If AQ Khan is Mandela, then Manmohan Singh is Bill Clinton

The tweet intrigued me:

Nuke dealer AQ Khan tells FP: "I am just a guide, some sort of Lee Kwan Yew, Mahathir,or, hopefully, Mandela"foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/…
— Josh Keating (@joshuakeating) September 5, 2012

AQ Khan as being a Mandela?  Perhaps the one jotting down the notes misheard Khan?

Turns out there was no mistake--it was an email interview, and that is what Khan said. Yes, the same Khan who was the technical and business brain behind Pakistan becoming the nuclear retail outlet mall now thinks of himself as a Nelson Mandela!

The love and affection the whole nation has shown me during all my trials and tribulations has given me what no money can buy. I want to help the country out of this rut and for it to become a respected, moderate, peaceful welfare state having friendly relations with all, especially its immediate neighbours, and enmity with none. I do not want this country to play mercenary to foreign powers. ...
I am just a guide -- some sort of Lee Kwan [sic] Yew, the former PM of Singapore, Mahathir [of Malaysia] or, hopefully, Mandela. I will only advise on good governance. 

Muahahaha!  No need to send in the clowns!

I do concede this observation of his:

To them a pirate like Francis Drake becomes Sir Francis; James Cook, who murdered innocent Polynesians, is a hero and those who murdered Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, and Koreans now have chests full of ribbons and medals. [Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem] Begin, [former President George W.] Bush, [former British Prime Minister Tony] Blair, [former French President Nicolas] Sarkozy, etc. who all caused (ordered) the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are highly respected.  ...
Does France have any regrets about surreptitiously supplying nuclear weapons technology to Israel? Does Russia regret supplying that technology to China and North Korea? Do the British have regrets about stealing secrets from Los Alamos in the late forties or early fifties? There are many double standards in the world. What is good for me may be bad for you. What is just for you may be a crime for me. 

Now, Khan appears because of a specific development:

the controversial nuclear scientist is entering Pakistan's political arena. He recently announced the formation of the Movement for the Protection of Pakistan -- or Tehreek Tahaffuze Pakistan (TTP) in Urdu -- which he conceives as an organization that will back worthy candidates in the country's upcoming national assembly elections.

Worthy candidates backed by this Dr. Strangelove ought not be allowed anywhere outside the prison walls!

Across the border from this nuclear nutcase, another technocrat is getting himself into deeper and deeper trouble.  I am referring to the distinguished academic, Manmohan Singh, who "accidentally" became India's prime minister, and has been a sorry figure the last couple of years.

The Washington Post's story (its correction at the top of the story is interesting all by itself!) is headlined "India's 'silent' prime minister becomes a tragic figure."

Silent Singh he certainly has been, even as every morning dawns with yet another corruption scandal or tales of abuse of power by those in his party.

So silent that my friend has been having fun using "manmohan" to mean, well, check it out :)

Men in White ... means ... dirty politics? :)

You make the call:

The context for such a gathering of men in white

The prime minister, Manmohan Singh, has been one heck of a disappointment.  Maybe like Seinfeld, he ought to have called it quits when he was ahead--when the country and the rest of the world was all praise for him for having initiated the economic reforms back in the 1990s.  After his first term as the PM, Singh should have walked away.  Instead, and increasingly, he seems to behave like a hostage to his captors and comes across as if he suffers from a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Caravan has a lengthy feature on how much Singh has fallen:

“The fall has been so dramatic,” said a former Union Cabinet minister who has known Singh since the 1960s. “There is a visible drift, without any direction, and he appears to be helpless. People will say that of course he is an honest man and nobody doubts his personal integrity, but when you are presiding over an outfit that is dealing in corruption, you have to answer for that. How do you defend it? You can’t defend it.”

“Just look at the cartoons,” the former minister continued. “He is shrinking in size every day. He must be feeling awful.”

Is it news when 1,200 million people beat 20 million?

Apparently it is big-time news--in cricket, where India beat Sri Lanka in the World Cup final.

Cricket overwhelms India, and yet despite all the passion for the game and the sheer number of people there, well, the country has not been been a cricket-winning machine by any means.

I suppose the recent track record is better than when I was a kid.  But, still, when one compares Sri Lanka and India, the latter is a country that has a population that is 60 times the population of the former.  Arithmetically, even India's 50th best team ought to be better than Sri Lanka's first team!

Country	Population (in millions)
Sri Lanka	20
Pakistan	176
Australia	23
New Zealand	4
Zimbabwe	13
Canada	34
Kenya	38
India	1,200
South Africa	50
England	51
West Indies	4
Bangladesh	150
Ireland	4
Netherlands	17

So, it really does mean that demography is not destiny.  How about that negation, Monsieur Comte?
I explored some of these issues in the context of another world cup--when the soccer tournament was held in South Africa last summer.  As I wrote then, "a sport is, thus, more than merely about the game itself.  It presents yet another opportunity to begin to understand the peoples of the world, and their cultures and politics."

Maybe India ought to take the UK route in sports.  The UK doesn't field, say, a soccer teaming representing the UK, but has teams from its component political entities--teams from England, Wales, ... Maybe India, too, ought to field teams from its states!

There is a good chance, however, that this Indian victory might just about establish India's permanence in the sport.  As this NY Times story notes

Cricket may be, as the sociologist Ashis Nandy wrote in 1983, “an Indian game accidentally discovered by the English,” but India took a long time to take control of it. It played its first international matches in 1932, but its all-time record in five-day test matches remains well below .500, and its all-time one-day record is not far above that.
In spite of its massive population, for many years it suffered from a lack of effective pace bowling and a failure to develop talent outside the big cities. Tendulkar — the teenage prodigy who not only exceeds expectation but plays on into middle age and handles ridiculous celebrity with ego-free equanimity — has been the face of India’s transformation

Interestingly enough, Tendulkar's arrival on the international cricket scene almost exactly coincides with India's decision to get rid of its import-substituting industrialization, and to open itself to the global economy.  Tendulkar arrived in international cricket in 1989, and really established himself from 1990 on.  India, which was on the verge of going belly-up, opened up its economy in 1991, with Manmohan Singh as its finance minister--he is now the prime minister of the country, and has been at the helm since 2004.  

Thus, what is really interesting about this World Cup victory is that it comes at a time when India is asserting itself in global economics and politics. 

BTW, America, too, could have been a part of this cricketing world.

Cricket was among the more popular sports in America in the mid-19th century, but baseball's rapid postbellum expansion came at the expense of cricket. Some have argued that the shorter duration of a baseball game, its simpler rules (at least initially), and the fact that it didn't require dedicated fields helped kill cricket, but these claims are hard to evaluate. What's more clear is that marketing played a major role. When a sense of American national identity began to emerge in the decades following the Civil War, along with new communication and transportation technologies, baseball promoters recognized an opportunity. They stitched together some of the existing traveling clubs into the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players in 1871, and young athletes and fans flocked to the unified league. Cricket clubs, by contrast, stayed regional and let the historical moment slip. Many of the top players switched to baseball, and the fans went with them. 

Meanwhile, this sports/business news update:

ESPN is finally on board with the real biggest sport in the world — or the fastest growing at least — cricket.
ESPN announced last month they have bought the US broadcast rights to future ICC events, including the 2015 World Cup.

It was not a sari that the White House gate-crasher wore

So, it was quite a breach of security, eh, at the White House!
I heard a couple of reporters describe that the female of the duo was attired in a sari.

Well, technically that is not a sari.  She is wearing what is referred to as a "lengha" or a "ghagra choli."
(Editor: do you really know what you are talking about? Hey, when has that ever stopped me?)

As this detailed explanation of the lengha points out, it seems to capture the fashion spotlight quite a bit.
More photos/models here.

So, what is the big deal, you ask?  The answers are in this book; actually in the title!

Memo to Obama: go to India. Soon.

As an Indian who has made his home in the U.S., I say to Barack Obama: Don't neglect India. Go to India, and go there soon. Or if you can't leave town, invite Manmohan Singh to stop by. This is an investment of your time that will pay very rich--and very reliable--dividends.

Yes, I am Indian who has made his home in the US. But, those are not my words--they are from Tunku Varadarajan's column in Forbes. I have nothing to disagree with what Varadarajan has to say there.

I miss his columns at WSJ. They had an off-beat quality to them, which, for some reason, is missing in the Forbes edition. I wonder if this resulted from a systematic thinking through in terms of the audience?

Religion matters not

a group of Muslims in eastern Uttar Pradesh told a colleague: “Sixteen major banks have failed in the United States; not a single Indian bank has folded up; all because we have had Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister.”

Profound implications in that quote in this report from The Hindu. India's prime minister is a Sikh--a small minority in India. A much larger minority, the Muslims, is happy with this Sikh as a prime minister, in a country dominated by Hindus.

Which is why I keep reminding my students and anybody who asks me that religious differences do not trigger violence in India. It does not mean that there are no prejudices--that is in plenty. But, quite a peaceful country though, given such immense differences.

Am glad that the BJP did not win. Yes, the Congress has a long history of playing communal politics. But, BJP is in a dangerous league of its own.
However, I don't think the prospect of Indira Gandhi's grandson being projected as Dr. Singh's successor is a healthy sign. Returning to an adoration of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is not something to be proud about. On the other hand, Rahul Gandhi seems to be one hell of a hard working guy--at least, it will not be handed to him on a golden platter as it was the case with Indira and later with Rajiv Gandhi.

Elections in India, and the summer of 2009

Elections a world away will resonate here

By Sriram Khé

For The Register-Guard

Posted to Web: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 06:11PM
Appeared in print: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, page A9

What is the difference between elections in India and elections here in America? In India, elections are conducted over one month, and the results are announced in a day. In America, elections are held on a single day but the result may not be known for months! Just ask Al Franken.

India’s elections were geographically staggered in five phases from April 16 to May 13, and the final results will be known on May 16. Out of the eligible 714 million voters, there is a good chance that about 60 percent — more than 400 million Indians — will have cast their votes by the final election day.

Most projections do not forecast a single party dominating, which will further the practice of coalition government. The current government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, of the Congress Party, is in power thanks to the coalition referred to as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). If it loses at the polls, the margin will be slim enough that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) might not be able to radically alter domestic or foreign policies.

These results would be very different from my experience as a kid, when the Congress Party almost always had a significant parliamentary majority. The opposition was so fragmented that the joke was that even a donkey could get elected on the Congress Party ticket. The era of coalition governments is a healthy sign, indeed. While there is no immediate causal relationship, the correlation is interesting: The more India’s economy opened up, the faster its economic growth rates have been, and single-party domination seems to have ended.

Even though I grew up in India, I have never voted in elections there; I had already moved to America by the time I was eligible to vote. As a kid I always looked forward to voting, given my interest in political issues from a very young age, and given how colorful and noisy election campaigning is in India.

I suppose my first vote in America made up for all that — it was the dramatic and history-making elections of 2000! In fact, politics in the United States have been pretty darned exciting since then, including Indian-style corruption with even a U.S. Senate seat for sale, and opportunistic party-switching for no reason other than to get re-elected. And I thought I would never get to see this here in America!

While no serious policy changes might result from India’s elections alone, taken together with the results of elections to follow in two neighboring countries, we might experience significant impacts on global geopolitical discussions and decision-making.

On June 12, Iran’s current president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, will be tested at the polls. Odds seem to favor his re-election, all the more so given that he seems to have gained the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A second term for Ahmedinejad will strengthen the country’s hard-line stance, particularly against the U.S. and Israel, and perhaps push the country closer to its first nuclear bomb.

Afghanistan will hold its presidential elections in August. The current president, Hamid Karzai, has been heading the country since the Taliban-led government was driven out of power by the U.S. and NATO military forces. Karzai has been increasingly criticized for not being effective in the fight against the Taliban, who have been rapidly gaining ground both in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is dealing with a possibility that democracy might get suspended there by a military coup, thanks to the democratically elected government getting more and more unstable. Unfortunately, neither a weak government nor a military coup is new to Pakistan.

Thus, whether it is the UPA or the NDA that gets elected to power in India, there will not be as many repercussions as from the political developments over the next couple of months in Afghanistan, Iran and, of course, Pakistan. How events unfold in South and West Asia this summer will have immense implications even for those of us halfway around the world.

I wonder if Al Franken will have been sworn in as senator by the time summer ends!