence of a grand piano lying unused in its quaint Silver Bangle bar. It was obviously a relic of its heydays when the erstwhile Maharaja, known for his flamboyant lifestyle, threw lavish dance parties there. This rekindled a desire to fiddle with its keyboard, to recall the long forgotten notes of the teenybopper romance. And the settings were perfect for such flourishes of the heart.

As we were honeymooning during the winter off-season and one of the very few guests staying there, the hotel management was rather indulgent with my musical soirees.

One evening I asked my bride to dress up in one of her most elegant silk saris while I also wore a suit, and then we went for a candlelight dinner in the hotel restaurant. After this much to her surprise, I lit a cigarette, sat by the piano with an imitation “Humphery Bogart” rakish look and asked her to lean on me. Before she could quite understand the goings-on, a picture had been clicked by the friendly manager, who had been a part of the piano conspiracy hatched by me.

Though my wife didn’t say goodbye forever for such stupid antics, she has ever since considered the grey cells in my head to be permanently out of tune. Perhaps, one day I will strike the right chords and then we will both play an equal music. Till then listening to Brian Silas will do.

Russia must meet the Chechnyan challenge
By M.S.N. Menon

IT was Communism that fathered the principle of self-determination. It has done some good. But it has also done much harm. Today its role is to divide peoples. Let us, therefore, bury it deep inside Russia — in Chechnya.

There are 8,000 ethnic groups in the world. Can we cut up the world and give each of them an independent state? The answer is a definite No. This being so, the principle is fallacious. It was a half-baked idea. It was not thought through. And yet it holds because it is associated with the dream of Utopia.

To dream of Utopia is natural to poor. But those who promise to take the poor to Utopia are lunatics or idealists. And that is also true of those who promise paradise to ethnic groups. They are no less lunatic. Like Moses, they promise a land of milk ad honey, but leave their flocks in the desert to fend for themselves. Such has been the record of human history.

Prophets have come and gone, and have never been found wanting in making promises. Some promised paradise here on earth, others promised it elsewhere. But we have no way to know whether they spoke the truth or lied, for we know not of the land beyond the grave. As for their promises here on earth, they have left us nothing but hell.

With all that, we will never be in want of prophets and liberators, for their business is to trade in promises — in dreams, what is more, to the dream merchants it is also the easier route to the daily morsel and to the marble palace.

Any popinjay will tell you that he can create a paradise on earth, but woe to you if you take him at his word. And yet there are enough fools in this world to make an adulatory crowd around a popinjay. That was the case with Stalin, Hitler and Mao. That was the case even with our Laloo Yadav. There will be no end to these human follies.

The latest to promise the paradise are the Talibans, the “religious students.” Alas, some Afghans have faith in them! Such was the case in Chechnya, too. Some popinjays promised it a golden age.

Dear reader, I am not against idealism. It is a bright glow far far away. It attracts us. It brings out the best in us. But how do we reach it when we have miles and miles of darkness to cross? We need a proper guide. But we have only false guides.

The Muslim aristocracy in India dreamed of a land of the “pure” — a Pakistan. They said they were getting “polluted” living among the Hindus. They wanted to live in an Islamic society. And see what an “Islamic society” they have created! It is worse than hell. The stench is suffocating. Can there ever be a greater sham and travesty than Pakistan? Will we ever learn?

When the Marxists were there in Kabul, life was safe in that city. There was enough to eat. And children went to schools, both boys and girls. For the first time, there was peace and progress. And then the Talibans appeared, thanks to America, with their Koran and promises. Today there is neither safety of life nor anything to eat.

Britain contained the turbulence of Afghanistan for long years. But America released it by feeding the worst that is in men. The only bright interlude was the Marxist intervention.

The nomads of Central Asia, almost all Muslims, were perhaps the most backward people on earth. It was the land of Timur, who played with human skulls and made mountains of them. But the Russian Revolution brought it modernity and all that which went with It. It even saw a remarkable transformation in a short period. And Central Asians were among the most advanced segments of the Muslim peoples. But some popinjays told them that they should strive for paradise. The Chechens believed them. See what they have made of themselves! The same can happen to the Daghestanis.

The point I want to make is this: Let’s not quest after Utopia, for it is a dream. And in pursuing dreams, we lose our faculty of reasoning and open ourselves to the persuasions of charlatans and popinjays. Let us be less ambitious. Let us be content with small improvements. Let us not plan for leaps and jumps. They are more likely to end up in tragedy. In short, let us go back to the ancient virtue of moderation. We will then need the politicians less. We will need dream merchants less.

Coming back to Chechnya and Daghestant: ever since the breakup of the USSR, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been wooing the Muslims of this vast region. They are trying to take advantage of Russia’s weakness. Iran and Turkey have traditional links with the area. Turkey’s appeal is to racial and cultural identity. The Seljuk ancestors of the Turks were from Central Asia. Central Asians speak a variety of Turkic languages. They are mostly Sunnis.

Iran is Shia and has a large following in Tajikistan. As for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, they are busy spreading fundamentalism. The Saudis provide the funds.

Central Asia is thus subject to a variety of pulls and pressures. Yet they want to remain closer to Russia, for economic and security reasons.

In a referendum conducted in 1991, almost 90 per cent of Central Asians expressed themselves in favour of the Russian connection. With the Taliban knocking at the doors, Central Asia is moving closer to Moscow. Fundamentalism does not appeal to them

Russia is naturally worried by the insidious spread of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia. It can provoke the demand for secession from the Russians. In all the five Central Asian Muslim republics — Kazakhstan, Kyrghystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan —there are Russians. In Kazakhstan, 38-40 per cent of the people are Russian, in Kyrghystan it is 41 per cent, and in the other three, the percentages could be anything from 15 to 25. If the Chechens and Daghistanis are given self-determination, it will affect the Central Asians living in the Russian Federation. In turn, this will affect the Russians in Central Asia. It will be like a chain reaction.

If the fundamentalists resort to ethnic cleansing in Central Asia Moscow is bound to intervene. In either case, Central Asia will explode. It will have far-reaching consequences for the rest of Asia. That is why this challenge of fundamentalism must be met in Chechnya and defeated.

Today America has a better understanding of the risks involved. This explains why it no more encourages self-determination or the spread of fundamentalism. If America is less enthusiastic about the self- determination of the Kashmiris today, it is because it has a keener appreciation of its implications to the rest of India. India can explode.

But the greed of the oil companies knows no bound. Central Asia has huge hydrocarbon potential. Its oil and gas can last a century. It will be the most dynamic region of the next century. And the profits can be mind-boggling. That is why America is desperate to gain control of the region. But it wants to eliminate Russia from there. It forgets that the entire development of Central Asia was financed by the Russian people and the more advanced republics of the USSR. America contributed not a dime towards it.

Being desperate, America may stir up the fundamentalism of the Muslims against Russia, as it did in Afghanistan. This is the greatest danger that I see. The world must, therefore, keep a close watch on the region.

It is in the interest of the world to contain fundamentalism and reject self-determination. Both are divisive of people. They go against the very spirit of globalisation which America is promoting.

75 YEARS AGO

October 22, 1924
Repatriation of Assam
Tea Garden Coolies

IN the Madras Legislative Council today the Home Member gave answers to a number of questions relating to the recent exodus of coolies from the Assam Tea Gardens, most of whom were recruited from the Telugu districts of this Presidency.

Regarding the repatriation of Madras coolies, the Home Member said that the Government of Assam had taken all possible steps to repatriate the labourers to their native districts, partly at the expense of that Government and partly at that of the tea estates concerned.

They had also made arrangements for medical attendants, and food for the coolies, who required them while the journey and during the halts.

The Madras Government had satisfied themselves that the coolies were spared needless hardships and that they would be restored to their homes as early as possible.

The Madras Government were also in constant communication with the Assam Government and they understood that the Assam authorities had taken all necessary action in the matter.

The day, though originally intended to be devoted for the transaction of non-official business, was utilised for further discussion of the Madras Irrigation Bill.