governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Taliban’

Socializing the Dragon

dragon

(photo credit; http://www.mrwallpaper.com)

China has “bested” its way onto the big boys table through three critical initiatives which bore fruit since President Xi took over as China’s numero uno in 2013.

The first was the founding of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered at Shanghai. Symbols speak louder than words. The logo of the NDB is eerily reminiscent of Chinese communist logos of yester-years encased in two encircling stalks of wheat or maybe olive branches, as in the UN logo. At its center is a round blob with geometric shapes embedded- a suitably vague and nondescript statement of intent, possibly illustrating that the Bank can go any which way and has endless opportunities.

Whilst the first President of the Bank is an Indian corporate guru -K. V. Kamath, no one is under any doubt that it is China which will call the shots, exactly as the US does in the World Bank or Japan in the Asian Development Bank. This is fair since she who pays the bills gets to call the tune.

The second success was to get thirty eight regional and twenty non-regional countries, including members of the G8 except the US, Japan and Canada who kept away, to sign up as Prospective Founding Members of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank which is to be based in Beijing. The candidature of North Korea and Taiwan was refused by China. The former because it is a renegade and the latter because China does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.

The third success completes the trilogy of China’s financial hegemony. China has offered to fund the European Infrastructure Fund at a time when Europe’s powerhouse- Germany and the European Union are engrossed in managing the financial bog of a potential “Greek exit” from the Euro and the likely ensuing turmoil. Massive investments in infrastructure are viewed as one way to kick starting growth in Europe, which has lagged recovery post the 2008 crisis. With Europe agonizing over how much more pain it can take, China’s generous offer of financial support is well timed.

China gets it fiscal muscle from its foreign exchange reserves of over US$ 3.7 trillion. These are down from their peak last year of nearly US$4 billion but remain the largest reserve ever. The annual trade surplus is a healthy US$300 billion plus. Its budget deficit, albeit increasing is still low, though off-balance sheet borrowing by state owned enterprises and the iffy quality of bank assets could cloak an incipient problem.

Its diplomatic and economic muscle is evident from its success in cowing down the meek protests by the Philippines and Japan against its assertive claims over small islands in the South and East China Sea. Far-off South Africa, the continents most developed economy, has repeatedly refused to give a visa to the Dalai Lama since 2009, reportedly out of deference to Chinese sentiments. The Dalai Lama, who is resident in the gorgeous Indian mountain paradise of DharamshaIa, is not recognized by China as the titular head of the Tibetans. China promotes an alternative in the Panchen Lama who is resident in Tibet.

Only the feisty Mrs. Merkel, Chancellor of Germany has had the gumption to ignore China’s ire and met formally with the Dalai Lama. Now with China bailing out Germany-till now the primary “money bag” for the reconstruction of Europe – the jury is out whether Mrs. Merkel would be inclined to repeat this diplomatic equivalent of thumbing her nose at China.

There are two jewels China still seeks. First is to implement President Xi’s vision of reviving the ancient silk route from Western China to Europe. The second is to develop a maritime silk route in the Indo-Pacific region from Myanmar via Bangladesh to India and Sri Lanka. Possibilities exist of extending this further West to Pakistan (where China is already developing the Gwadar port) and Iran where India is tentatively engaged in a similar venture at Charbahar.

These Chinese financed beltways will straddle Asia physically. If China pulls it off they are sure benefit the economies of the continent by reducing transit cost and linking local markets better. But the key issue spoiling the party is sovereign doubts about China’s true intentions in proposing these extravagant infrastructure plans.

Action speaks louder than words. Chinese overseas investment, particularly in Africa, is perceived to be driven too narrowly by self-interest. Its muscular approach to safeguarding what it considers its justified claims in the South and East China Sea give rise to fears of territorial expansionism.  Despite the fact that the India-China border has been peaceful for the last forty years the fear of conflict is ever present.

China needs to demonstrate that it has crossed the hump of middle-income prickly aggression into the beneficent altruism of a self-confident, high income country. It needs to take on an international commitment which demonstrates its resolve to make the world a better place.

It has already taken the first step by voluntarily capping carbon emission by 2030 including by increasing the share of clean energy to 20%. The voluntarism is praise worthy. But a bird in hand is always more credible than two in the bush by 2030.

Stabilizing Afghanistan presents an existential challenge which China can use to establish its credentials as an international force of substance. This single initiative can start a virtuous cycle of development in the “roundabout of Asia”- as president Ghani of Afghanistan, terms his country- with spill over benefits across the region.

China is well placed to substitute the US in leading this effort. It has a close relationship with the Pakistani army and civil leadership which are crucial to contain the Taliban. It has the resources. The US is reported to have spent around US$ 800 billion in Afghanistan, over the thirteen year from 2001 to 2014. This is not a scary number for China, especially since there are spin off benefits- bringing to the international market the huge copper and iron ore deposits in Afghanistan; honing the experience for the Chinese army and equipment in the field and creating a stable buffer in Afghanistan which can sever the existing arc of terror and violence that extends today through Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The real question is will President Xi bite this bait to flex muscle productively or shall transactional engagements remain the order of the day for China.

1061 words

Will Ashraf Ghani be Afghanistan’s Manmohan Singh?

ashraf

(photocredit: dnaindia.com)

It is unlikely that the national coalition in Afghanistan, which the US has stitched together, will last. More likely, the Unity Government provides a convenient cover of artificially generated “peace” allowing the US to withdraw, with “honour”, from the “graveyard of invaders”.

Once it leaves, the US shall make all efforts to secure a working relationship between the Taliban and the Afghan Unity Government. The US has already started distinguishing between the palatable, if misguided, Taliban, with whom business is possible and the utterly untouchable Al Qaida.

The new Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani seems comfortable with cutting a deal with the Taliban to include them too, in the fullness of time, in the power sharing structure. This approach also fits well with the traditional “big tent” approach of the US which also includes decentralizing power and thereby enhancing inclusion of hitherto marginalized segments. This option is worth a try, but is likely to fail just as surely, as the existing Unity Government.

Mr. Ghani is a knowledgeable, well-meaning and committed, if somewhat unbending, politician-international bureaucrat-academic. His main problem will be similar to what Manmohan Singh faced in India. How does a personally honest leader turn a blind eye to massive corruption and yet retain control over the government?

Mr. Ghani says his first priority will be to make it difficult to be corrupt by improving governance systems. The conundrum is that “power sharing”, almost by definition, means allowing warlords a long rope. Manmohan Singh called it the “dharma of coalition politics”. Once executive control is loosened to avoid the personal association of the leader with the expectedly bad decisions of the warlords, stopping the system from unravelling is tough.

In his last political assignment (2002 to 2004) Mr. Ghani was Finance Minister in Afghanistan and was very successful in introducing some order and economic sense into governance. The parallels are ominous. Mr. Singh too was outstanding as Finance Minister in India before he got the top job. It doesn’t end there. Like Manmohan Singh in 1999, Ashraf Ghani lost his first election in 2009. The question then is: will Mr. Ghani be Afghanistan’s Manmohan Singh; a good man heading a bad outfit? Only time can tell.

For India, the current situation is impossible. There is little to distinguish the Pashtun dominated Taliban from Pakistan’s military de-facto rulers. This is why, traditionally, India cozied up, during the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan (1980s), to the “Northern Alliance” comprising the Hazara, who are determinedly opposed to Pashtun rule; the Tajiks who are today represented by Abdullah Abdullah, the number two leader in the Unity Government and Abdul Rashid Dostum, the indomitable Uzbek leader- who is currently allied with the Pashtun, President-Ashraf Ghani.

Any talk of an Afghan government, propped up by the Taliban, cannot be music to either India’s ears or acceptable to Abdullah Abdullah. This is especially so because China does business with Pakistan quite happily and is unlikely to have any qualms about doing the same with the Taliban. In this calculus any gain for the Taliban, is a gain for Pakistan and for China and a loss for India.

In the shadows is Putin’s Great Bear which is constantly sniffing about for a pot of honey in the great game. India and the Soviets have a long association of friendship which can become the basis for a coalition of the “underdogs” in Afghanistan. India is also friends with Iran, which it uses to trade with Afghanistan. The Russia, Iran, India (RII) axis will become India’s fallback option if the US continues to duck its responsibilities in South Asia. The result will be the “RII axis” playing “spoilers’ with consequential instability and strife in Afghanistan.

The silver lining is that India’s PM Modi has already signaled a preference for a more positive strategy of alignment with the set of countries which represent the shared ideals of democracy, markets and private sector led equitable growth. This approach advocates caution and restraint in committing our scarce resources to secure our near-abroad, whilst we still face enormous challenges of dealing with domestic infrastructure and poverty.

PM Modi stressed during his recent US visit that there can be no “good terror (read Taliban) and bad terror (read IS and Al Qaida). The networks of terror and the resources available to them are fungible and transmute constantly to escape identification. In simple language, a Leopard cannot change its spots. The only option is to isolate and confine it once it turns man eater.

What is unknown is whether President Obama has his ears tuned to South Asia or will the IS and the Middle East pre-occupations distract him completely. Will he be forced to soften his currently anti-Sunni terror stance by turning a blind eye to the Sunni-Taliban in Afghanistan? Great powers have to choose their battles and prioritise across options.

If the choice is between completely browning-off Saudi Arabia and its cohort of Sunni Middle Eastern countries by pursuing Sunni-Terror doggedly, on the one hand and worrying about how this approach could impact India’s interest, we know which way he will jump; and who can blame him for that.

If India is actually part of the “big boys club” we must mobilize pressure from constituencies who have similar interests in containing terror to force the US to not “step off the plate”. If this fails, as it probably shall, the option is to build a coalition against terror with China, which is similarly affected by it. Testing times loom for India’s diplomats.

“Tweak” the process transparently to deliver PM Modi’s “Big Things to Small People”

Obama Modi

(photo credit: article.wn.com)

Charismatic leaders can mould crowds like putty. Bill Clinton’s March, 2000 “US and India are natural allies” address to the Indian Parliament; Barrack Obama’s University of Cairo “New Beginnings” address to the Muslim world, June, 2009 unleashed a Tsunami of optimism and “feel good”. In much the same way, PM Modi-the man with an agenda of Big things for Small people- in his recent Madison Square address, won over the hearts and minds of a “massive” (by US standards) crowd of 18,000 Indian-Americans in New York and an even larger audience back home in India.

For many Indian expatriates, including us in India, it is a relief to have a Prime Minister who radiates strength, speaks extempore and from his heart. It also helps that he is a consummate performer, who draws energy from the crowd and returns it to them magnified many-fold.

Those looking for suave wit and a sophisticated exposition of geo-political gyan were sorely disappointed. Modi was deliberately folksy and simplistic. He capitalized on his strengths magnificently, just as Indira Gandhi, the last Indian PM with an international stature, used to do more than three decades ago.

Of course, it helps if one can live on water endlessly and still have the physical ability and mind space to go through a deliberately, whirl-wind program. By doing so Modi has become a live bill-board for the low carbon footprint potential of solar energy. His eschewing food altogether, through the trip, was akin to the Mahatma wandering through the London chill in his sparse loin cloth, protected only by the churning energy generator in his mind.

Till now the West has been wowed by India’s IT skills, thanks to our Silicon Valley diaspora. Next, we are likely to be branded as Yoga maestros all and expected to perform never-before feats of physical endurance.

But it was not all plain sailing.

Three areas where plain speaking-PM Modi’s forte, would have helped, are listed below.

First, what exactly is our stand on joining the fight against Islamic Terror and the linked approach to Afghanistan? The message coming through till now is fuzzy. It seems India is likely to carry on in much the same muddled way we have done till now; remaining visible in Afghanistan, but primarily as well wishers, bringing development to the people of Afghanistan. This is clearly dissatisfactory and unrealistic in the context of the impeding US withdrawal and the likely security turmoil courtesy the unresolved political contestation between the Ashraf Ghani and Abudullah Abdullah groups. National governments are prone to fail. Similar recent experiments in Nepal, Zimbabwe and South Sudan illustrate the illusive nature of such options for “externally enforced” stability in the face of unresolved local contestation.

Our interest lies in clearly establishing that we view the Taliban, the Pakistan Army and Militant Kashmiri jihadi groups as part of the same set of Islamic Terrorists, which are a direct and existential threat to us and our secular, plural democratic system. We must be willing and able to take the most effective action in our near abroad to crush Islamic Terror. But where Islamic Terror is not a direct threat to us (as for example the ISIL) whilst any UN endorsed initiative will have our support, we do not have the resources to join a plurilateral initiative against global terror. This is strictly for the big boys; the US, its NATO allies and China.

PM Modi has been at pains to explain that on this trip that whilst he has been trying for more than the last two decades to get the US to recognize the global consequences of Islamic terror, they took cognizance only after 9/11, when it hurt them directly. The fact is we must be similarly discriminating in unbundling Islamic Terror into immediate and distant threats and not be distracted by the enormity of global threats and ignore focusing on managing immediate threats, closer home.

Plain speaking about our threat perceptions, our limitations and our determination not to be cowed down by terror would have helped.

Second, the message on trade and investment needs to be distilled better. The economic opportunities in India are well known. The demographics; the steady economic growth and resultant demand and our democratic architecture.

Unfortunately most foreign investors live in the present. No international manager has a business perspective beyond a decade-even if they draw up beautiful thirty year perspectives. What big business looks for is leadership level facilitation to get their specific project up and running quickest with commercial and political risk minimized.

Tardy environmental clearances; tax opacity; poor infrastructure and most recently, the extended ambit of judicial review of contracts are big dampeners. Many of these constraints are institutional and require structural change, which is long term. What we need are near tern solutions, of the fire-fighting kind, to establish the enabling business environment. Selective but transparent tweaking of dilatory process is an obvious option but there are challenges even here.

At the leadership level, “successful tweaking of process” requires political credibility that the selective attention is in national interest and not another manifestation of crony capitalism. Consensus building between the executive and the judiciary of the acceptable envelop of “process tweaking”, in national interest, is key for retaining the credibility of the executive and the independence of the judiciary, whilst simultaneously ensuring that the judiciary does not get drawn into settling political scores.

PM Modi is best placed to manage the optics on this score. At the operational level, he will need the support of a highly skilled and empowered team of state government officials working with counterparts from the Union Government, to pilot the tweaking process towards accelerated launch of projects.

What should constitute the government’s decision matrix for determining the “hurdle rate” for projects to be eligible for tweaking the “way we do business”? In such circumstances it always helps to have narrow objectives. “Employment and poverty reduction”, both of which are urgent near term investment related goals, present themselves as excellent “filters” for evaluating and identifying proposals which merit the highest level of facilitation.

50 projects; 5 million jobs; US$15 billion investment can be the rolling target with automatic replenishment by new proposals as projects get launched. Unfortunately, we missed the opportunity to generate the frisson of excitement which the project based approach generates.

Third, plain speaking on our environmental and energy policy would have helped. It is clearly in India’s interest to clean its water bodies and rivers; reduce air pollution and reverse the denudation of forests and degradation of land. Degradation of these natural assets has immediate economic and social outcomes usually with adverse poverty consequences. It is the poor who are impacted negatively when water bodies and rivers become polluted because they use them directly for personal needs and business. The poor similarly suffer the most from atmospheric pollution because they are incapable of insulating themselves and their children, from such ambient pollution. Unregulated deforestation robs the poor of their eco-system and their livelihoods. Combating land degradation, like increased salinity often caused by unsustainable use of ground water and poorly managed large irrigation schemes, is a costly undertaking, which is often beyond the financial ability of the poor.

On energy our big concern is energy security. The use of coal is likely to remain a staple component of our energy profile. Similarly, more aggressive utilization of the hydro potential in India and in South Asia is an efficient option. Embedding passive energy efficiency building design is another significant option. Urbansiation levels are relatively low but there is a big stimulus in the offing under the PMs target of a house for all by 2022.

More generically, India is committed to technology choices which are congruent with our two, often conflicting, goals of reversing the degradation of natural resources whilst ensuring energy security. An increasing share of wind and solar energy is one such technology choice. Increasing the share of public transportation by railways relative to roads is another which the government is pursuing. But capping India’s carbon footprint at an unrealistic level is similar to capping food subsidy at historical prices which India has already rejected.

The mantra for plain speaking on the Indian strategy for managing terrorism; enlarging trade and safeguarding the environment is to rely on the simple rule of first reserving the fiscal and the physical space for the developing world to “catch up”, before providing breathing room for the developed world, who have abetted and often perpetrated all three global problems, by agreeing to hold them harmless.

Accidents happen

Image

Can accidents be completely avoided? Can our environment be monitored; analysed and controlled to make everything predictable? Astrologers will tell you they have been doing exactly this for ages. Not everyone believes them.

An astrologer has predicted that India’s next PM will be a bachelor. This had raised the hopes of Rahul, Bhenji, Amma, Didi and Naveen Patnaik. Modi has a wife and so clearly is not in this contest.

The BJP- India’s Hindu party, the one supported by “fundamentalist Hindus” and backward sadhus and sadhvis- oddly does not seem to believe in Astrology. They decided to go with Modi despite knowing that he was not strictly a bachelor. Possibly, the BJP has other in-house Astrologers who do not agree with the first prediction. But then that calls in question the science of Astrology itself, if practioners disagree on outcomes just two weeks away.

Medical “science” is no different. It junks homeopathy as being theoretically indefensible. But it has no explanation of why Buddhist lamas can die “clinically” and yet remain “alive” in the Lotus posture in which they died, with no decay of the body for years, till they decide to “leave” it. Modern science is far from the frontiers of certainty.

What about parenting? How long should you shield your growing children from risk and uncertainty? Indian parents go out of their way to protect their children as long as they are physically and financially able to do so. This is how they themselves were brought up. In a closely controlled and rigidly stratified environment this is possible. But in an “open” environment, where innovation is key, the past presents very few lessons for the future because the future bears no resemblance to what has happened. IBM did not know this and where are they today?

In the financial world, bankruptcies happen to the ”best” companies. They also result in better companies prospering against the inefficient ones. In India we still do not let companies die. We protect banks and large corporates from the risk of bankruptcy. “Industrial reconstruction” is the name of the game. It doesn’t work. Instead, such protection creates a culture of weak and fat companies like Air India and Kingfisher. These companies, which gorge on the tax payer’s money, the equity of minority investors, who are foolish enough to invest in them and our money saved in Banks, bur negligently lent to such companies as for example Bank of India. The lesson is that death, sometimes by accident, should not be averted beyond a point.

If there were no accidents and we had absolute certainty, there would be no progress, only the stillness of the grave. An apple accidentally fell on Newton’s head which lead to the theory that in the absence of balanced, countervailing natural forces the world would explode/implode.

Can there be reward without risk? The trick lies in drawing the line between the two sensibly. Merchant bankers, private equity managers, political pundits, businessmen, doctors, human resource managers and teachers and know how to balance risk and reward. For this core skill they are compensated handsomely except GP doctors, HR managers and Teachers. All three cater to the human mind more than to the dry dictates of their discipline. But science is increasingly making them redundant by progressively degrading the value of basic human skills. It is substituting human skills with more efficient machines at an alarming rate. Driverless cars and pilotless airplanes; robots on the production line; robots in shops and soon robots in the home; robots for ground level surveillance; drones in the air.

On the flip side science has also progressively reduced the risk from accidents for humans. People live longer and healthier lives but whether net productivity has increased as a result is debatable. A rigorous analysis of net economic growth after accounting from the environmental loss from negative externalities has never been done systematically in any country. It was tried in China in 2005 but quickly abandoned when the high economic growth rate got reduced to zero in some provinces.

The problem with not accounting for natural resource use is similar to a consumer overusing her credit card. For such feckless consumers a “debit card” which deducts the bank balance for every use is better. Green GDP accounting applies the “debit card” discipline to countries.

Seemingly “riskless” economic and “quality of life” benefits encourage wasteful use of resources because they appear “costless” in the near term. Climate change is an outcome of our successful endeavor to cocoon humans from want, disease and death. This has increased population to unsustainable levels. It has also made the rich across the world highly resource intensive. Delicate lives require air conditioning; motorized transport; communication networks and vast quantities and varieties of food, all of which degrade water sources, air quality and the biosphere in which we live. Bottled mineral water for drinking; gallons of water for endless showers; swimming and golf courses have made us water addicts. Our rivers and seas, air quality and land degradation can be directly related to the pressure of a growing population and an increasingly unsustainable lifestyle.

Upgrading all 7.2 billion of us to the average quality of life of the top quintile would either require a quantum leap in clean technology to outpace current population growth or very quickly degrade us to destruction. Paul Ehrlich (The population bomb. 1986) posed this question. Half a century on we still face the same conundrum.

More people live in degraded environments today than in 1965. Whilst the “environment hot spots” of 1965 in the industrialised countries have been cleaned up, the “hot spots” have shifted to more populous locations in developing countries. In 1955, air pollution was the biggest killer in Texas, US. Today smog from burgeoning automobiles and factories is the killer in Beijing. If rivers were fetid in the 1950s in the US, the Holy Ganga River is a cesspool today in India. Despite huge advances in technology since 1965, we still do not know how to give 7.2 million people the minimum acceptable standards of life within the available resources.

Economic theory tells us a young population is a demographic dividend. What it ignores is that barriers to international migration for the young into the rich world, severely limit the world demographic dividend. Meanwhile poor countries are unable to utilize the abundant volumes of young people available to them. They do not have the resources to push the young up the “skills ladder” faster than technology makes old skills redundant.

As a race we are increasingly unable to deal with nature. Modern armies have such a heavy supply chain to keep their soldiers healthy, well clad and alive that they lose out on tactical flexibility. They face the classic logistics problem Rommel faced in Africa with his tanks outpacing the supply chain. This is also why the US troops were no match for the Vietcong (1956-1975) and NATO troops have failed against the Taliban, in Afghanistan (2001-2014). Both the Vietcong earlier and now the Taliban, are comfortable living with nature and use nature to their advantage. The average GI from the streets of Kiryas Joel, New York (the poorest place in the US) does not have this advantage.

Accidents happen and they are a must if we are to keep growing. What we can do is to enhance our capacity to manage and deal with accidents.

As parents we have learn to deal with the inevitable misfortunes and misadventures of our children with fortitude.

As citizens we have to become resilient to destabilising political change by making government progressively less crucial for our welfare. We must take on the risks and responsibilities ourselves.

As humans, we need to drastically reduce our foot print on nature and learn to live with personal discomfort; the loss of loved ones and shifting fortunes with equanimity.

At the end of the day all anyone wants is to lie on the beach with a drink at hand; or get our lunch ourselves from the fruit trees, vegetable garden or the river next door. We must not fool ourselves into imagining that this idyllic life comes without the need to swat flies and mosquitoes; avoid snakes, rats and lizards or sans sweat, cold or fever.

The price of accidents is discomfort. The benefits are sustainable life. Choose wisely. How long can we observe nature through a protective plate glass?

 

Netaji-Mulayam’s 30/30 India (U) Vision

Image

Blame it on Nehru. If it had not been for him, India (U-ndivided) would comprise Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and Bangladesh, though regrettably still not Sri Lanka (Galle and Kandulama are so beautiful!).

Now why couldn’t the man have just made Jinnah the PM, who would have been gone soon enough, anyway. Nehru would have been back in the saddle and the rest of history would have unwound as it did, except:

(1) We would have won more hockey matches.

(2) Our cricket and football teams would be stronger.

(3) Our movie stars would be taller and better looking and Imran Khan would be ours.

(4) Indians (U) would no longer feel compelled to cheer cricket teams on the basis of religion.

(5) The delights of Lahore would still be available to the average Punjabi

(6) We would not have the absurd feet stomping, yelling, in-your-face antics between border guards, every day at Attari.

(7) The refined Dilli culture would not have been overwhelmed by exuberant Punjabi refugees.

(8) Bengali would have been a dominant Indian language spoken by 15% and Urdu would never have declined and be spoken by more than 25% of U-Indians.

(9) India (U)’s river water potential would have been better harnessed

(10) Hydro power would still be a major energy source

(11) Cheap gas, piped from Turkmenistan would fuel household energy needs, industry and electricity in the North

(12) Our forest cover ratio would be much worse but our freshwater availability would increase significantly.

(13) The Soviets would still be there in Afghanistan because we would never have given the US a toehold in Karachi, the Panjab or the NW Frontier areas

(14) The Taliban would never have been born, nor would have Bhindranwale.

(15) India (U) would not be a favourite tourist destination for Israeli backpackers.

(16) We would still get cheap Sardas (a juicy, sugary sweet Afghanistan/NW Frontier melon) and exquisite dry fruit.

(17) We would still have to deal with “Afghani” money lenders and their wayward ways of dealing with defaulters rather than having them live here as pliant refugees.

(18) We would be able to visit Kashmir without bullet proof vests and enjoy its cuisine and natural beauty.

(19) Kashmiris would still opt for business, horticulture, hospitality, handicrafts, poetry and cricket rather than AK 47s and football.

(20) North and East India (U) would have remained competitive versus the West and the South with easy access to the sea via Karachi; undiluted Punjabi prowess in agriculture; Sindhi excellence in trade; Bengali competitiveness in “Kolture”, arts, law and the social sciences.

(21) We would have fathered micro credit and Muhammad Yunus would be ours.

(22) With one third of the electorate and dominance in the North, Muslims would no longer feel like a minority

(23) Under competition from a significant Islamic presence, Hinduism would have tended to consolidate, rather than splinter along caste cleavages, as it has today.

(24) The BJP would have been a dominant party of the right from the 1950s and Zardari and Sheikh Hasina would have been its Muslim leaders today instead of Shahnawaz Hussain.

(25) Nawaz Sharif and Khaleeda Zia would be the Muslim leaders of the Congress party, rather than Khurshid, Kidwai and Rasheed Alvi.(26) We would not spend 20% of our fiscal resources on the army.

(27) It is unlikely, Sikkim would ever have resolved to join the Republic, just as Nepal’s main regret is that it borders tumultuous India, rather than placid Sweden.

(28) China would be even more worried and hence more of an existential threat.

(29) The US would have been become friendlier much earlier.

(30) Najeeb Jung would still be Lt. Governor of Delhi

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: